Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011.05.02 Council Meeting Packet
AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 2,2011 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion(in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Councilmembers or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. (a) Approval of Minutes: 1. Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated April 18, 2011. (b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance Manager's office.) I. To approve General Claims in the amount of $1,399,049.58 ($94,859.05 in the form of Electronic Fund Transfer No. 5771; and $1,304,190.53 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 1061, 1062, 1069 through 1074 and Claim Warrants numbered 181889 through 182104), 2. To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of $2,024,026.46, Voucher Nos. 42446 through 42529; and EFT Deposit Nos. 30044009 through 3004455 2. *(c) Senior Services Advisory Committee: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated April 21, 2011. 2. Applications(1) (Council packets only). To reappoint Richard Brandt to Position No. 4 on the Senior Services Advisory Committee, term to expire April 1, 2014. *(d) Resolution No. 3315, a Resolution fixing the time and date for a public hearing to consider the vacation of Saint Fran Court. 1. Agenda Report from David I.McDonald, City Planner dated April 26, 201 1. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Proposed Resolution. 4. Vacation Petition. To approve Resolution No. 3315, setting 7:00 p.m., Monday, June 6, 2011 as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating all of Saint Fran Court. (RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: (a) Presentation of Proclamation for "National Police Week" and "Peace Officers' Memorial Day." Mayor Matt Watkins to present Proclamation to Denis Austin, Chief of Police, Pasco Police Department. 5. VISITORS-OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: (a) (b) (c) 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers (b) Financial Services Manager: General Fund Operating Statement through March 2011. (c) 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: (None) Regular Meeting 2 May 2,2011 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS: (a) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance relating to Local improvement District No. 146 fixing the amount, form, date, interest rate and maturity of the Local Improvement District No. 146 installment note; providing for the purchase of such note by the City from funds on deposit in the Fire Pension Fund and fixing the interest rate on Local improvement District No. 146 assessment installments. 1. Agenda Report from Dunyele Mason,Finance Manager dated April 21, 2011. 2. Ordinance. 3. Local Improvement District No. 146 Installment Note. 4. Vicinity Map. MO"I'ION: .1 move to adopl Orditlalie,eNo , __.__ , retating to Local Improv rneut District No. 146 fixing the amount, farm, clan:, interest rate and amaturily tit' the Ltx:al Improvement District No. 146 installment note; pro%riding far the purchase of such hole by the City lrom hinds ou deposit in the Fire Pension Fund and fixing the inter-est rate on local lmpr ventent Di.trict No. 146 asse4srrent installments surd, liuttlicr. authorize publication by summary only_ Q*(b) Special Permit (Appeal) (MF#SP2011-002): Location of a Farm in an RS-20 Zone (2000 block of Road 72) (Five-T Farms): 1. Agenda Report from David 1. McDonald,City Planner dated April 25, 2011. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Binder Containing Hearing Record(Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at htrf)://www,.Mco- wa.Gov/city.councilrq;iortal. 4. Staff Memo Responding to Appeal Letter. 5. Proposed Resolution Approving the Farm. 6. Motions, CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING 1) Motiog to Accent Planning Commission Recommendation, (Recommended by Staff) Motion I A: I move to adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Motion 1 B: Based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, I move to approve Resolution No. approving a Special Permit for a farm in the 2000 block of Road 72, as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2) Motion to A1112rgve a IFUM with Modified Conditions: Motion 2 A: I move to table action on the Special Permit application until May 16, 2011 to allow staff time to prepare an approval resolution with the following additional or modified conditions(list the conditions)_ 3) Motion to Remand back to the Planning Commission: Motion 3 A: I move to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review on ____ (list the items of concern that need additional review or clarification). 4) Motion to Deny the Special Permit: Motion 4 A: I move to table action on the Special Permit application until May 16, 2011 to allow staff time to prepare Findings to support denial of the Special Permit. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) 10. NEW BUSINESS: (None) Regular Meeting 3 May 2,2011 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (r) 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 13. ADJOURNMENT. (RC) Roll Call Vote Required * Item not previously discussed MF# "Master File#...." Q Quasi-Judicial Matter REMINDERS: 1. 1:30 p.m., Monday, May 2, KGH—Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN,Rep.; AL YENNEY,Alt.) 2. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 4, 2601 N. Capitol Avenue — Franklin County Mosquito Control District, Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.; AL YENNEY,Alt.) 3. 5:30 p.m., Thursday, May 5, Parks & Rec. Classroom— Parks & Recreation Advisory Council Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER SAUL MARTINEZ,Rep.; MIKE GARRISON, Alt.). 4. 11:00 a.an., Saturday, May 7, Downtown Pasco—Cinco de Mayo Parade(staging at 2"a &Columbia Streets at 9:00 a.m.). (MAYOR MATT WNI'KNS, COUNCILMEMBERS REBECCA FRANCIK, BOB HOFFMANN,TOM LARSEN,SAUL MARTINEZ and AL YENNEY) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COCJNCII: ,APRIL 18, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m, by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Rebecca Francik, Mike Garrison, Robert Hoffmann, Tom Larsen, Saul :Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney. Staff present; Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director and Denis Austin, Police Chief. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA: (a) Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated April 4, 2011. (b) Bills and Communications To approve General Claims in the amount of$1,576,625.38 ($577,980.31 in the form of Electronic Fund 'transfer Nos. 5579, 5590, 5591, 5616, 5629, 5630, 5636, 5640, 5654 and 5701; and $998,645.07 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 1060, 1063 through 1068 and Claim Warrants numbered 181657 through 181888). To move to approve bad debt write-offs for utility billing, ambulance, cemetery, general accounts, miscellaneous accounts, and Municipal Court (non-criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of$220,670.69 and, of that amount, authorize $130,312.66 be turned over for collection. (c) Appointments to Parks & Recreation Advisory Council: To appoint Joel Nimmo to Position No. l and reappoint Thomas Davenport to Position No. 2 (both with the expiration date of 2/2/2014) to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Council. (d) Cascade Marina Sublease Extension: To approve Amendment No. 2 to the Cascade Marina Sublease providing for a 1-year extension and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the amendment. (e) 2010 Fire Department Performance Report: To accept the Pasco Fire Department 2010 Performance Report. (f) Final Plat (MIT #FP2011-002) Sahara Estates (Larry Seaman): (g) Resolution No. 3313, a Resolution approving the Tri-Cities Analysis of Impediments to fair Housing 2010-2015 as a supplement to the Consolidated Plan. To approve Resolution No. 3313, approving the Fair Housing Plan entitled Tri-Cities Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing 2010-2015. MOTION; Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roil Call vote. 1 3(a).1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL APRIL 18, 201 1 REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: Mr. Yenney reported on the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments meeting. Mr, Martinez attended a school impact fee committee meeting. Mayor Watkins attended the Ben-Franklin Transit Board mceting and the Tri Cities Regional Public Facilities District Board meeting. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS; Ordinance No. 4004, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending Section 4.02.030 "Definitions" and Section 4.02.100 "Permit Procedures" permitting Video Record of Proceedings. MOTION: Mr, Yenney moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4004, amending PMC Chapter 4.02.030 regarding "Definitions" and 4.02.100 regarding "Permit Procedures" and, further, authorize publication by summary only, Ms, Francik seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 3312, a Resolution of the City of Pasco, accepting and adopting the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Forestry Plan, 2010 Update. MOTION: Ms. }Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3312, approving the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Comprehensivc Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 3314, a Resolution fixing the time and date for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a portion of Hillsboro Street. Council and staff discussed the proposed vacation. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3314, setting 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 16, 2011 as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of Hillsboro Street. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Council adjourned to Executive Session at 7:17 p.m. for approximately 20 minutes to consider acquisition of real estate with the City :Manager. Mayor Watkins called the meeting back to order at 7:37 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7;37 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Matt Vdatkins, Mayor Debra L. Clark, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 2"d day of May, 2011. 2 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: May 2 201 t Accounts Payable Approved The City Council City of Pasco. Franklin County,Washington We,the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligati ainst the city and that we are authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Gary Crutchfield, City Man r J Mason, finance Services Manager We,the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco,Franklin County,Washington,do hereby certify on this 2nd day of May, 2011 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received: Check Numbers and 181889-182104 In The Amount Of: $1,304,190.53 Electronic Funds Transfers: 1061,. 1062 1059- 1074 In The Amount Of: $94.859.05 Electronic Funds Transfers: 5771 (Journal Entries) Combined total of . $1,399-.049.58 Councilmember Councilmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERALFUND Legislative 830.89 Judicial 3.981.66 Executive 7,226.00 Police 172,017.99 Fire 22,785.46 Administration &Community Services 87,823.79 Community Development 1,418.41 Engineering 4.299.06 Non-Departmental 43,908.48 Library 106.332.82 TOTAL GENERAL FUND: 450,624.56 STREET 8,096.16 ARTERIAL STREET 0.00 STREET OVERLAY 0.00 C. D.BLOCK GRANT 23,340.39 KING COMMUNITY CENTER 1,124,74 AMBULANCE SERVICE 4,473.34 CEMETERY 3,266-71 ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 1,43465 GOLF COURSE 72,817.51 SENIOR CENTER OPERATING 2,316.96 MULTI MODAL FACILITY 1,451.84 RIVERSHORE TRAIL&MARINA MAIN 236.19 SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING 0.00 LITTER CONTROL 3,309.91 REVOLVING ABATEMENT _ '.240 00 TRAC DEVELOPMENT&OPERATING 19,663.00 PARKS 0.00 STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER 8.687.84 2002 UTGO REFUNDING BONDS 301.75 GENERAL CAP PROJ CONSTRUCTION 238,153.28 WATER/SEWER 170,420.10 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL 34.439-16 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING BUSINESS 15,927.07 EQUIPMENT RENTAL REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL 125,589.94 EQUIPMENT RENTAL-REPLACEMENT BUSINESS 0.00 MEDICAUDENTAL INSURANCE 126,130.31 CENTRAL STORES 0.00 OLD FIRE PENSION 0.00 PAYROLL CLEARING 37,639.57 LID CONSTRUCTION 0.00 PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST 195.00 TRI CITY ANIMAL CONTROL 48 169.60 SENIOR CENTER ASSOCIATION 0.00 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 1,399,049.58 3(b). 1 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: Payroll Approval May 2, 2011 The City Council City of Pasco Franklin County, Washington The following is a summary of payroll claims against the City of Pasco for the month of April 2011 which a pres ed li with for your review and approval. t Ga, Crutchfiel ii anager Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director We,the undersigned City Council members of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify that the services represented by the below expenditures have been received and that payroll voucher No's.42446 through 42529 and EFT deposit No's. 30044009 through 30044552 and City contributions in the aggregate amount of$2,024,026.46 are approved for payment on this 2nd day of May 2011. Councilmember Councilmember SUMMARY OF PAYROLL BY FUND GENERAL FUND: Legislative $ 7,600.88 Judicial 77,46158 Executive 57,569.22 Police 578,688.60 Fire 312,437.45 Administrative& Community Services 246,284.56 Community Development 75,973.07 Engineering 100,482.09 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,456,499.45 CITY STREET 34,997.18 BLOCK GRANT 15,295.79 MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER 5,851.55 AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND 158,093.42 CEMETERY 10,182.47 ATHLETIC FUND 2,276.33 SENIOR CENTER 13,156.28 STADIUM OPERATIONS 0.00 MULTI-MODAL FACILITY 0.00 BOAT BASIN 0.00 REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND 0.00 TASK FORCE 0.00 WATER/SEWER 301,058.13 EQUIPMENT RENTAL- OPERATING 26,615.86 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 2,024,026.46 Payroll Summary Net Payroll 961,007.81 Employee Deductions 573,206.12 Gross Payroll 1,534,213,93 City of Pasco Contributions 489,812.53 Total Payroll $ 2,024,026.46 3(b).2 AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council,,-, April 21; 2011 FROM: Gary Crutch,+( Manager Regular Mig.: 5/211 SUBJLCT: Senior Service- Advisory Committee I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Applications (1) (Council packets only) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 5/2 MOTION: I move to reappoint Richard Brandt to Position No. 4 on the Senior Services Advisory Committee, term to expire April 1. 2014. III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Senior Services Advisory Committee includes four appointed inetnbers (the fifth board position is reserved for the Senior Citizens Association President); terms are for three years. The committee meets on the second Tuesday of each month at 10:00 a.m. B) The Senior Services Advisory Committee advises the City Council on programs, activities and interests of senior citizens as they relate to the Senior Citizen Center. C) There are two positions whose terms have expired: 1. Position No. 3 (vacant) 2. Position No. 4 (currently Richard Brandt) D) The Council screening committee concluded that the incumbent in Position No. 4 be reappointed without interview. E) The Council screening committee found where there were insufficient applications to consider for the one vacant position, and have requested staff to solicit for additional applications. 3(c) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council y April 26, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfie t tanager Regular Mtg.: 5/2/11 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director FROM: David 1. McDonald, City Planner t' SUBJECT. STREET VACATION (MF# 'VAC 2011-003) Saint Fran Court (Gary Eary) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Resolution 3. Vacation Petition Il. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF R.F.COMMENDATIONS: 512: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. `j e) , setting 7:00 p.m., Monday, June 6, 2011, as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating all of Saint Fran Court. ITT. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE TV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The owners of property contained within Binding Site Plan 2003-10 located at the northwest corner of Argent Road and Road 68 have petitioned to vacate undeveloped Saint Fran Court located in said Binding Site Plan. B. The petition requires the City Council to fix a public hearing to consider the vacation request. The earliest regular City Council meeting available for a public hearing which provides the statutory 20-day hearing notice, is June 6, 2011. 3(d) item : Street Vicinity Vacation Fran Applicant: / Earp , Map File #: VAC 2011 -003 qqr- 6. Ilk- ja i •r t t Reference 2 - Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. j31�5 A RESOLUTION FIXING THE TIME AND DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF SAINT FRAN COURT. WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general interest of the City, the City Council may vacate rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, R.C.W. 35.79 requires public hearings on vacations to be fixed by Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That a public hearing to consider vacating Saint Fran Court, will be held before the City Council of the City of Pasco in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 525 North 3rd Avenue, Pasco, Washington, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on the 6th day of June, 2011. That the City Clerk of the City of Pasco give notice of said public hearing as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 2"d day of May, 2011. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, CMC Leland B. Kerr Deputy City Clerk City Attorney Vicinity Item: Street Vacation - St. Fran Court Applicant: Gary Earp N Map File #: VAC 2011 -003 146.45' � so' I i g 368.59' g I I ARGENT RD -ti Area to be Q Vacated 0 Reference 3 - Vacation Petition FEE $200 � • r CITY OF PASCO STREEV ALLEY VACATION PETITION MASTER FILE # VACADii - 1903 DATE SUBMITTED: 3 z j I, are the undersigned, owners of two-thirds of the privately owned abutting property hereby petition the City Council of the City of Pasco to vacate the folio-,ving described street/alley rights-of-way: 4-4 --14 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNED (Legal Description) Print Name: Gr AR_,j �1 A € AZZAL y4v `` `( Sign Name: F I L- k-7— Z.-6 Address: d wstc �t�q, °(R33] Phone # `�4t�,- �,`7 Date �� Print Name:- c, ' r fazl Sign Name: � ,A&j 1 ate aZZ�Tbl Print Name: Sign Name: Date POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE Schedule A r Order Number Loan Number Reference Number County R17475OKS Franklin f r Policy Number Date of Policy Amount of Insurance Premium A38-Z046687 May 15,2006 at 3:53 P.M. $283,140.00 $885.00 t1, Name of Insured: ROAD 68 JOINT VENTURE f p 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this policy is: FEE SIMPLE 3. The estate or interest in the land is vested in: y ROAD 68 JOINT VENTURE 4. The land referred to in this Policy is described as follows: �( That portion of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 9 North,Range 29 East, W.M., City of Pasco, Franklin County,Washington described as follows; r' Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Section as monumented by a found PK Nail; thence North 89°41'25" west along the South Section Line 247.77 feet; thence North 00'18'35" East 40.00 feet to a point on-the South Right-of-Way line of City Street known as Argent Road and the True Point of Beginning. Thence continuing North 00 018'35" East 179.48 feet; thence South 89°41'25" East 204.83 feet to a point on the West Right-of-Way of a city street known as road 68 as shown by deed recorded under Auditor's File No.517889, records of Franklin County Auditor, said point lies on a curve to the left, the radius point of which bears South 88°40124" West 1865.00 feet; thence Northwesterly along said curve 189.70 feet to a point on the South line of Lot 2 of Short Plat 81-12, records of Franklin County Auditor; thence North 89°41'25"West along the South Lot line of said Lot 2 a distance of 324.80 feet; thence South 01°32'20" West 60.00 feet; thence North 89°41125" West 17.04 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left,the radius point of which bears South 00°18'35" West 25.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along said curve 29.66 feet to the Beginning of a curve to the right, the radius point of which bears North 67 039158" West 55.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along said curve 45.29 feet to the beginning I of a curve to the left, the radius point of which bears South 20°29'08" East 25.00feet; thence Southwesterly along said curve 29.66 feet to a point on a line parallel to the Westerly line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section and 187.00 feet distant therefrom; thence South 01°32'20" West along said parallel line 213.77 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left, the radius point of which bears South 88 027'40" East 25.00 feet; thence Southeasterly along said curve 39.81 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of Argent Road; thence South 89°41'25" East along said Right-of-way line 203.70 to the said True Point of Beginning.(Also Known as Lot 2 Binding Site Plan 2003-10) f ALTA Owner`s Policy CASCADE TITLE COMPANY OF BENTON-FRANKLIN COUNTIES Schedule A Agent of Form 1005.70 TRANSNATION GENERAL FUND OPERATING STATEMENT THROUGH MARCH 2011 YTD 2011 % OF YTD TOTAL % OF 2011 ORIGINAL ANNUAL 2010 2010 TOTAL ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REVENUE SOURCES: TAXES: PROPERTY 191,350 6,000,000 3.2% 159,780 5,850,000 2.7% SALES 1,994,398 8,225,000 24.2% 1,914,587 7,700,000 24.9% UTILITY 2,096,726 7,560,000 27,7% 2,153,320 7,695,000 28.3% OTHER 261,621 1,015,000 25,8% 249,194 1,015,000 24.6% LICENSES & PERMITS 642,670 1,052,650 61,1% 768,627 1,020,200 75.3% INTERGOV'T REVENUE 346,880 1,632,200 21.3% 235,275 1,710,017 13.8% CHARGES FOR SERVICES 607,702 3,007,750 20.2% 614,319 2,807,220 21.9% FINES & FORFEITS 219,959 971,600 22,6% 146,907 927,700 15.8% MISC. REVENUE 150,570 634,200 23,7% 144,263 734,700 19.6% OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 24,667 100,000 24,7% 7,500 472,790 1.6% TOTAL REVENUES 6,536,543 30,198,400 21.6% 6,393,772 29,852,627 21 ,4% BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 9,414,299 6,000,118 9,885,970 6,000,000 TOTAL SOURCES 15,950,842 36,198,518 44.1% 16,279,742 35,852,627 45.4% EXPENDITURES' CITY COUNCIL 24,311 118,040 20.6% 30,075 116,525 25.8% MUNICIPAL COURT 274,735 1,275,150 21.5% 270,842 1,267,353 21.4% CITY MANAGER 200,596 915,410 21.9% 203,105 889,415 22,8% POLICE 2,588,012 11,284,368 22.9% 2,312,805 10,827,443 21.4% FIRE 943,219 4,193,418 22.5% 940,771 4,369,024 21.5% ADMIN & COMMUNITY SVCS 1,224,806 5,595,700 21.9% 1,136,276 5,409,423 21,0% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 240,843 1,101,400 21.9% 269,929 1,035,931 26.1% ENGINEERING 298,907 1,193,280 25.0% 251,099 1,136,332 22.1% MISC. NON-DEPARTMENT 939,296 3,545,360 26.5% 1,147,833 4,330,406 26.5% LIBRARY 285,703 1,148,880 24.9% 302,708 1,300,875 23.3% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7,020,428 30,371,006 23.1% 6,865,443 30,682,727 22.4% ENDING FUND BALANCE 8,930,414 5,827,512 9,414,299 6,000,000 TOTAL EXPEND & END FUND BAL 15,950,842 36,198,518 16,279,742 36,682,727 AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE 7,417,836 7,234,163 PERCENTAGE OF BUDGET ALLOCATED FOR 3 MONTH 25% These statements are intended for Management use only. 6(b) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 21, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfel t anager Rick Terway, A ministrative & C yty Services Director FROM: Dunyele Mason, Financial Services Manager Workshop: 4/25/2011 Regular Meeting: 5/2/2011 SUBJECT: Ordinance approving issuance of Note funding LID 146 expenditures 1. REFERENCE(S): 1. Ordinance 2. Local Improvement District No. 146 Installment Note 3. Vicinity Map 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 12/13: MOTION: 1 move to approve Ordinance No. relating to Local Improvement District No. 146 fixing the amount, form, date, interest rate and maturity of the Local Improvement District No. 146 installment note; providing for the purchase of such note by the city from funds on deposit in the fire pension fund and fixing the interest rate on Local Improvement District No. 146 assessment installments. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) LID 146 was formed by Ordinance No. 3932 on November 3, 2009. B) The LID included improvements to Elm Avenue north of Alton Street and south of Lewis Street; Sycamore Avenue, Hugo Avenue, Waldemar Avenue and Cedar Avenue north of `A' Street and South of Butte Street; and Butte Street east of Sycamore Avenue and west of Cedar Avenue. Improvements included street widening, curb, gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage, and street lighting. C) Construction work is now complete. The final assessment roll was approved by Ordinance No. 3991 on February 7, 2011 for $124,673. D) 30 day interest free letters were mailed on February 20, 2011. Per notification, the 30 day interest free period expired on March 22, 2011. E) Due to the cost of debt issuance and the size of the debt issuance, the city has opted to fiend Local Improvement District No. 146 internally with a ten year installment note rather than issuing an external bond and set the assessment collections for the same ten year term. F) The collections of pre-payments as of April 21, 2011 for Local Improvement District No. 146 is $35,322 leaving a balance of $99,351 to be funded by the installment note. V. DISCUSSION: A) The interest on the installment note was set at the 10 year U.S. Treasury rate of 3.56 rounded to 3.6%. B) The interest on the assessments includes a 0.5% administrative and processing fee for a total rate of 4,19/a. C) On April 11, 2011 the Fire Pension Board voted and approved the use of funds to invest in the ten year Local Improvement District No. 146 installment note at a rate of 3.6%. D) Staff recommends the approval of the issuance and purchase of the installment note and setting of the interest rates for the note and assessments. 8(a) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVE_VIENT DISTRICT NO. 146 FIXING THE AMOUNT, FORM, DATE, INTEREST RATE AND MATURITY OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 146 INSTALLMENT NOTE; PROVIDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF SUCH NOTE BY THE CITY FROM FUNDS ON DEPOSIT IN THE FIRE PENSION FUND AND FIXING THE INTEREST RATE ON LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 146 ASSESSMENT INSTALLMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.45.150, the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington (the "City"), has determined to issue its Local Improvement District No. 146 Installment Note in the aggregate principal amount of$89,352 and finds it is in the best interest of the City that such note be purchased by the City from funds on deposit in the Fire Pension Fund of the City and available for investment. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section x. ATHORIZATION AND DESCRIPTION OF NOTE. The total amount of the assessment roll in Local Improvement District No. 146 in the City of Pasco, Washington (the "City"), created under Ordinance No. 3991 which passed February 7, 2011 was $124,673. The 3o-day period for making cash payments of assessments without interest in the District expired on March 24, 2o11 and the total amount of assessments paid in cash to date is $35,322 leaving a balance of assessments unpaid on the assessment roll in the sum of $89,351. The Local Improvement District No. 146 Installment Note (the"Note") shall, therefore, be issued pursuant to RCW 35.45.15° as a single installment note in the total principal sum of $89,351• The Note shall be dated May 2, 2011 shall mature on May 2, 2021 shall be in fully registered form; and shall be numbered R-1. The Note shall bear interest at the rate of 4.1% per annum(computed on the basis of a 36o-day year of twelve 3o-day months), payable annually on each May 2, beginning May 2, 2012. Section 2. APPOINTMENT OF NOTE REGISTRAR; REGISTRATION AND TRANSFER OF NOTE. The Financial Services Manager of the City is appointed Note Registrar for the Note. The Note shall be issued to the City's Fire Pension Fund (the "Registered Owner") only in the registered form as to both principal and interest and shall be recorded on books or records maintained by the Note Registrar (the "Note Register"). The Note Register shall contain the name and mailing address-of the Registered Owner. The Note may not be assigned or transferred by the Registered Owner. When the note has been paid in fail, both principal and interest, it shall be surrendered by the Registered Owner to the Note Registrar, who shall cancel the Note. The Note Registrar shall keep, or cause to be kept, at her office, sufficient books for the registration of the Note. The Note Registrar is authorized, on behalf of the City, to authenticate and deliver the note in accordance with the provisions of the Note and this ordinance, to serve as the City's paying agent for the Note and to carry out all of the Note Registrar's powers and duties under this ordinance. The Note Registrar shall be responsible for the representations contained in the note registrar's Certificate of Authentication on the Note. Section g. PAYMENT OF NOTE. Both principal of and 'interest on the Note shall be payable solely out of the Local Improvement Fund, District No. 146 (the "Note Fund"), and from the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City, and shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Interest on the Note, and any prepaid principal thereof, shall be paid by check, draft or interfund transfer on the interest payment date to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the Note Register. The final installment of principal of and interest on the Note at maturity or prior repayment is payable at the office of the Note Registrar in Pasco, Washington, upon presentation and surrender of the Note. Section 4. PREPAYMENT PROVISIONS. The City reserves the right to prepay principal of the Note prior to its stated maturity on any interest payment date, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for prepayment, whenever there shall be sufficient money in the Note Fund to prepay the principal of the Note over and above the amount required for the payment of the interest then due on the Note. No notice of prepayment to the Registered owner is required. Interest on the principal of the Note so prepaid shall cease to accrue on the date of such prepayment. Section .5. PLEDGE OF ASSESSMENT PAYMENTS. Assessments collected in Local Improvement District No. 146 together with interest and penalties, if any, are pledged to the payment of the Note, and shall be deposited in the Note Fund. The Note is payable solely out of the Note Fund and the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City in the manner provided by law and constitutes a lien and charge upon such Note Fund and Local Improvement Guaranty Fund. The Note is not a general obligation of the City. Section 6. FAILURE TO REDEEM NOTE. If the Note is not redeemed when properly presented at its maturity or prepayment date,the City shall be obligated to pay interest on the Note at the same rate provided therein from and after its maturity or prepayment date until the Note, both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full is on deposit in the Note Fund and the note has been called for payment by giving notice of that tail to the Registered Owner. Section 7. FORM AND EXECUTION OF NOTE. The Note shall be printed, lithographed or typed on good bond paper in a form consistent with the provisions of this ordinance and state law, shall be signed by the Mayor and the City Clerk, either or both of whose signatures may be manual or in facsimile, and the seal of the City or a facsimile reproduction thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon. Only the Note bearing a Certificate of Authentication in the following form, manually signed by the Note Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Note is the fully registered City of Pasco, Washington, Local Improvement District No. 146 Installment Note described in the Note Ordinance. Financial Services Manager Note Registrar The authorized signing of the Certificate of Authentication shall be conclusive evidence that the Note has been duly executed, authenticated and delivered and is entitled to the benefits of this ordinance. Section S. PURCHASE AND SALE OF NOTE. The City Mll purchase the 'Note from funds available for investment on deposit in the Fire Pension Fund of the City at a price of par plus accrued interest from the date of the Note to the date of its transfer to the City. The proper City officials are authorized and directed to do everything necessary for the prompt delivery of the Note and for the proper application and use of the proceeds of the sale thereof. Section 9. FIXING INTEREST RATE ON ASSESSMENTS. The interest rate on the installments and delinquent payments of the special assessments in Local Improvement District No. 146 are revised and fixed at the rates of 4.1% per annum and 8.00% per annum, respectively. Section to. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days from and after its passage and five (5) days following its publication as required by law. No. R-1 $89,402 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF PASCO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO, 146 INSTALLMENT NOTE Interest Rate_ 3.6% Maturity Date: 5/2/2021 Registered Owner: CITY OF PASCO FIRE PENSION FUND Principal Amount: $89,351 N.B. The laws of the State of Washington under which this Note is issued contain the following section(RCW 35.45.070): 'Neither the holder nor owner of any bond, interest coupon, warrant, or other short-term obligation,issued against a local improvement fund shall have any claim therefore against the city or town by which it is issued, except foepayment from the species!assessments made for the improvement for which the bona or warrant was issued and except also for payment from the local improvement guaranty fund of the city or town as to bonds issued after the creation of a local improvement guaranty fund of that city or town- The city or town shall not be liable to the holder or owner of any bond, interest coupon, warrant, or other short-term obligation for any loss to the local improvement guaranty fund occurring in the lawful operation thereof, A copy of the foregoing part of this section shall be plainly written,printed or en graved on each bond." The CITY OF PASCO,WASHINGTON (the"City'),a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,promises to pay to the Registered Owner identified above on the Maturity Date indentified above the Principal Amount identified above and to pay interest(computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months) thereon from the date of this Note or from the most recent interest payment date to which interest has been paid at the Interest Rate per annum identified above, payable annually beginning May 2, 2012 to the maturity or earlier prepayment of this Note, If this Note is not redeemed when property presented at its maturity date, then interest shall continue to accrue at the Interest Rate identified above until this Note,both principal and interest, is paid in full or until sufficient money for its payment in full has been deposited in Local Improvement end,District No. 146 (the`Note Fund"), and this Note has been called for payment. This Note, designated the Local Improvement District No. 146 Installment Note, is issued by the City in fully registered form pursuant to and in full compliance with the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington and ordinances of the City, including Ordinance No. (the"Note Ordinance"). This Note is issued for the purpose of providing the funds necessary to pay the costs of constructing the improvements within Local Improvement District No. 146 of the City as ordered to be.carried out by Ordinance No.3932 of the City. The City has reserved the right to prepay principal of this Note prior to its stated maturity date on any interest payment date, at par plus accrued interest to the date fixed for prepayment,whenever there is sufficient money in the Note Fund to prepay the principal of the Note over and above the amount required for the payment of the interest then due on the unpaid Mote. No notice of prepayment to the Registered Owner is required. Interest on the principal of this Note so prepaid shall cease to accrue on the date of such prepayment. Both principal of and interest on this Note are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. interest on this Note, and any prepaid principal thereon, shall be paid by check, draft or interfund transfer on the interest payment date to the Registered Owner at the address appearing on the registration books of the City(the"Note Register")maintained by the Finance Services Manager of the City(the"Note Registrar"). The final installment of principal and interest on the Note at maturity or prior repayment is payable at the office of the Note Registrar in Pasco,Washington, upon presentation and surrender of this Note. The funds deposited in the Note Fund and the Local Improvement Guaranty Fund of the City have been and are pledged irrevocably to the payment of the principal of and interest on this Note. This note is not a general obligation or the City. This Note shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been signed by the Note Registrar. The principal of and interest on this note shall be paid only to the Registered Owner and to no other person or entity, and this Note may not be assigned or transferred. The City and the Note Registrar may deem and treat the Registered Owner of this Note as its absolute owner for the purpose of receiving payment of principal and interest and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Note registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. As used herein,Registered Owner means the person or entity named as Registered Owner of this Note on the first page hereof and on the Note Register, It is certified, recited and declared that all acts,conditions and things required To be done precedent to and in the Ievying of any assessments and the issuance of this Note have been done properly,have happened and have been performed in regular and due form,as required by law, and that this Note has not been issued in an amount in excess of the cost of improvements in Local Improvement District No. 146. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the City has caused this Note to be executed on behalf of the City by its Mayor and City Clerk,and the seal of the City to be impressed hereon, this 2 day of May,2011. CITY OF PASCO,WASHINGTON sy Mayor (SEAL) I3y City Clerk Date of Authentication, CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This Note is the fully registered City of Pasco,Washington, Local Improvement District No. 146 Installment Note described in the Note Ordinance. By Mnancial Services Manager,Note Registrar LID NO. 146 INSTALLMENT NOTE PAYMENT RECORD Interest Principal Payment Date Payment Interest Principal Balance Note Received Paid Prepaid Due Registrar Beginning principal balance: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 r..� O z J t 1I EL AVE / �� C �! --! ` m m ADAR A p� `Z} A 0 _ V J' f 1 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council C j April 25, 2011 TO: Gary Crutchfiel anager Regular Mtg.: 5/2/11 Rick White, j 4 Community & Economic Development Director FROM: David 1. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (APPEAL) (MF# SP 2011-002): Location of a farm in an RS-20 Zone (2000 block of Road 72) (Five-T Farms I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Binder containing Hearing Record (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at htt f+:?Iwvv�v,p�lsco-wt�,LTov/citvcauncilr' , .,), 3. Staff memo responding to appeal letter 4. Proposed Resolution approving the farm 5. Motions II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING B. Council action based on the record (reports, correspondence and transcript) either: 1. Approve the Special Permit as recommended by the Planning Commission; 2. Approve the Special Permit with modified or additional conditions; 3. Remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review on a specific issue; or, 4. Deny the Special Permit request. Recommended motions are provided in Reference 5. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On February 24, 2011 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a Specia! Permit for the location of a farm proposed for the field north of the Faith Assembly Church in the 2000 Block of Road 72. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the farm. B. Following conduct of an open record hearing, an adjoining property owner filed a written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation. C. Following the appeal the City Council set a Closed Record Hearing for May 2, 2011. V. DISCUSSION: A. Consideration of an appeal occurs in the form of a "Closed Record Hearing" consisting of a review of the written record of the Special Permit application including the Planning Commission's deliberation. B, When considering this appeal, the City Council has the option of accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation, approving the Special Permit with additional conditions, remanding to the Planning Commission or denying the Special Permit. C. Any option the Council chooses to select for the Special Permit application will need to be supported by Findings of Fact. The Findings identified in the staff report to the Planning Commission can be used as Findings to support approval of the Special Permit as recommended by the Planning Commission. If the Council wishes to deny the Special Permit a separate set of Findings will need to be developed. D. Staff recommends the Council use motion # 1A and I B to approve the farm. 8(b) Item: Fanning V'C'n'ty Applicant: Pf in RS-20 Zone fillip Schmitt .• Map File # : SP 2011 -002 44 if .4w 1 j47 -6; ME P Reference 3 - Staff Memo responding to appeal letter MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26, 2011 FOR: City Council TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: Roger Lenk A?pl)eal of Special Permit Recommendation Under MF#201 1-002 (Five-T Farms) On March 24, 2011 Planning Staff received a written appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation for the location of a farm in the 2000 block of Road 72. In his appeal letter (Tab #4 in Reference B), Mr. Lenk the appellant suggests the adjoining property owners will be subject to harm due to approval of the Special Permit and that the Planning Commission process had errors and included incorrect information. The following is provided to address the question of the harm to be experienced and the errors and incorrect information. HARM TO BE EXPERIENCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PMC 25.86.080 b Under the alleged harm to be experienced Mr. Lenk lists six items of concern under headings "A" through "F". Items "A", "B" and "C" make reference to Resolution 3205 dated December 7, 2009. Resolution 3205 almost exclusively deals with the former corn maze application on the site in question. Council was dealing primarily with the corn maze question when Resolution 3205 was passed. The whereas' and findings make reference to the possible increase in people, traffic, noise, litter, vibrations, lights, dust and equipment usage associated with the corn maze and fall festival. In item "A" Mr. Lenk took the liberty of inserting the words "farming activity" in place of "corn maze". Mr. Lenk ignored the fact that the conclusions (based on PMC 25.86.060) which he referenced in his Exhibit #1 speak to the commercial nature of the corn maze and fall festival and the recreational services such activities would provide to an estimated 7,000 to 9.000 attendees, Under item "D" Mr. Lenk makes reference to the applicant's farming practices. The applicant has farmed for a number of years in various locations in Franklin County. The applicant provided the names and telephone numbers of I state offices that regulate and track farming operations. Haywire Farms or Five-T Farms are not in any state database indicating the applicant's fanning practices are in violation of state agricultural regulations. Item "E" is a mischaracterization of the facts. The Public Hearing (I 1/19/09) for the renewal of the Linda Loviisa Plat did contain testimony about dust and weeds but that testimony was not directed toward farming activities. The complaints were directed toward the developers' struggles to control dust and tumble weeds. Per the audio record of that hearing at 43.51 minutes into the hearing, Dr. Mark McFarland stated "prior to their development there were no dust problems. There were a few weed problems but they were pretty minimal." Other testimony centered around the dust and weed problem created by the developers' activities. There was no "endless discussion about noise, vibrations fugitive dust, tumbleweeds, etc resulting from neighboring farming activities" as claimed by Mr. Lcnk. One solution to the dust and weed problem was to allow the developer to reinstall the pivot irrigation system and plant a farm crop. Since the reinstallation of the irrigation system and the planting of a crop, the dust and weed problems have been significantly reduced. Item "F" concerns the pasturing of animals on the proposed site. The Planning Commission. addressed Mr. Lenk's concerns about "squalid" conditions by recommending the animal units be limited to one per acre (a total of 18) for no more than five months (November-March) a year. PLANNING COMMISSION ERRORS AND INCORRECT INFORMATION RELIED UPON A) Hearing notice and postponement confused local neighbors. A typical notice for a Special Permit hearing is mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site subject to the hearing. The notice form contains a statement on the bottom alerting people to the fact those properties within 300 feet of the site were mailed the notice. Special Permit applications for farms however require a 1,000 foot radius notification. The notices for this hearing were sent out to property owners within the 1,000 foot radius but the note on the bottom of the standard notice form was not changed. Mr, Lenk then assumed that the notice only went to properties within 300 feet of the proposed farm. site. The notice was mailed to property owners within the 1,000 foot radius and in fact one of the owners who received the 1,000 foot notice testified at the hearing. This is contrary to Mr. Lenk's statement that neighboring property owners did not have an opportunity to testify. The day of the scheduled hearing (2/17/2011) staff learned there would not be a quorum available for the hearing. Following standard practice, a notice was placed on the doors of City Hall advising anyone planning on attending the hearing that there was a lack of a quorum and the meeting was rescheduled for 2 7:00 p.m. February 24, 2011. Roger Lenk was emailed directly about the rescheduled date; notices were again mailed to the property owners within 1,000 feet advising of the rescheduled hearing. Roger Lenk and four other property owners testified at the rescheduled February 24th hearing. Mr. Lenk stated in his testimony (about 47 minutes into the hearing) that he and Jessie Rogers had spoken to a number of the neighboring property owners and they had "authorization to talk on their behalf". Contrary to Mr. Lenk's appeal letter many of the neighboring property owners had an opportunity to express their concerns to the Planning Commission. They did it in person or through Mr. Lenk who spoke on their behalf. Furthermore, the original hearing notice was mailed to property owners on January 26th, giving them at least 20 days to write a letter or email comments or concerns to the Planning Commission. B) Parcel sizes are substandard for farming uses. The zoning regulations state that Special Permit applications for commercial farms can only be considered for tracts of land over 10 acres. The intent of the regulation is to ensure commercial farming occurs on larger tracts of land. This application was a request to farm a total of 18 acres. The 18 acres in question are two contiguous pieces of land under one ownership. The Faith Assembly Church owns both pieces of land involved in the proposal. The site considered for the Special Permit contained more than 10 acres. It is not uncommon for applications to be accepted for projects involving more than one parcel. There are examples throughout the community of project sites consisting of multiple parcels. Virgie Robinson Elementary is located on two parcels with the parcel line going through the middle of the school. There are a numerous houses in town that are located on multiple lots in order to meet the minimum square footage requirements of the zoning regulations. A number of years ago the Planning Commission reviewed an application for an RV park on East Lewis Street. RV parks are required to be on four-acre sites. The application for this particular RV park contained four separate one-acre parcels under one ownership. C) Applicant's established farming practices have been detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment. The applicant has not farmed the property since being informed he did not have permission to do so. Since that time there have been a number of code issues related to debris and weeds. The City's Code Enforcement staff has met with representatives of the Faith Assembly Church and some of the debris has been cleaned up. The Church will be entering into a Voluntary Correction Agreement to work on the remainder of the offenses. The church still needs to remove piles of concrete piping, weeds and tree branches. 3 D) The Planning Commission relied on the fact that a winery began operating at 1917 N. Road 76 four years ago. The Planning Commission relied on 24 Findings of Fact (as contained in the staff report) in making their recommendation. None of those findings included a statement about a winery. The reference to 1917 Road 76 indicated a vineyard had been planted on the property directly north of Mr. Lenk's property. E) The Planning Commission did not consider the multiple outstanding Code Enforcement violations currently in process by the City against the Applicant. There are no current Code Enforcement actions against the applicant. Code Enforcement staff are working with the Faith Assembly church to address some issues that arose as a result of complaints filed about time the applicant file his application for a Special Permit, Mr. Lenk's testimony was part of the record created by the Planning Commission and therefore was part of what was considered in the development of their recommendation for approval of the farm. F) At its March 17, 2011 meeting the Planning Commission did not have an appropriate quorum to approve MF# SP2011-002. The meeting of March 17, 2011 was called to order with a quorum present. Per Roberts Rule of Order once a quorum is seated the Planning Commission can conduct business. All business is by majority vote of those present. unless otherwise provided by statue or ordinance. The Chairman always begins each Planning Commission meeting with an announcement that an "objection to a Planning Commission member hearing any matter on tonight's agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived." The audience is then asked if any person has an objection to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda. Mr. Lenk was present when these statements were made by the Chairperson and he did not object to Mr. Lukins reviewing any matter on the agenda. G) The Planning Commission did not consider the conclusions and Findings of Fact made by the City Council on December 7, 2009 for a farming only use, at the same site and by the same applicant via Resolution 3205) The introductory title of Resolution 3205 states: "A RESOLUTION DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CORN MAZE IN THE 2000 BLOCK OF ROAD 72 Resolution 3205 primarily dealt with a corn maze and the impacts 7,000 to 9,000 corn maze visitors would have on the neighborhood. The Planning Commission did not need to consider the corn maze resolution. The purpose for 4 the hearing on the current application was to develop a record and prepare findings specific to the current farming proposal and not to revisit the corn maze application. H) As required by PMC 25.86.60 the Planning Commission failed to consider any of the mitigating measures submitted by the adjoining property owners. The information submitted by Mr. Lenk was part of the record generated by the Planning Commission_ and therefore was something the Planning Commission considered in the development of their recommendation. The Planning Commission has an obligation to hear testimony and gather information on the application but has no obligation to use said testimony in the formation of recommended conditions. However, in this case the Planning Commission recommendation contains five approval conditions (#'s 3, 4, 9, 10, and 15) that specifically address concerns raised by adjoining property owners during the hearing. I) Mr. Lenk's reference to school impact fees is new information that was not part of the record and should not be considered by the City Council. 5 Reference 4 - Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING C:OMMISSIWS RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE LOCATION OF A FARM IN THE 2000 BLOCK OF ROAD 72. WHEREAS, Philipp W. Schmitt, submitted a Special Permit application for the location of a farm on Road 72 (Tax Parcel 118-481-019 & 118-481-037); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 24, 2011 to review the application for the proposed farm; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on March 17, 2011 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special .Permit for the proposed farm with certain conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: 1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Philipp W. Schmitt and Five-T Fauns for the location of a farm or Road 72 under Master File # SP 10-021 with the following conditions: a) The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel 118-481-019 and 118-481-037; b) The farm shall be operated by using best management practices for agricultural production; c) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the adjoining right-of-way; d) The adjoining roadways shall not be used for turning around farm equipment during plowing, planting, harvesting, weeding and related functions; c) Farm equipment stored on site must be located in neat rows on the north side of the Faith Assembly parking lot west of the church owned house at 1800 Road 72. No more than seven pieces of equipment shall be permitted to be stored on site. The storage area and equipment must be kept clean of tumble weeds, weeds litter and debris; f) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed onto the adjoining residential fences or properties; g) Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates; h) The farm crops shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops such as pumpkins, tomatoes, corn, watermelons, peppers, etc. The definition of row crops does not include wheat and other cereal grains. Cereal grains may be used as a winter cover crop or for green manure purposes; i) Eighteen head of cattle are permitted on the site only from November 1St to March 31". j) Cattle must be secured on the site using best management practices for animal husbandry fencing. Said fencing must contain the cattle on site at all times; k) The property shall be posted to indicate no motorcycling or four-wheeling is permitted; 1 1) A Conservation Plan approved by the Farm Service shall be submitted to the City prior to site grading; m) A dust control plan must be approved by City staff prior to site grading; .n) A complaint monitoring plan that identifies how the applicant will respond to neighborhood complaints must be submitted and approved by City staff prior to site grading; o) At least one portable toilet shall be placed on the site during times when picking crews are on site. Said portable toilet shall be serviced in accord with industry standards and located in the equipment storage area north of the Faith Assembly parking lot, p) The Special Permit shall be valid for a period of three years and will auto natically extend for two additional years if the applicant adheres to the conditions of Special Permit approval. Extensions beyond the first five years may be permitted, but will require the submittal of a new Special Permit application.. In reviewing a new Special Permit application for this farm the Planning Commission will consider the criteria of PMC 25.86.060 along with changes its surrounding development, the pace at which surrounding development is occurring, improvements to utilities services within the area and any nuisance complaints about the operations of the farm over the past five years; q) The Special Permit shall be null and void if farming activity has not begun by June 30, 2012. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 2nd day of May, 2011. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney 2 Reference 5 - Motions The following motions can be used for action on the Five-T Farm Special Permit 1) Motion to Accept Planning Commission Recommendation:_ (Recommended by Staff) Motion X A: I moved to adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Motion 1 B: Based on the Findings of Fact as adopted I move to approve Resolution No. approving a Special Permit for a farm in the 2000 block of Road 72, as recommended by the Planning Commission, 2) Motion to Aj2prove a Farm with mo 'I ed conditions., Motion 2 A: I move to table action on the Special Permit application until May 16, 2011 to allow staff time to prepare an approval resolution with the following additional or modified conditions (list the conditions). 3) Motion to remand back to the Planning Commission: Motion 3 A: I move to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review on (list the items of concern that need additional review or clarification). 4) Motion to deny the Special Permit: Motion 4 A: I move to table action on the Special Permit application until May 16, 2011 to allow staff time to prepare Findings to support denial of the Special Permit. r CITY OF PASCO APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT (FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY) FILE NO: �j `7 p 00 2 DATE: - -2q t} The undersigned hereby apply for a special permit: Applicant: _ L �t���/ r �„'{F r;V. S Applicant's Address: Applicant's Phone Numbers: ±, ,2,6 p (homework, cellular, fax) Applicant's E-mail address: /j c�A�,O , e 0 hq Property Owner's Name (if different than Applicant): *Must have Property Owner's notarized signature on page 3 General location of property (street address or other description): Legal description of property (attach separate sheet if necessary): Lot(s): Block: Subdivision: THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A COMPLETE APPLICATION TO REVIEW: 1. C�urren(t� use of the land and structure(s) if any: �l .1 ^r: G 1J ���; IW�J' 4 ,irk' M1d V10 c'°T/kc''�Vl�f S 2. If vacant, check here: Page 1 of 3 3. Give a detailed description of the proposed use that requires a special permit attach separate sheet if more space is necessarvl: � C" J \L 1r 4'1w r enld 'O„ 11 r ca l VeCae `C' P(J-t4'4 6le(LiMCisr 1—iA_ �nL�slCji6n pl;r`f C?S' - fl(&A e '1` f ili7A tle9 �C/��Cf a ,j�c11 - ! �Ej 4 Yla - eA-iJM-d,f i{��*`� � �I'c.,CY r'P J.Jdy N MAA 4. A site map/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, 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. NOTE: Provide a variance report giving a list and mailing address of owners of all property within 300 feet of the applicant's property, as shown by a local title company OR payment of $80.00 which shall be utilized by the City to obtain a current list of property owners of all properties within 300 feet of the applicant's property. Fee for Special Permit - $300.00 Environmental Checklist - $100.00 Radius Notification - 80.00 (or provide Variance report in lieu of$80.00) $480.00 Page 2 of 3 Signature of p is ; *No ar' ed Si nature of Property Owner State of Washington ) ss. County of Franklin } � On this T��day of Tjj-" i olLy ,�-0 11 , before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned an sworn, personally appeared DAA.RL L 75 1atL--St__-t1 being duly sworn on his/her oath that he/she has prepared and read the foregoing statements and has acknowledged to me that the recitations contained therein are true, and has signed this instrument as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the purposes therein mentioned. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this " d ; ay te. Notary Public in and for the Stiate o'f Washln x),n Residing at P%15c q , My Commission expires Page 3 of 3 %OJ N I \CJ PASCO SERVICE CENTER JOE NAVARRO Natural 1620 N ROAD 44 RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST Resources Conservation PASCO, WA 99301-2667 Service (509) 545-8546 Conservation Plan PHIL SCHMITT 1523 A FOWLER ST RICHLAND, WA 99352 OBJECTIVE(S) The conservation of natural resources through implementation of a conservation plan. Crop Tract: 1184810 Conservation Crop Rotation Grow crops in a planned rotation for biodiversity and to provide adequate amounts of organic material for erosion reduction, nutrient balance and sustained soil organic matter. Planned Applied Field Amount Month Year Amount Date 11 16 ac 1 21 2011 Total: 16 ac Cover Crop Close-growing grasses, legumes, or small grain will be grown for seasonal protection, soil improvement and nutrient management. Planned Applied Field Amount Month Year Amount Date 11 16 ac 2 2011 Total:1 16 ac Irrigation Water Management Control the rate, amount and timing of irrigation water to minimize soil erosion and control water loss from runoff and deep percolation. Planned Applied Field Amount Month Year Amount Date 11 16 ac 1 21 2011 Total: 16 ac Joe Navarro Soil Conservation Technician RCS United States Department of Agriculture 14 N Natural Resources Conservation Service 77 7! 99301 Voice:(509) 545- 546 2/16/2011 AX: (509) 547-2007 Ext. t33 Page 1 of 2 Email:joe.navarro@wa.usda.gov Residue Management, Seasonal Manage amount, orientation and distribution of organic residue to maximize soil protection until immediately prior to planting the following crop. Planned Applied Field Amount Month Year Amount Date 11 16 ac 21 2011 Total:1 16 ac All conservation practices will completed to NRCS standards and Specifications. CERTIFICATION OF PARTICIPANTS PHIL SC IF D E CERTIFICATION OF: RESOURCE CONSERVATIONIST CONSERVATION DISTRICT AAAA�—,—,V a/Z& J I f Ad'-Z 21-16 JO NAVARRO DATE rRANKLIN C NSERVATION DIS DATE PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENT According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collections is 0578-0013. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 45/0.75 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,searching existing data sources,gathering and maintaining the data needed,and completing and reviewing the collection information. PRIVACY ACT The above statements are made in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974(5 U.S.0 522a). Furnishing this information is voluntary; however failure to furnish correct,complete information will result in the withholding or withdrawal of such technical or financial assistance. The information may be furnished to other USDA agencies,the Internal Revenue Service,the Department of Justice,or other state or federal law enforcement agencies,or in response to orders of a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal. USDA NON-DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT "The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race,color,national origin,age,disability,and where applicable,sex, marital status,family status, parental status, religion,sexual orientation,genetic information, political beliefs,reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program.(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information(Braille,large print,audiotape,etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202)720-2600(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination,write USDA, Director,Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue,S.W.,Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call(800)795-3272(voice)or(202)720-6382(TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer." 2/16/2011 Page 2 of 2 Date:2/16/2011 Customer(s): PHIL SCHMITT Field Office: PASCO SERVICE CENTER Agency: USDA/NRCS District: FRANKLIN CONSERVATION DISTRICT Assisted By:JOE NAVARRO State and County:WA, FRANKLIN Legal Description: Parcels 118481037 and 118481019 Land Units: AL T 1ield 137 Field 1 � 16.0 ac. N fi9N;R2yt �f M R R C • I �. � w4 . Legend land unit Interstate Highways I�r US and State Highways a Primary and Secondary Highways Interstate Highways US and State Highways = _, Primary and Secondary Highways — Local Roads — Vehicular(4WD)Trail Ferry — Other Thoroughfares and Walkways 0 Townships N ❑ Sections 150 0 150 300 450 600 Consplan Feet REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2011-002 APPLICANT: Philipp Schmitt HEARING DATE: 2/17/2011 5604 McKinley Court ACTION DATE: 3/17/2011 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming in an RS-20 Zone (2000 Block of Road 72) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The southeast and northeast quarters of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM less the southerly 165 feet and less road right-of- way. General 2000 Block of Road 72 Location: Property Approximately 18 acres Size: 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Road 72 and Wernett Road. 3. UTILITIES: The proposed use will not need public utilities. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned RS-20 (Suburban) and consists of two vacant parcels. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: NORTH R-S-20- County-residential SOUTH R-S-20- Faith Assembly Church of God Church EAST R-S-20- County-residential WEST R-S-20- County-residential 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Low-Density Residential uses. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting Special Permit approval to conduct farming activities in an RS-20 (Suburban Residential) zone on Road 72 north of Court Street. The proposed farm will involve the planting and harvesting of row crops, legumes, cereal grains and the winter pasturing of cattle. Commercial farming on sites larger than 10 acres and within 1,000 feet of a house, subdivision or residentially zone property may be permitted through the Special Permit review process. Even though the Municipal Code contains provisions for commercial farming, the City's Comprehensive Plan has designated the site for future residential use. Therefore farming on the site must be considered only an interim use. As an interim use, farming activities can easily be converted to intended uses when utilities become available. Recent growth in Pasco is a good example of how the conversion process takes place. Most of the development in the I-182 corridor over the last ten years has occurred on lands that were formally developed with farms. The farms have not restricted the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, nor has the development of housing restricted, to any great extent, continued farming activities. The general area surrounding the proposed site can be characterized as a low-density suburban area with large pastures, livestock raising and grape vineyards. Truck farming and raspberry production has also occurred in the neighborhood in the past. In reviewing this proposal staff has identified four issues for consideration by the Planning Commission: 1) dust control; 2) noise; 3) the planting of cereal grains; and 4) the winter pasturing of livestock. During plowing and planting and prior to seed germination fugitive dust could potentially impact adjacent properties if not properly monitored. This impact will be minimized once a crop is established. Staff would suggest the applicant be required to maintain a viable water source on site during the initial grading and leveling to manage fugitive dust during wind events, and submit a dust control plan for approval by City staff. Commercial agricultural activities often occur at odd hours, which could potentially impact adjacent residential uses. Staff suggests the applicant be required to submit a complaint monitoring plan to help alleviate these impacts. The plan should minimally include potential hours of operation, a contact person to whom complaints may be submitted and a process outlining how noise complaints will be addressed. 2 The planting of wheat (cereal grain) within a suburban neighborhood brings with it a concern for fire safety. Wheat fields become very dry prior to harvesting and burn rapidly if set on fire. With two homes immediately adjacent to the site and other homes nearby, planting wheat in a partially built neighborhood is a concern. The simplest way to address the fire safety concerns is to not permit the planting of grains. However grains can sometimes be effective as a cover crop to prevent dust from blowing. If grains are to be used for a cover crop restrictions should be placed on their usage to address fire safety concerns presented by ripe wheat. The last issue is one of using the site for grazing of livestock. The definition of commercial agriculture excludes feeds lots, stockyards, and similar animal husbandry activities. Large concentrations of animals can cause severe odor, dust and fly problems. The pasturing of animals can also create these concerns. The Planning Commission may want to consider limiting the number of cattle to be pastured on the site. 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 sections of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Low-Density Residential development. 3. The site has been used in the past for agricultural activities. 4. Pastures and vineyards as-well-as animal husbandry occur on adjoining properties. 5. The site is zoned RS-20. 6. The site contains 18 acres. 7. The site is large enough for about thirty 20,000 square foot lots. 8. Gardening and fruit raising on vacant land are permitted uses in the R-S-20. 9. Non-commercial agriculture uses are a permitted accessory use in the R-S-20 zone. 10. The site is vacant. 3 11. The site has been used for farming in the past. 12. Large vacant parcels within the general vicinity have been used in the past for producing watermelons, pumpkins and other row crops. 13. Much of the new residential development in the I-182 corridor has been developed on or adjacent to farms. 14. The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72 and from the east by way of Wernett Road. 15. The process of tilling and planting the ground exposes unprotected soil to the wind and can cause blowing dust. 16. The applicant is proposing to plant vegetables, legumes and cereal grains. 17. Wheat is a cereal grain. 18. Ripe wheat is very dry and presents a fire hazard. 19. Locating large numbers of cattle and other farm animals in a single area can create odor, dust and fly nuisances. 20. The RS-20 District permits one animal unit per 10,000 square feet of lot area. 21. Commercial farming requires the use of heavy equipment and machinery. 22. The City's noise regulations prohibit excessive noise from emanating from properties and intruding into residential areas between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. CONCLUSIONS Before recommending approval or denial of a Special Permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density residential development. The Plan does not specifically address the proposed use. However, the zoning regulations which implement the Plan permit the keeping of farm animals and allow limited agricultural 4 production in RS-20 zones. The zoning regulations also permit commercial agricultural production by Special Permit in the RS-20 zone. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed farm does not depend upon City utilities therefore there will be no adverse impact to city utilities. The current zoning permits the site to be developed with about 30 homes which would generate about 300 vehicle trips per day. An 18 acre farm will generate minor traffic in comparison. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The existing character is that of a suburban residential neighborhood. The act of growing additional crops in the neighborhood will not alter the existing neighborhood character. The location of farms in West Pasco and within the I-182 Corridor has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses. Farms have operated simultaneously with development of Island Estates, Sunny Meadows, Wilson Meadows, The Village at Pasco Heights and other subdivisions in the community. The proposed use will not make intensive use of the land or lead to disorderly growth of the community. 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? There will be no permanent structures erected with this proposal. Development within the community over the last 10 years attests to the fact that farming operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development. The proposed use is a temporary use that will not materially impact property values. 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? Without conditions the proposed activity could create noise, dust and odor and fire hazards that may be objectionable to nearby properties. 5 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? The existence of numerous farming operations within the community, particularly in the I-182 corridor, demonstrates that farming near residential uses does not necessarily become a nuisance to permitted uses nor do the farms endanger public health and safety. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to the property; 2. The farm shall be operated by using best management practices for agricultural production; 3. No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the adjoining right-of-way; 4. No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed onto the adjoining residential fences or properties; 5. Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates; 6. The farm crops shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops such as pumpkins, tomatoes, watermelons, peppers, etc. The definition of row crops does not include wheat and other cereal grains. Cereal grains may be used as a winter cover crop or for green manure purposes; 7. The property shall be posted to indicate no motorcycling or four-wheeling is permitted; 8. A Conservation Plan approved by the Farm Service shall be submitted to the City prior to site grading; 9. A dust control plan must be approved by City staff prior to site grading; 10. A complaint monitoring plan that identifies how the applicant will respond to neighborhood complaints must be submitted and approved by City staff prior to site grading; 11. The Special Permit shall be valid for a period of three years and will automatically extend to five years if the applicant adheres to the conditions of Special Permit approval. Extensions beyond the first five years may be permitted, but will require the submittal of a new Special Permit application. In reviewing a new Special Permit application for this farm the Planning Commission will consider the criteria of PMC 25.86.060 along with changes in surrounding development, the pace at which surrounding development is occurring, improvements to utilities services within the area and any nuisance complaints about the operations of the farm over the past five years; 6 12. The Special Permit shall be null and void if farming activity has not begun by September 30, 2011. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed farm and schedule deliberations, adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to t he City Council for the March 17, 2011 meeting. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 24, 2011 B. Special Permit Agricultural uses in a RS-20 (Residential Suburban) Zone (the 2000 block of Road 721 (Philipp W. Schmitt) (MF# SP 2011-002) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained that the applicant in this case was seeking a Special Permit to farm 18 acres of vacant land directly north of the Faith Assembly Church on Road 72. The proposal involves the planting and growing of row crops, certain cereal grains and the winter pasturing of cattle. Mr. McDonald reviewed the written report and discussed the fact that farming does occur in the city in and near residential neighborhoods. The existence of these farms has not negatively impact the value of residential properties. Concerns over dust, noise, cereal grains and the winter pasturing of livestock were also discussed. Mr. McDonald responded to a packet of information submitted to the Planning Commission by Roger Lenk, a property owner who lives on Road 76. Chairman Cruz opened the hearing and asked for comments from the public. Philipp Schmitt, 1523 "A" Fowler Street, Richland stated he has applied to farm an 18.5 acre parcel at the corner of Wernett Road and Road 72. Mr. Schmitt explained that he planned to grow short season produce and sell the produce at local farmers' markets or area grocery stores. His plan for winter wheat was to use it only as a cover crop. Mr. Schmitt asked to have corn included in the list of permitted crops and to have the approval date in condition number 12 be modified in the event the approval process does not occur in time to plant this year. Larry Gomez, 2105 Road 72, was concerned about dust control, noise and the smell of fertilizer. Mr. Gomez also expressed concern over the traffic generated by the Faith Assembly Church. Jesse Rom, 7309 Wernett, stated he lives directs north of the proposed Deleted:Boger farm field. Mr.&odggrs explained the problems the neighborhood has had with Deleted:Roger traffic on Road 76 and the cattle that one of the neighbors brings in from Oregon on a regular basis. Roger Lenk, 1817 Road 76, stated he would explain why the application was not permitted under the code, how the application would be detrimental to the suburban environment then he would summarize the position of the neighbors 1 regarding the proposal. Mr. Lenk explained that he felt the Code required each individual parcel to be over ten acres and that two nine acre parcels did not qualify for an application. Mr. Lenk explained that development of the property for housing was not practical for economic reasons, the applicants farming practices have been detrimental to the neighborhood and the Council findings from the corn maze hearing concluded farming activities have a high probability to become a nuisance to the neighborhood. Mr. Lenk also discussed the problems associated with the cattle at the southeast corner of Road 76 and Wernett Road. Based on the information he submitted, Mr. Lenk stated the Planning commission should not recommend approval of a farm under Master file # SP2011-002. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. McDonald if he had any other comments. Mr. McDonald stated that Resolution 3205 (referred to by Mr. Lenk) related mostly to the corn maze and the references to a farm where added by Mr. Lenk. Item number three in the resolution mentions a corn maze, fall festival and commercial operation. Chairman Cruz agreed with Mr. McDonald's comments that the characterization is based on the corn maze and traffic and to a lesser extent the farm. A lot of the focus at the last hearing was on the noise, traffic and party atmosphere associated with the corn maze. John Scheline,_1908 Road 72 was sworn in. Mr. Scheline stated he was the Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold Executive Pastor of Faith Assembly and the closest neighbor to the proposed farm. Mr. Scheline pointed out that Mr. Lenk has a pile of brush and garbage on his property that is about six feet tall. Last year the lead pastor for the church spoke to Mr. Lenk and that Mr. Lenk was not opposed to farming he was opposed to the corn maze.- Formatted:Font:12 pt Mr. Scheline _rovided some history about the Faith Assembl Church and Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold stated they wanted to be a good neighbor, Formatted:Font:12 pt Mr. Scheline has lived on Road 72 for eight years and supports the farming Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold operation. He also felt the recommended conditions were acceptable.` _ Formatted:Font:12 pt Janet Johnson, 2104 Road 68, was sworn in. Ms. Johnson was opposed to the Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold farm. Formatted:Font:12 pt Jesse Rodgers, 7309 Wernett, was concerned about what would be required for Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold sanitation.. Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold Formatted:Font:12 pt 2 JZoger Lenk, 1817 Road, stated hi"roperty is the finest on the street and there Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold is not trash on the lot. Formatted:Font:12 pt Yhil Schmitt, 1523 "A" Fowler Street, Richland, stated when he applied for the Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold corn maze last year he had no idea farming was not permitted on the property until he received notices form the City. Mr. Schmitt provided some historical background on last year's activities to obtain a special permit for a corn maze and addressed some of Mr. Lenk's comments. He stated there has never been an investigation into any of his farm activities by the State. Mr. Schmitt cautioned the Planning Commission to take the time to determine what is true and what is not with respect to Mr. Lenk's packet. Mr. Schmitt then provided some background on bee colony collapse. Formatted:Font:12 pt ,Following three calls for testimony he Chairman closed the hearings Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold Formatted:Font:12 pt Commissioner Gemig stated she thought Mr. Schmitt's request for modification Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Boid of the recommended approval conditions were acceptable. Specifically the allowance of field corn, the cattle limit of one per acre and an adjustment of the approval time frame in number 12.E Formatted:Font:12 pt Commission May stated he sees four different areas on the overhead that looks Formatted:Font:iz pt,Not Bold like areas that are being farmed on Road 68 and several areas on Road 72. Mr. Hay wanted to know what kind of farming was occurring in these areas. To him it looks like farming is already occurring in the area, Formatted:Font:12 pt Commissioner Cruz stated we have anythin&from small hobby farm of a couple Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold acres to whole circles within the city being farmed. Formatted:Font:12 pt Mr. McDonald stated there are a number of small farms throughout all of West Formatted:Font:iz pt,Not Boid Pasco. The rows Mr. Hay was referring are commercial vineyards. The property Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold directly north of Mr. Lenk's house contains a new vineyard that was not there a few years ago.. Formatted:Font:12 pt Commissioner Gemig stated that the conditions should also allow the storage Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold of six small farm implements on the property., Formatted:Font:12 pt Commissioner Kempf was not in favor of including corn in condition number 6� Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold Formatted:Font:12 pt Chairman Cruz stated the Commission needed to be careful to separate the Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold farming proposal from the church activities. The Chairman stated he felt they had enough information to recommend a permit for the farm with appropriate conditions. The Chairman was in favor of adding corn to the list of crops and limiting the number of cattle per acre and months of the year. Fencing also needs to be addressed•. Formatted:Font:12 pt 3 Commission Greenaway was in favor of ermittin&the farm for three years with Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold a two year extension, Formatted:Font:1z pt CommissionerGemig was also in favor of allowing the permit for three years Formatted:Font:iz pt,Not Bold with a two year extension, Formatted:Font:lz pt Commissioner HayaLlso supported the three mar permit with a two year Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold extension.` Formatted:Font:iz pt Chairman Cruz agreed the initial vital outlay may warrant a three y ar initial Formatted:Font:iz pt,Not Bold permit with the two year extension. . Formatted:Font:12 pt LWr. McDonald then recapped the discussion by stating the initial permit was to Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold be for three years with a two year extension for a total of five ears. After fives Formatted:Font:iz pt,Not Bold years the applicant would be required to submit a new application. Cattle are Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold to be limited to one per acre from November to March only.Substantial fencing Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold is required.. Formatted:Font:iz pt ,Following additional discussion, corn was added to the list of allowable crops._ Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold Formatted:Font:12 pt Commissioner Ge mig stated farm equipment should be permitted on site Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold because it will lessen traffic on the roads due to the fact the equipment will not have to be ferried back and forth to the site. Formatted:Font:12 pt The Chairman stated he would be in favor of allowing seven small implements Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold to be parked on the property and the implements should be prohibited from turning on the road when in use, Formatted:Font:lz pt The_eneral consensus of the Commission was that sanitation facilities need to Formatted:Font:12 pt,Not Bold be on site when workers were present. Formatted:Font:lz pt Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the Formatted:Font:lz pt,Not Bold hearing on the proposed farm and schedule deliberations, adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the March 17, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously, Formatted:Font:12 pt 4 1 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 CITY OF PASCO 3 4 Special Permit: ) 5 ) MF# No . SP 2011-002 6 Agricultural uses in a ) RS-20 (Residential ) 7 Suburban) ) Zone (the 2000 block of ) 8 Road 72) ) (Phillip W. Schmitt) ) 9 ) 10 11 12 13 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 14 15 16 TIME: 7 p.m. , Thursday, February 24, 2011 17 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall 18 Pasco, Washington 19 CALLED BY: City of Pasco 20 REPORTED BY: ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR License No . 2408 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 3 4 MS . JOE CRUZ - CHAIRMAN 5 MR. JAMES HAY 6 MS . ALECIA GREENAWAY 7 MS . JANA KEMPF 8 MS . LISA GEMIG 9 10 ALSO PRESENT: 11 12 MR. DAVE MCDONALD 13 MR. RICK WHITE 14 MR. SHANE O'NEIL 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 3 1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, February 24, 2011 2 at 7 : 00 p.m. , at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the 3 Planning Commission Meeting was taken before ChaRae Kent, 4 Certified Court Reporter and Registered Professional 5 Reporter. The following proceedings took place : 6 7 8 P R O C E E D I N G S 9 10 MR. CRUZ : Item Number 5B is a special permit, 11 agricultural uses in an RS-20 (Residential Suburban) Zone 12 in the 2000 block of Road 72 . Applicant is Mr. Schmitt 13 Master File No. SP 2011-002 . All right . 14 MR. MCDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, 15 as noted, this is a request for special permit for a 16 farming operation on Road 72 just north of the Faith 17 Christian Assembly Church. This item was reviewed a year 18 or two ago by the Planning Commission and the applicant 19 has again filed an application; this time just for a farm 20 without a corn maze. And as you considered last time, the 21 farm would involve various row crops . The applicant 22 indicated in his application he wanted to plant cereal 23 grains and perhaps use the property for wintering 24 pasturing of cattle . 25 The comprehensive plan doesn ' t really contain a ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 4 1 provision for farms; therefore, we have to consider 2 farming as an interim use on this property and any other 3 property within the urban growth boundary. Farming 4 operations are not uncommon within the city limits . Most 5 of the I-182 corridor area was under cultivation at one 6 time and as development grew the farms scaled back and we 7 experienced development in those farm fields . And 8 currently with agricultural production, we still find that 9 today in some areas along the I-182 corridor where we ' ll 10 have farm fields adjacent to residential development. And 11 experience has shown in those areas that farming 12 operations have really not impacted the value of 13 surrounding properties adjacent to the farm field and 14 vice-a-versa. 15 The proposal, as reviewed by staff, has flagged a 16 number of things that the Planning Commission may want to 17 consider that could be issues . First one is dust control; 18 the second is noise; the third is planting of cereal 19 grains; and then the fourth is the wintering of -- winter 20 pasturing of livestock. 21 I ' ll start with the winter pasturing of livestock 22 first . They do have 18 acres there . But if you do get a 23 number of livestock on those 18 acres, particularly in the 24 in the winter time when the ground is frozen, if we have a 25 lot moisture in the area, can get basically mucky, perhaps ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 5 1 smelly with animals in a confined area. And the Planning 2 Commission may want to consider limiting the number of 3 livestock or perhaps prohibiting the use of the property 4 altogether for livestock grazing in the winter. Many of 5 the truck farms in the small farms within the West Pasco 6 area don ' t typically have livestock in the wintertime . 7 Pumpkin and watermelon farms come to mind. They use the 8 land in the summertime and then in the winter it just lays 9 fallow until it ' s put into production. 10 The planting of cereal grains, this was an issue that 11 was discussed when we heard this previously. Within a 12 confined area such as this where you have a wheat crop 13 that gets very dry just before harvesting, those fields 14 sometimes catch on fire and with the closeness of the 15 homes, it is really not advisable to have a wheat field 16 there. There are two homes immediately adjacent to the 17 post farm side and the west side of Road 72 . And it is 18 just not an appropriate place for that. 19 However, wheat and other grain crops can be used for 20 a cover crop in the fall or winter and then plowed under 21 for a green manure a short time later. 22 Noise . The use of farm machinery, of course, can 23 create noise. It ' s not constant. We 're suggesting that 24 if this were to be approved the Planning Commission 25 require the applicant to have a complaint monitoring ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 6 1 mechanism in place so we know who we can contact or the 2 neighbors can contact on short notice to abate noise and 3 the same thing with the dust control . 4 This general area that the proposed farm is to be 5 located in, as I said, is a suburban residential area. 6 The property has been used for farming in the past. There 7 are scattered pasturelands and grape vineyards within the 8 general vicinity. And then of course there are single 9 family homes on large suburban lots . 10 Access to the site is provided by way of Road 72 11 north to Argent and south to Court Street. 12 We provided for your consideration a possible listing 13 of Findings of Fact on page 3 and then we 've provided the 14 review of the six criteria that you are to consider 15 according to PMC 25 . 86 . 060 . Those are on page 4 and 5 . 16 And you received in your packet a rather lengthy e-mail 17 from Mr. Roger Lenk that lives on Road 76. And I would 18 like to just respond to a few of the items that are in 19 that packet from Mr. Lenk. 20 The first one being on Page 1 of his e-mail . The 21 application does not conform to PMC 26 . 08 . 160 and 22 25 . 86 . 35 . And this deals with the size of the property. 23 The zoning regulations state that you are required to have 24 a 10-acre minimum lot size to apply for a special permit 25 for farming. In this case there are two parcels that ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 7 1 total 18 acres . They are under one ownership. They are 2 not under separate ownership. There has been no veiled 3 attempt, as Mr. Lenk asserts in his e-mail, that the 4 applicants is trying to pull something over our eyes . The 5 fact is that there is 18 acres there. We are treating it 6 as one parcel . The City routinely accepts applications 7 for multiple parcels for building permits and it' s been 8 done in the past for special permits . 9 Mr. Hay is probably the only one of the commission 10 that remembers the RV park that was proposed for the east 11 end of East Lewis Street. RV parks require special 12 permits in the C-1 zones . They are required to have four 13 acres to be eligible for an RV park. That particular site 14 has four 1-acre parcels, which, together under one 15 ownership equals four acres . And so it ' s not uncommon to 16 accept applications, as I said, where the ownership is 17 under one ownership. 18 We have properties around town that, through building 19 permits, have also been handled that way Virgie Robinson 20 Elementary School was built on two separate parcels and 21 the parcel line goes through the middle of the school . 22 We have done that in the past . We could have done 23 the bureaucratic thing and required the owner to parcel 24 them together. But they owned both pieces . We didn 't see 25 the sense in doing that. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 8 1 The second item relates to Mr. Lenk' s concern about 2 the notices . Typically for special permits we ' re required 3 to notify property owners within 300 feet of the site 4 that ' s under consideration through the special permit 5 process and/or other public hearings related to land use. 6 And in this case for farming operation we ' re required to 7 notify people within 1, 000 feet. And our notices that get 8 sent out typically have a statement at the bottom of them 9 that indicate that property -- indicates property owners 10 within 300 feet receive this notice . 11 And the notice that was sent out in this case had 12 that statement on it because it was a standard form. But 13 we did send that notice to people beyond the 300 feet. 14 The 300 foot radius includes about 20 properties, and we 15 sent the notice to over 50 properties . So that may have 16 created some confusion for Mr. Lenk. 17 The next item the concern that he expresses over is 18 animal pasturing. Here again, that ' s the purpose for 19 public hearing and it may be something the Planning 20 Commission should decide that animals shouldn' t be 21 prevented to be pastured there in the wintertime . 22 There ' s some discussion on Page 3 relative to the 23 threat of development related to property values of the 24 Faith Assembly property. The farm site itself can hold 30 25 to 32 homes . If it was developed under the current ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 9 1 zoning. And that is an option which the church has 2 available to it . 3 The information on the market value of the parcels 4 really is not germane to the special permit. The market 5 value that he mentions in there actually appears to be the 6 assessed value. And there ' s a difference between the 7 assessed value that the assessor assigns to the property 8 and the actual market value; the market value that the 9 property is actually sold for. 10 And just because there are perhaps liens on it from 11 the parent Assembly of God organization, again, that 12 doesn' t necessarily mean it can' t be developed for single 13 family homes . It ' s not uncommon for large developments, 14 for example, the Loviisa Farms development off of Road 15 100, that had lienholders on the property at the same time 16 that the developer was developing those properties and the 17 lienholders had to sign a plat to allow the lots to be 18 developed. So it' s possible that this property could 19 develop even with lienholders on it . 20 There ' s some references on Page 4 to Findings of Fact 21 and Conclusions already made by Council . There ' s a 22 reference to the resolution that was approved by the City 23 Council denying the corn maze and farm back in 2009 . Most 24 of the information in that resolution and Findings of Fact 25 and the Conclusions based on PMC 25 . 86 . 060 relate almost ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 10 1 exclusively to the corn maze, rather than the farming 2 operations . There are two references, I believe, to the 3 farm. All the other references relate to the corn maze 4 itself, which was the primary concern at the time . 5 With that, I ' d be open to any questions or comments 6 the Planning Commission may have. 7 MR. CRUZ : Okay. Commissioners, any questions for 8 Mr. McDonald and company? 9 I am going to ask an easy one . Do we have any 10 precedent for what we 've restricted grazing to, you know, 11 on a per animal basis or animals per acre or seasonally, 12 say, between November and February or anything like that? 13 MR. MCDONALD: This is the first application that I 14 can remember for a farming operation that actually 15 involved a request for pasturing of animals . The RS-20 16 and the RS-12 and the R-S-1 zoning districts allow 17 animals, farm animals to be located in those zones 18 districts . And property owners are allowed to have one 19 animal unit for every 10, 000 square feet of lot area above 20 the first 12, 000 square feet. Subtract out 12, 000, divide 21 the rest by 10, 000 and that tells you the number of 22 animals you are allowed to have. 23 MR. CRUZ : So since I didn' t bring that calculator, 24 what does that math break out to be? 25 MR. MCDONALD: At around 3 per acre . ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 11 1 MR. CRUZ : That ' s what I was looking for. 2 Okay. Any other questions? 3 Okay. Before we get started with the public hearing, 4 by a show of hands, is the applicant here? 5 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: (Indicated) . 6 MR. CRUZ : How many people intend to speak on this 7 item? 8 And everybody is welcome to. There ' s no pressure not 9 to. I just want to make sure we capture everybody so we 10 can watch the clock. 11 So what we ' ll do, like I had kind of opened with, you 12 can leave your comments to 10 minutes . And Mr. Lenk, we 13 want to give you due time to walk through where you are at 14 with this . 15 And traditionally what we do with these is we ask the 16 applicant to come toward first and then we will let 17 everyone talk then bring the applicant back. 18 So with that as kind of some guiding principals, I 'm 19 going to open the public hearing and whoever would like to 20 come up to the podium please state your name and address 21 for the record. The applicant, please . 22 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: My name is Philipp Schmitt . My 23 address is 1523 "A" Fowler Street -- we 've recently move 24 to that location -- Richland, Washington. 25 Good evening. I have applied for a special use ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 12 1 permit to farm 18 . 5 acre parcel on Wernett and Road 72 . 2 Our goal is to obtain this permit and to be able to raise 3 normal agricultural crops that are found in the Columbia 4 Basin area. What our plan is for the next few years is 5 mostly to do truck farming and we grow short season 6 produce on that property and usually pick in the morning 7 and sell it that day at a farmer ' s market or a produce 8 stand around town or contract local supermarkets such as 9 Yokes, Safeway, etc. That ' s our goal for the property. 10 In our application I put several crops down there to 11 cover all of the bases . I know one of the major concerns 12 with Planning Commission and the Planning Department is 13 winter wheat. We put winter wheat in there and it ' s a 14 grain crop and we understand the plantable issue of that 15 and why that ' s perceived as a possible danger and an alarm 16 point. For this permit, our plan for that is only as a 17 cover crop. 18 Winter wheat has been grown on several properties 19 within the city of Pasco boundaries, on the Eickmeyer' s 20 place, on Kidwell ' s farm property, Frank Tiegs ' property 21 out in Pasco. While we have no intention of growing 22 winter wheat there, we would like to include it as a cover 23 crop or what ' s called a green mustard crop. 24 One of the crops we do want to grow on there, and the 25 Planning Commission in it ' s tentative approval conditions, ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 13 1 under line item 6, they did not include corn. We would 2 like to grow sweet corn on that property and also field 3 corn. Field corn by definition is a grain, cereal grain 4 crop, but there ' s not a flammable issue with field corn. 5 In fact, it ' s grown throughout the basin. And the told 6 dried out point of field corn usually occurs in October; 7 harvest is in October and November of the farm season. By 8 that point you have some replenishing dews coming in every 9 night that there ' s not a fire issue . In fact, for 12 10 years my wife and I were in the corn maze business and we 11 always grew a field corn crop for our corn maze, our large 12 public 8 to 10 acre field. And, I believe, me if there 13 was an issue with field corn fires, the fire marshall 14 would never let us operate all those seasons . So we would 15 like to see field corn as a cereal grain put in there . 16 That covers that . 17 We just want to farm the ground. We have five sons 18 and we 've been growing produce in the last few years in 19 the Tri-Cities selling them to local markets in different 20 locations around town and we 've been successful at it and 21 we would like to increase that piece of property to 18 . 5 22 acres . 23 It was traditionally in agricultural through the mid 24 ' 70s . At that point the current owner at that time pulled 25 his irrigation rights and retired from farming. And so ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 14 1 there was no irrigation rights on the property until we 2 bought outside irrigation rights in 2009 from the 3 irrigation district. At that time, we also discovered we 4 were illegally farming and applied for a corn permit -- or 5 a corn maze permit to operate a corn maze and pumpkin 6 patch. We did not know at that time that we were 7 illegally farming until we found out on the 16th of August 8 and we were told so. So this permit is so that we can 9 legally farm this piece of property. 10 It ' s traditionally been in raspberries . The last 11 crop was in raspberries in the mid ' 70s . That ' s the 12 farthest back we found the history. But all that ground 13 in the area, as Mr. McDonald says, has been farmed in the 14 past and it ' s now been developed slowly into 5 and 10 acre 15 pieces . 16 I 'm trying to think what else to include her really 17 quick. Cattle have been raised on the property since the 18 mid ' 90s by Carl Wisse . He ' s a local doctor of veterinary 19 medicine there on the corner of Wernette and the northwest 20 corner of the field. He ' s had cattle out there. He ' s run 21 his personal project cattle; ones that he ' s mostly 22 artificially inseminated for his different breeding 23 program. His main ranch is up at Eltopia but the cattle 24 have been there since 1995 before many of the neighbors 25 have moved into the area. And there hasn' t been any ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 15 1 complaints that I know of or problems . Without having 2 Mitch Nickolds here in the compliance department at the 3 City of Pasco, I can' t say 100 percent for sure . But I 4 have not heard of any before that point . 5 We included cattle in our application because we 6 would like to continue to be able to run cattle in the 7 wintertime on that. If the municipal code called for the 8 three per acre, our intention -- we have no problem with 9 -- it could be written in general approval conditions one 10 per acre. That ' s fine . Eighteen cattle would be fine . 11 That does a great job of breaking down the corn residue 12 and we also get some natural fertilizer out of that. So 13 we would like to keep that grandfathered in as Carl Wisse 14 has been grandfathered in there keeping the cattle in 15 there. They are currently on there now. But he had the 16 cattle on there since ' 96 . And then that ground was 17 brought into the city -- was annexed into the city in 18 2000 . So he was grandfathered in. We would like to 19 continue keeping that clause in there . But we have no 20 problem with bringing the number of cattle down to make 21 sure the neighbors are happy with that and don ' t have to 22 worry about filth. 23 MR. CRUZ : Pausing on that point, if we said we 24 wanted to limit you to a certain span of the year, would 25 be that a hardship to you, say, you know, the months ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 16 1 between X and Y? 2 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: No, six months would probably 3 be the best, most spring tillage starts around March when 4 the irrigation water gets turned on. And so from, say, 5 November to March would be ample time to break down any 6 melon crops that are on the property or sweet corn or 7 field corn residue that was on the property. 8 The only issue we had with the tentative approval 9 conditions was under line number 12 . Depending on how 10 long this process takes this year to receive the special 11 permit, if that happens, I 'm not sure what kind of crops 12 we will be able to lay in the field. So we might not be 13 able to technically farm this season or economically it 14 wouldn' t make sense to put anything in the ground because 15 we wouldn' t be able to harvest in a timely manner in the 16 fall . 17 MR. CRUZ : So let' s pause on that point of assuming 18 this works through the normal process when would we expect 19 to get a special permit yeah or nay decision? 20 MR. MCDONALD: Well, we would have to come back next 21 month for you to finalize your findings, which would be 22 April, so May City Council could approve it . In May, 23 unless someone appeals it . If it gets appealed, then it 24 will draw it out to June . So it be between June and July 25 that it could be approved. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 17 1 MR. CRUZ : Okay. 2 MR. MCDONALD: And that may be too late for a lot of 3 crops . 4 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: Yes, for 2011 . So if you could 5 possibly revisit that issue of number 12 where right there 6 it says : Special permit shall be null and void if farming 7 has not begun by September 30th of this year. So that 8 might not be a possibility. 9 MR. CRUZ : I think there ' s ways to handle a condition 10 like that. I don' t remember a time that we did that, but 11 we can say within X months of approval of a special permit 12 or something like that . 13 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: I understand. 14 MR. CRUZ : That ' s a little more friendly to the 15 agricultural nature of your request . 16 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: There' s a request that we had 17 that is not on here . We would like to keep a small -- a 18 few items of farm equipment on the site . Since this would 19 be one of our primary sites that would be growing -- or 20 doing our truck farming operation from, we would like to 21 keep a 12 foot John Deere disk on the property, a 6 row 22 John Deere corn planter, a packer that we pull behind the 23 disk that compacts the soil, a piece of machinery called a 24 mulch layer -- It lays our blackened mulch and our drip 25 irrigation line -- and a fertilizer applicator. No ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 18 1 tractors . All these items are small in stature . I mean, 2 if you want physical dimensions I could give those to you. 3 None of them are over four feet in height. 4 Farming in the city presents all kinds of interesting 5 problems . A few years ago we were farming both in 6 Franklin County and Benton County. We were moving 7 equipment over both of the bridges spanning the river and 8 it created an interesting situations . Even when we 9 follows the rules of the road for moving agricultural 10 equipment that the Washington State Department of 11 Transportation has laid down, other people do not follow 12 that. You know, that ' s a nerve-racking, scary operation. 13 We are fully insured to be doing that; however, I would 14 rather than not be moving disks and corn planters, which 15 are wide machinery, up and down Road 68 in between 16 cultivating outside of the field or planting different 17 sweet corn. Sweet corn, for example, we plant maybe 18 one-third of an acre one day, wait five or six days, plant 19 one-third of an acre and we do that and we plant several 20 different times throughout the season so we can harvest 21 several different times . And our harvest seasons usually 22 last from July to sometimes first of November depending on 23 our first freeze . So it is important to keep equipment on 24 the place . It' s small, unsightly. 25 We will we have no -- in 2009 when we were illegally ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 19 1 farming the property we brought in a semi trailer that had 2 lot of our vegetable equipment in there for processing 3 pumpkins -- which we didn't plant that year. And we don 't 4 need to need bring our semi trailer in there for 5 equipment. 6 So that ' s about it. Keep it short and sweet in case 7 I need to rebut anything else . Let us know. Any 8 questions? 9 MR. CRUZ : No. I want to -- first I want to thank 10 you for taking the time to kind of work through your, you 11 know, your position on the approval conditions . So, you 12 know, we have a number of people that want to speak, so 13 just kind of take notes while you wait and then we ' ll call 14 you back after we a have a chance to talk to other people . 15 Unless the commissioners have a question. 16 MR. MCDONALD: Mr. Chairman, maybe just one 17 correction. I skipped a month in the process of approval . 18 It would come back to you next month, which would be 19 March, then it would go to the City Council in April, 20 unless an appeal is filed. And if there was, that would 21 draw it out to May. So May/June it could be approved. 22 MR. CRUZ : I think we either need to say, assuming 23 approval, X date and then start farming whatever. We can 24 come back to that. 25 Okay. Thank you. Next person who would like to ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 20 1 speak to this item please come forward and state your name 2 and address for the record. 3 MR. LARRY GOMEZ : Boy, my name is Larry Gomez . Hello 4 everyone . I live at Road 72 . There on 2105 North 72 with 5 my wife Sandy and my next door neighbor is Woody that 6 lives right there at the -- cater-corner right where he -- 7 he ' s going to be there . He is right on the main spot 8 right there . Yes, it is about dust control . You know, 9 when the wind blows from the west all that storm comes in. 10 Where does all that dust control with all those weeds 11 come? It comes over to Woody' s place there and to my 12 place. All those tumbleweeds, where does it go? A big 13 huge pile that need to be -- that ' s dust control, which is 14 one of the first since we've been there . 15 Noise . Noise, there is going to be noise. The 16 smell . The fertilizers dangers . You know, it ' s dust 17 control when the weather storms move in from the west, 18 that is what it is tumbleweeds . 19 Chemicals . Chemicals, residential . This is 20 residential living where it is at. Residential living are 21 not agricultural . It affects residentials health. All 22 that chemical is being used by those sprinklers that ' s put 23 into that water, where does it all go? Into the ground 24 water. Soil concentrated into the ground water being 25 disked, being plowed. You know, there is enough trouble ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 21 1 the way it is with the sprinklers hitting the roads . So 2 that ' s the way traffic is going back to the church back 3 and forth, you know. 4 And about the season of having to have the corn, they 5 trapped that corn on there the last time around and I have 6 found a lot of corn coming up at my place there. And I 7 say wow. Not only that but the mice and the mosquito 8 control . When you have all these plants and vegetable 9 going in what do you see there then? You see a lot of 10 gophers coming in. You see a lot of rodents coming in. 11 Mosquito control . You talk about West Nile I have Russ 12 and all of that, you know. 13 But, you know, I 've said my peace . And last, but not 14 least, you know, the mice . What are we looking at there? 15 You know, this is a residential living of where it is at, 16 you know. But are these people ready to see this kind of 17 situation in there? But, you know, there' s a lot of dos 18 and don' ts . Each one to their own living. You know, we 19 only got one life to live, you know. But it ' s like, well, 20 from -- I would say it ' s like the Word of Faith Church 21 goers . When they first constructed that whole building 22 that whole church promised residents around that they 23 would they would have free access to a sewer hookup. They 24 didn ' t do that . It made a lot of people there on this 25 residential area there and on Road 72 upset. Because the ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 22 1 church goer people did not keep their do promise. That 2 made a lot of people upset. But I 'm not here to talk 3 about that issue, but I just wanted to draw your attention 4 to about it . 5 Again, my name is Larry Gomez . I want to say God 6 bless your living heart for everything you are . Thank 7 you. 8 MR. CRUZ : Thank you, Mr. Gomez . 9 Is there anyone else in the audience who would like 10 to speak to this item? Please state your name and address 11 for the record. 12 MR. JESSE RODGERS : My name is Jesse Rodgers and I 13 live at 7309 Wernett and that is directly north of the 14 field right across Wernett Avenue from the proposed area 15 of farming. 16 Now we talked about raising cattle on that or grazing 17 cattle on that. My friend there, our neighbor, Mr. Wisue, 18 tried to run cows on that . He put up one strand of barbed 19 wire with electric fence. We had numerous cows out in the 20 road at all times . Now you can' t tell me this gentleman 21 is going to come in and put up you a fool-proof fence. 22 Now all you' re going to ask here is when you get those 23 cattle out and they run through that fence, you ' re going 24 to get an accident with them people driving 45 miles an 25 hour on that Road 72 . Now that is one of the things you ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 23 1 got to be worrying about. We still got the traffic 2 problem out there. We still got the little narrow road. 3 Now Mr. Schmitt, when he filed for application on 4 putting in the corn maze here last year, he went ahead and 5 done work on that long before he had the application 6 approved. And then he called us all together one day 7 trying to get us neighbors out there to go along with his 8 corn maze . And one of the things that he promised is he 9 would clean up everything that was tore up and whatever. 10 Okay. Well, he didn't get his permit; he just picked up 11 and pulled off. And there was corn stalks blowing all 12 winter long. We, as neighbors on the northwest, southwest 13 Mr. Gomez right straight across from him, he caught it 14 all . I caught it in my yard. I don' t think we need to 15 have that. 16 The other thing is when he farmed this piece of 17 property in violation of what he done, that road of 18 Wernett is a gravel road. So where do they turn the 19 tractors around on? On the road. On the gravel road. 20 They didn' t go out on the paved road, but they did come 21 out turn around with the equipment on our road. All that 22 does is let more dirt on that road and with the traffic 23 we ' re getting now from the schools, for the church, it is 24 unreal, if you live on the southwest side of that -- or on 25 the north side of that road. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 24 1 Now I can' t really speak for Sal and Mary. They got 2 horses right on that corner there . They asked me to speak 3 for them but I 'm sure I can ' t . They are not happy with 4 this . But they couldn ' t make it tonight . 5 I just feel that whatever Mr. Schmitt says I do not 6 know if we can hold him to his word. 7 Now there' s supposed to be a code or somebody to 8 monitor him. 9 MR. CRUZ : Code enforcement. 10 MR. JESSE RODGERS : Well, for some reason somebody 11 wasn 't monitoring him when he came out there and planted 12 stuff and went ahead and done it. It was like stick it in 13 your nose, I 'm going to do this . Now that ' s not a good 14 way to get an application through is it? No . But he done 15 it. And then he just gets done farming it and just pulls 16 up and didn't see hides or hair of him again. Came back 17 probably month or two later maybe picked up his irrigation 18 pipes . But the corn is already up 5 to 6 feet . And when 19 it dried out, we had corn stalks everywhere . 20 Now I do not know whose cattle is going to be coming 21 in on that property if they agree to this . I sit right 22 there and watch Mr. Wisse bring in truckloads -- and I 23 don ' t know if Mr. Wisse -- I 'm not going to say. But I do 24 know I see truck and trailers coming in from Oregon. Now 25 I hope that we aren' t getting some Oregon cattle up here ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 25 1 to be inseminated by a veterinarian. This is something 2 that it ' s got to be addressed. And the traffic has got to 3 be addressed. See, what the problem is here the City 4 won ' t lay claim to that road. The County don't want to 5 maintain it because we ' re kind of right there in no man' s 6 land for about 600 or 800 feet right on Wernett. And you 7 can' t tell me when he ' s going to run a farm organization 8 that he isn' t going to bring equipment down there . He 9 can ' t park it out on Road 72 . So he ' s going to park it on 10 the side of Wernett Road because it ' s a dirt road. 11 And the other thing was by him not taking control and 12 finishing up and cleaning up his product like he promised 13 he would do at that meeting when he addressed us all over 14 there, was the fact was that you could not even walk a 15 horse, a dog down the side of the road because tackweeds 16 came from his property that he had disturbed where we 17 didn ' t have that kind of tackweed problem before . And 18 honest to gosh, it was unreal the amount of tack weeds 19 that was growing right from his field. You could see the 20 vines coming from where he planted. Yet, did we ever see 21 Mr. Schmitt back to take care of it? No . I called the 22 County on it . The County said, well, that ' s part of -- 23 that is city. City says, hey, not much we could do about 24 it. He ' s off of there now. 25 So I hope that you guys will take into consideration ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 26 1 the area that we are in. And, I mean, sure there is other 2 farming going on in the city. But they don' t have the 3 traffic that we 've already got from the church and from 4 the school . Like that piece of property down off of Road 5 64 . Well, you only got one road there . You don' t have a 6 major -- you guys can' t believe what that church brings 7 in. 8 But anyway, I thank you for your time and I thank 9 you, Dave, and all you folks . But I hope you look at our 10 point of view. Thank you. 11 MR. CRUZ : Thank you very much. Okay. Next person 12 who would like to speak to this item. 13 MR. ROGER LENK: Honorable members of the Planning 14 Commission, Roger Lenk. I reside at 1817 North Road 76, 15 Pasco, Washington. 16 So I 'm at the -- help me out here, Dave, I 'm at the 17 southwest corner of the site. And again, I appreciate 18 Dave . I assume you all got a copy of the package I 19 submitted. My testimony tonight is divided into three 20 sections . 21 MR. MCDONALD: Roger, do you need to use the overhead 22 at all? 23 MR. ROGER LENK: Yes, I will . 24 MR. MCDONALD: Okay. Sophia is going to change it 25 for you then. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 27 1 MR. ROGER LENK: I won 't use it yet, but I will . 2 The first section deals why consideration of the 3 application, as submitted, is not permitted under the 4 municipal code . The second section details how this 5 application is detrimental to the local suburban and 6 residential environment and assists the Commission in 7 developing their Findings of Fact and Conclusions . The 8 final section summarizes the position of the adjoining 9 neighbors and provides recommendations to the Planning 10 Commission. 11 And again, both I and Jesse did talk to a number of 12 neighbors and we do have authorization to talk on their 13 behalf. 14 First I 'm going to discuss why consideration of the 15 application is not permitted under the Pasco Municipal 16 Code . Here Dave and I disagree. I think Pasco Municipal 17 Code Section 26 . 08 . 160 LOT is very clear. It says : Lot 18 means a portion of a subdivision, or other parcel of land, 19 intended as a unit for transfer or ownership being of 20 sufficient area and dimensions to meet minimum zoning 21 requirements for width and area. The term shall include 22 tracts or parcels . 23 In other words, a parcel tract or lot is the single 24 unit by which a minimum zoning requirement is measured. 25 The term "site" as used by the applicants are not ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 28 1 recognized as a zoning unit. Furthermore, the Pasco 2 Municipal Code Section 25 . 86 . 35 Agricultural Uses 3 (attachment 2 in your package) provides as follows : 4 Special permits for agricultural uses (commercial) shall 5 be granted for tracts of land over 10 acres in size within 6 1, 000 feet of a residential zoning district, subdivision 7 or dwelling unit . 8 Again, this application is within 1, 000 feet of the 9 residential district . 10 Applicant' s site plan is comprised of two separate 11 tracts; one parcel with nine acres; the other is 9 . 13 12 acres . That is Attachment 3 in your package . Neither of 13 them which meet the minimum 10 acre zoning requirement . 14 Here the applicant combines the acreage of two substandard 15 parcels . This is akin to owners of multiple lots banding 16 together as a site in an attempt to meet a minimum zoning 17 requirement . Nothing in the code says anything about 18 ownership of a lot in order to be able to combine them in 19 order to meet a zoning requirement; therefore, the MF 20 SP2011-002 does not meet the minimum tract size 21 requirements for an agricultural use. 22 MR. CRUZ : All right . Just so we don ' t lose track of 23 all this stuff, I want to pause here if we can. And so is 24 there anything that you 've heard here, Mr. McDonald, that 25 would challenge your interpretation or change your ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 29 1 interpretation as you stated earlier on the record? 2 MR. MCDONALD: No. There ' s still 18 acres there. 3 The 18 acres is held in one ownership. And past practice 4 and policy, if you will, has been to accept applications 5 where you have multiple properties under one ownership. 6 And the one example I gave was the RV park. 7 MR. CRUZ : And I 'm assuming our attorney doesn ' t have 8 any issue with that or take any offense to it. 9 MR. MCDONALD: I don' t believe so, no. 10 MR. CRUZ : It would have come up once or before . I 11 wanted to move past that. 12 MR. ROGER LENK: Well, this is my testimony. 13 MR. CRUZ : I do -- I just want to make sure . When we 14 get kind of long arguments -- and not that that ' s a bad 15 thing -- I want to make sure we don' t lose track of it 16 when we' re going through it even if we do kind of go 17 through one more time. 18 MR. ROGER LENK: I appreciate that . Again, I believe 19 the notice was substandard as indicated. It was very 20 confusing to the property owners . It did say it was 21 mailed out to those within 300 feet as noted on the 22 bottom. It should have said 1, 000 feet . So, again, we 23 would think that we would have an another hearing and make 24 sure that we send out the properly labelled notice in 25 advance. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 30 1 Next item. Animal pasturing is not personal to 2 applicant or property. Applicant is requesting to pasture 3 animals; however, applicant is actually requesting that 4 Carl Wisse of 7408 West Wernett Road, Pasco, be allowed to 5 pasture his animals . Mr. Wisse currently pastures beef 6 and provides animal husbandry services in a squalid, foul 7 smelling, offensive, fly ridden, unsecured, unmaintained 8 unhealthful pen at his property. This operation is 9 offensive to everyone in the neighborhood. The resultant 10 fecal infested effluent negatively impacts all adjoining 11 properties . Applicant intends to assist Mr. Wisse in the 12 expansion of his squalid operation onto the subject vacant 13 unfenced property. 14 In order to make my point I have some photos of 15 acceptable pasturing in a residential district, along with 16 photos of the applicant ' s site and pasturing practices . I 17 will leave these photos with the Planning Commission 18 secretary for inclusion into the open record. 19 MR. CRUZ : Actually, if you would like, you can show 20 them on the screen right now. 21 MR. ROGER LENK: I 'm going to put them in the package 22 just in case it gets appealed to the City Council . 23 All right. Landscape . First photo . This is of a 24 sheep and lamb pasture in the local neighborhood. It' s 25 tidy. Well maintained and well established. Who wouldn ' t ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 31 1 want to live next door to those cute little lambs? 2 Second photo is of a cow pasture in the neighborhood. 3 Same comments apply. Nice, clean, no smell . If you look 4 hard, you can see those cows in the background. I think 5 the next photo has some of the close-ups of the cows . Oh, 6 well, the cows were there last week. Sorry about that . 7 MR. CRUZ : That was a first. 8 MR. ROGER LENK: Next photo is a horse pasture . Nice 9 and clean. Makes you feel like you are in Kentucky. 10 I 'm not sure if that ' s going to be landscape but that 11 looks all right . 12 Next photo is Mr. Wisse ' s cow pasture . This pasture 13 is owned by the person who while be putting cattle on the 14 subject site. In the summer this pasture is full of fecal 15 infested water and stinks to high heaven. No one in their 16 right mind would wish to live near this place. 17 MR. CRUZ : Can I ask a clarifying question? 18 MR. ROGER LENK: Yes . 19 MR. CRUZ : How big is that area? 20 MR. ROGER LENK: 3 . 8 acres . 21 This area is full of water. As you can see, it ' s a 22 puddle back there. There ' s no grass whatsoever. It is 23 just an absolute abhorrent mess . 24 MR. CRUZ : But how many animals are on those 3 . 8 25 acres? ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 32 1 MR. ROGER LENK: Jesse, do you know? 2 MR. JESSE RODGERS : It varies . I 've counted as high 3 as 29 head of cows on 3 . 8 acres with his home, his shop 4 and his feedlot . And so you take the numbers at 29 head. 5 He was called by the -- 6 MR. CRUZ : I know we ' re getting there. So in the 7 interest of time, Mr. Lenk -- 8 MR. ROGER LENK: You asked the question. 9 MR. CRUZ : Could you kind of give us, based on some 10 stuff we may have heard in the peanut gallery, about how 11 many animals you guys have observed. 12 MR. ROGER LENK: I 've seen 29 or more . He brings 13 them in, when they used to pasture on the Faith Assembly 14 site, they would regularly be in our yard ruining our 15 sprinklers . He has absolutely no control over them 16 whatsoever. No fencing. Just an absolute mess . Nothing 17 like you see in the previous photos . 18 Next photo, same . My kids feel sorry for those cows . 19 Cows look down the street and see how lucky the other cows 20 are. I think they would even prefer to be those cows that 21 were wrapped in butcher paper it is so bad there. 22 Next photo, more squalid conditions . Ever been there 23 in the summer? It would make you toss your cookies . See 24 those tires? All over the place . Great propagating -- 25 great for propagating West Nile Virus . We just don ' t need ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 33 1 this in our neighborhood. 2 Next photo the seagulls just love this place . Better 3 than the Richland landfill . 4 Next photo . Subject site doesn' t look anything like 5 the pastured cows on it or livestock on it. No 6 established grass . Just rocks broken up concrete and 7 asbestos pipe, grass, sticks and tumbleweeds with 8 livestock wandering around. This will turn into fugitive 9 dust in no time . 10 Next photo more of the same . This is still left over 11 from the illegal corn maze of two years ago. For all the 12 City knows these containers could be full of paraquat, 13 agent orange or -- well, I ' ll leave it to your fertile 14 imaginations . 15 Where are the applicant ' s MSDS sheets? I think he ' s 16 in violation of federal law. Just a small taste of the 17 applicants farming practices . Two years that ' s been 18 sitting there. 19 Another photo. Great for pasturing, right? Would 20 you eat animal that grazed here on old hubcaps, plastic 21 barrels and leftover -- that were leftover from a corn 22 maze? Again, I ' ll leave you these photos . 23 Since all special permits are personal to the 24 applicant, Master File SP2011-002 was submitted as a ruse 25 to permit Mr. Wisse to expand his offensive squalid ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 34 1 operation to other portions of the neighborhood. 2 Second, I 'm going to discuss the negative impacts to 3 the intended suburban residential environment. First, I 4 need to comment on staff' s statements in the staff report. 5 It states : The location of farms in West Pasco within the 6 I-82 corridor has demonstrated that farms within close 7 proximity or dwellings can be operated harmoniously with 8 intended uses . I guess someone forgot the three hours of 9 public testimony over Master File PP09-003, the Loviisa 10 case, where residents complained endlessly about noise, 11 fugitive dust and tumbleweeds resulting from the 12 neighboring farming activities . But I digress . 13 The applicant can't needs to be reminded that this is 14 the beginning not the end of the process . On July 17, 15 2009 hours after completion of the Planning Commission' s 16 Open Record Hearing for Master File SP09-007 applicant 17 initiated farming activities on the site, despite not 18 having received any approvals . The Planning Commission 19 and City must remind applicant that no activity may be 20 engaged in prior to the issuance of a special permit. The 21 City must be responsible for monitoring to ensure that 22 such activities do not take place . The City should not 23 tip-toe around the issue solely because of the political 24 clout of Faith Assembly Christian Center. 25 And again, Dave mentioned earlier about the threat to ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 35 1 develop. We didn' t hear that tonight. We 've heard that 2 in the past . Again, based on the economy of the situation 3 it is very unlikely that the church would develop those 4 two parcels . They are liened against as a method for them 5 coming up with money to build the facility that they have 6 there . And, in fact, they are under water to a certain 7 extent . Therefore, neighbors should not be coerced into 8 believing that approval is necessary in order to avoid the 9 inevitability of development. 10 Next, the applicant' s established farming practices 11 have been detrimental to the intended Suburban Residential 12 environment . The City is well aware of the negative 13 impact on local neighbors resulting from applicant ' s 14 activities and its pursuit of the corn maze. Attachment 4 15 in your package . 16 Despite no approvals and no permits being issued, the 17 applicant commenced farming activities . Applicants 18 indicated that they were aware of -- unaware of necessary 19 permits but had already made application to the City. And 20 if you do a record check, they've gone through the process 21 several times in Franklin County and in other 22 jurisdictions . 23 Electrical and irrigation services were installed. 24 Irrigation lines were laid and crops cultivated. Farm 25 equipment and irrigation lines were store at the Faith ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 36 1 Assembly Christian parking lot . Moreover, the applicants 2 illegal farming activity included tilling, unfettered 3 irrigation and disproportionally high utilization of 4 pesticides and fertilizers resulting in over-spraying and 5 drainage onto adjacent properties . This issue was 6 especially offensive to local farmers who have adopted and 7 abide by certified organic methods . 8 Irrigations broke when the applicant was not present 9 and water cascaded onto and eroded neighboring properties . 10 After Master File SP09-007 was denied by City Council 11 -- consistent with what Jesse testified to earlier -- 12 applicant completely abandoned the site . This resulted in 13 blowing corn leaves, dried vegetation and weeds, fugitive 14 dust, tumbleweeds, storage of unsightly farming equipment, 15 storage of unsightly amusement ride equipment and 16 ancillary equipment, storage of two tractor trailers, 17 irrigation pipe and other non-farming equipment . 18 These numerous code violations were not resolved 19 until nearly a year later. The neighbors were, and 20 remain, outraged at applicants total disregard for the 21 intended suburban residential environment. 22 Along the same vein, former landlord of the applicant 23 read about this application in the Tri-City Herald. That 24 person is still trying to force the applicant to remove 25 farming implements from their property. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 37 1 Next tonight ' s Findings of Fact and Conclusions have 2 already been determined by the City Council . Pasco 3 Municipal Code Section 25 .22 -- Attachment 5 in your 4 packet -- outlines the permitted accessory and conditional 5 uses in the RS-20 Suburban Residential District. Pasco 6 Municipal Code Section 25 . 86 . 60 details the six criteria 7 by which the Planning Commission judges whether a special 8 permit is or is not detrimental to the intended Suburban 9 Residential environment and becomes the basis of its 10 recommendation for or against approval . 11 At its November 2, 2009 and December 7, 2009 closed 12 record hearings, City Council separately considered both a 13 corn maze use and a farming only use by way of MF 14 SP09-007 . Same use . Same site. Same applicant. Yogi 15 Berra put it best, "this is like deja vu all over again. " 16 Fortunately, by Resolution 3205 adopted on 17 December 7, 2009 -- that' s Attachment 6 in your package -- 18 in denying SP09-007, the Pasco City Council provided the 19 Planning Commission direction on how to answer questions 20 posed under PMC 25 . 86 . 60 for a farming only use at this 21 site by this applicant. Those verbatim findings of facts 22 and conclusions taken with the information herein are as 23 follows : One, the proposed use may be in accordance with 24 the goals, policies and objectives and text of the 25 comprehensive plan. The answer is no. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 38 1 According to the conclusions taken from Resolution 2 3205 farming uses are unclassified uses . It further 3 states unclassified uses require extraordinary review 4 through a public hearing process . Applying for a special 5 permit does not guarantee the application will be 6 approved. Certainly the addition of squalid pasturing 7 activity will detour development in the area. 8 Number 3 : The proposed use will be constructed, 9 maintained and operated in harmony with the existing or 10 intended character of the general vicinity. The answer is 11 clearly no . 12 Quoting from the conclusions taken from Resolution 13 3205, the existing character of the area is that of a 14 Suburban Residential neighborhood. Additional vibration, 15 dust and equipment usage associated with the farming 16 activity will not encourage the development of permitted 17 uses in the general vicinity. 18 In addition, applicant' s demonstrated aggressive 19 tilling and unfettered irrigation and a disproportionally 20 high utilization of fertilizer resulting in over-spraying 21 and drainage onto adjacent properties some of which 22 exercise organic farming methods, will not be in harmony 23 with the local environment. Applicant' s demonstrated 24 disregard for joining properties via improper storage of 25 farm equipment irrigation lines will still -- will ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 39 1 similarly distract from the harmony. 2 Applicant' s demonstrated disregard for the local 3 neighbors after completion of farming activities by 4 abandoning the site resulting in blowing leaves, dry 5 vegetation and weeds, fugitive dust, storage of unsightly 6 equipment requiring the intervention of code enforcement 7 officials add to this disharmony. Furthermore, the 8 squalid conditions created by the proposed unsecured 9 pasturing actively will negatively impact all neighbors 10 and is not in our harmony with residential suburban 11 environment . 12 Five: Will the operations in connection with the 13 proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by 14 reason of noise, fumes, vibration, dust, traffic or 15 flashing lights than would be the operation of any 16 permitted uses within the district? The answer is yes . 17 Again, quoting from the Resolution 3205, the use of 18 farm equipment to plow and plant fields in the 19 neighborhood will also create noise, dust, vibrations and 20 diesel exhaust that is typically not present in suburban 21 neighborhoods . Further that squalid environment created 22 by pasturing of animals on an unsecured vacant site will 23 be very objectionable. 24 Six: Will the proposed use endanger public health or 25 safety if located and developed where proposed or in a way ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 40 1 become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The 2 answer is yes . 3 Again, I quote from Resolution 3205 : Farming 4 activities have a very high probability to become a 5 nuisance to current and future residents of the 6 neighborhood. I will add that pasturing activities will 7 endanger public health given the squalid practices that 8 currently followed and will certainly become a nuisance to 9 the permitted uses of the district . 10 Utilizing the information discussed this evening, as 11 well as City Council ' s own conclusions taken from 12 Resolution 3205, the Planning Commission cannot make a 13 favorable finding and should recommend -- should not 14 recommend approval of MF SP2011-002 . 15 I 'm going to try to speed things up. Finally, 16 neighbors remain concerned that political expediencies may 17 again take precedent over the rule of law. If the 18 Planning Commission is predisposed to recommending 19 approval of MF SP2011-002, local neighbors see necessary 20 the inclusion of mitigating conditions and requirements -- 21 provided as attachment 7 in your packet -- to seriously 22 address the issues brought forward this evening. These 23 include: Consolidating the two parcels to meet the 24 minimum tract requirement . Having a public hearing with 25 properly labeled notices . ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 41 1 In consideration of neighboring farms utilizing 2 organic methods, prior to the issuing of the special 3 permit, applicant shall file with the City a copy of his 4 certification as an organic farm in accordance with the 5 Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 as administrated by 6 the Department of Agriculture and adhere of these 7 requirements as it relates to all farming under 8 SP2011-002 . Applicant shall prepare organic only 9 conservation plan approved by a farm service agency and 10 adjacent neighbors . A copy of the plan will be submitted 11 to the city prior to the issuance of a special permit. 12 The special permit shall be for farming only purposes . No 13 sales, sales stand, visitors, amusement, entertainment, 14 agri-tainment or any fee-related activity shall be 15 permitted on site or on adjacent properties . No parking 16 shall be permitted on site or adjacent lots . 17 Prior to the issuance of special permit, applicant 18 shall provide a report to the City prepared by a certified 19 APRS advising that all crops to be cultivated are bee 20 beneficial . 21 As noted in your packet, the field corn is not a bee 22 beneficial package . We have a number of farms in the area 23 that have bees and they all suffered colony losses as a 24 result of the applicants field corn. 25 Applicant shall at all times maintain and provide at ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 42 1 least six active individual bee colonies and hives for 2 pollination purposes . 3 Applicant shall not store any equipment, machinery, 4 supplies, irrigation pipe or other materials on site or at 5 any adjacent property. You just do not know the problem 6 that this caused last time around. Stuff left everywhere . 7 I used to be able to see the sunrise in the morning. When 8 he came in there with his tractor trailers, all of his 9 equipment, his pipe, I couldn' t see anything out of my 10 backyard except for trash. It was a just totally 11 irritating. 12 Farming activities shall be limited to between 7 a.m. 13 and 7 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 9 a.m. through 7 14 p.m. Friday, Saturday and Sunday for our Hanford friends . 15 Special permits shall be valid for one year only and 16 require annual renewals . 17 The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa, row crops 18 such as tomato, peppers . The definition of row crops does 19 not include pumpkins, melons, wheat, barley, buckwheat, 20 corn and similar grains or crops which drift into adjacent 21 properties, rot in the field, or attract nuisance birds . 22 In order to avoid issues with fugitive dust, animals 23 wandering outside unfenced areas, toxic, effluent and 24 other squalid conditions no pasturing of livestock or 25 animals shall be permitted. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 43 1 The entire site shall be planted with a successful 2 cover crop to control fugitive dust at least 15 days prior 3 to the shut off of the irrigation system. The irrigation 4 water or spray shall not be permitted to drift or drain 5 onto adjacent properties or to the public right-of-way. 6 Adjoining property owners and neighbors thank you in 7 advance for your consideration of their concerns . And I 'd 8 be happy to answer any questions if you have any. 9 MR. CRUZ : Well, first, this is probably one of the 10 most well prepared testimonies by anybody that I 've seen 11 in the time I 've been on the Planning Commission. And it 12 was delivered with passion and a little bit of humor, so 13 thank you very much for doing that . 14 You know, I -- we will go all over the place here . 15 And so what I would like to do before -- actually, before 16 I lose track, how many more people want to speak to this 17 item? Just one more . Okay. What I ' ll do is -- because 18 we have a couple more kind of process issues that I want 19 to make sure that we get Mr. McDonald' s responses to on 20 the record, just so when the City Council sees this that 21 they can hear what there is, if we have other stuff to 22 work on, that that ' s covered. I ' ll ask Dave if you have 23 any other items that you want to add to your comments 24 earlier. 25 MR. MCDONALD: (Shook head. ) ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 44 1 MR. ROGER LENK: Okay. 2 MR. CRUZ : Hold on for a minute. 3 MR. MCDONALD: You ' re asking me now? 4 MR. CRUZ : Yes . 5 MR. MCDONALD: I don' t really have any additional 6 comments . There ' s I guess one related to resolution -- 7 again, Resolution 3205 . As I stated earlier, most 8 comments in that resolution and findings of fact related 9 to the corn maze . Roger was reading a few of the 10 conclusions and added the word "farm" I believe in one 11 instance . And on number 3 I don ' t see where it mentions 12 farm. It talks about the corn maze and the fall festival 13 and commercial operation. Those are just minor things . 14 I guess after all of the audience has had an 15 opportunity to speak we need to talk a little bit about 16 direction for staff on preparing the report for next 17 month. 18 MR. CRUZ : Oh, yeah, I 've been taking notes . 19 MR. ROGER LENK: That ' s why you have a stenographer. 20 MR. CRUZ : I don't see those notes . 21 To that last point, one of the things I was trying to 22 follow along and read a little bit I think what Mr. 23 McDonald says is kind of accurate, especially if you look 24 in your Attachment 6 kind of toward the back there, which 25 is -- make sure I get the right section -- conclusions ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 45 1 based on PMC 25 . 68 . 060 . You know, the characterization of 2 concern here is based on the corn maze and the traffic, a 3 lot of those other things, and less so the farming 4 operation. And certainly both have the potential to be a 5 nuisance, but from my -- you know, thank you for bringing 6 all that up because it ' s refreshed my memory from the 7 marathon session last time. A lot of energy was focused 8 on the traffic and the noise and the associated, you know, 9 party atmosphere that would go along with the corn maze. 10 You know, the farming stuff, we get that . But again, a 11 lot of these issues in the past were the corn maze. 12 MR. ROGER LENK: And I agree. And I 'm not trying to 13 hide anything. That ' s why you were provided the entire 14 resolution. However, conclusions 1 through 6 did include 15 issues that relate to the farming only activity, which was 16 one of the issues that council looked at . It did look at 17 the two activities separately. 18 MR. CRUZ : As did we . And again, I appreciate you 19 bringing all that information to bear here. I wish I 20 would have read it two days ago. 21 Any questions for Mr. Lenk from the Planning 22 Commission? 23 MR. ROGER LENK: Thank you. 24 MR. CRUZ : Thank you, again. I especially like the 25 wrapped cow meat . ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 46 1 Okay. Next person that would like to speak to this 2 item. 3 MR. JOHN SCHELINE: My name is John Scheline . I 4 wasn ' t here on time to get sworn in, if you did that. 5 MR. CRUZ : Oh, yeah, we did. Just to make sure we 6 don ' t mess this up, I ' ll read from my little script here. 7 Okay. 8 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth in the 9 testimony that you give; if so, please answer I do. 10 MR. JOHN SCHELINE: I do. 11 MR. CRUZ : All right . Thank you, sir. 12 MR. JOHN SCHELINE: I live at 1908 North Road 72, 13 which is on the church property. I speak on behalf of two 14 things because I 'm the executive pastor of Faith Assembly 15 and I 'm also the closest neighbor to the location in 16 question. It surrounds me on two sides . So my property 17 actually touches two sides of this property in question. 18 You know, I appreciate the preparedness of the last 19 speaker. It sounds great. A lot of flowery words . And I 20 would really encourage you to be careful to take that with 21 a grain of salt . Because one of the things he showed was 22 a picture of the southwest corner of that property. His 23 corner is just several feet away. And if I would have 24 brought a picture of his property, he has some stuff on 25 his property right now that is about 6 feet tall, garbage, ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 47 1 brush on his property. I think it would be difficult for 2 him to see the sunset from his property or the sunrise 3 from his property with that tall of stuff on his as well . 4 He ' s in the county, though, so he can live in slightly 5 different agreements than what Faith Assembly is able to 6 do. 7 Having said that, Faith Assembly wants to a good 8 neighbor. And it ' s our huge desire to be a good neighbor. 9 Our lead pastor Daryl Johnson went over and spoke with 10 Roger Lenk last year during this process of the corn maze 11 and one of the things that he stated was, quote, I 'm not 12 against the -- I 'm not against farming, I 'm against the 13 corn maze . And yet, we ' re here today. And it seems as 14 though he' s against the farming. It' s gotten to the point 15 where, as of this last week, Faith Assembly has actually 16 secured legal counsel to help decide what we ' re going to 17 do from here on out. 18 Now let me speak to the issue of Faith Assembly being 19 a neighbor. Faith Assembly desires to be a good neighbor 20 in our community. In 2010 Faith Assembly gave 57, 000 21 hours of volunteer service to the Tri-Cities . We gave 22 over $1 . 7 million with services and cash donations to the 23 Tri-Cities community. We definitely do not want to be 24 people who take from our community. We want to give . 25 That ' s been our desire all along. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 48 1 We have been at this site since 1984 . We have 2 purchased the north piece since then. But we've been on 3 that site since 1984 . The church has been in Pasco for 4 over 50 years . It ' s a great church and we desire to be a 5 good neighbor, not just to our immediate neighbors, but to 6 our entire City of Pasco and our entire region. 7 Now as for me being a neighbor, I 'd like to stand in 8 support of the farm. You know, I hear one neighbor 9 complain about the tackweeds and about some of those 10 issues . Yes, Dr. Wisse ' s cows did get out sometimes . 11 They even came to my front lawn. You know, my kids and I 12 had to go chase them back in and get them back in. So I 'm 13 not denying any of those facts . But there has not been 14 more of an issue since we 've started farming -- or since 15 Phil started farming last year. There ' s not been more of 16 an issue with tackweeds or mice or gophers or anything of 17 the nature than there has in any previous year. And I 've 18 lived in that location for eight years . So, you know, to 19 say that A causes B is not necessarily correct. 20 So I just want to stand in favor of the farm. And I 21 also would add to that that I think conditions are 22 acceptable . You know, I don 't think that you can just 23 carte blanche say, hey, go farm and do your thing. But 24 that ' s why we ' re here. You know, that' s why you' re here 25 to provide conditions and put it in a meaningful order ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 49 1 and, you know, make it happen. But I stand in support of 2 it. 3 MR. CRUZ : All right . Thank you. Thank you. Any 4 questions from any of the commissioners? 5 Anyone else who would like to speak? 6 We ' ll come back to you, sir. Anybody else who would 7 like -- 8 MR. JESSE RODGERS : I would like to maybe have 30 9 seconds of time if not -- 10 MR. CRUZ : We ' re cool . This is going to go a while. 11 So what we ' ll do is we ' ll let everybody go through once 12 and then if you would like to add anything to the record, 13 we ' ll do that before the applicant comes back up again. 14 MR. WHITE: His name is Jesse Rodgers . 15 MR. CRUZ : Mr. Jesse Rodgers . 16 MS . JANET JOHNSON: I don't have much to say. I 17 think that a wonderful case was made -- not the last 18 person, but the person before that . He did certainly did 19 a marvelous job. 20 MR. CRUZ : Ma ' am, can I ask you a question? Were you 21 here to be sworn in? 22 MS . JANET JOHNSON: Pardon? 23 MR. CRUZ : Were you here to be sworn in? 24 MS . JANET JOHNSON: Sworn in for what? 25 MR. CRUZ : We ask that everybody give an affirmation. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 50 1 MS . JANET JOHNSON: No, I wasn' t. 2 MR. CRUZ : We will do that over there, too . So first 3 can you please state your name and address for the record. 4 MS . JANET JOHNSON: Yes, my name is Janet Johnson. I 5 live at 2104 North Road 68 . 6 MR. CRUZ : Okay. 7 MS . JANET JOHNSON: Pasco 99301 . 8 MR. CRUZ : And I 'm going to read you the oath now. 9 Do you swear or affirm -- raise your right hand. 10 Raise your right hand. 11 Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth in the 12 testimony that you give; if so, please answer I do. 13 MS . JANET JOHNSON: I do. 14 MR. CRUZ : Okay. Thank you. All right . We ' re good 15 to go. 16 MS . JANET JOHNSON: Okay. My things are more 17 general . But I believe in keeping residential zones for 18 residential . I think when you go to buy a house you look 19 at what the area has, what it is going to be like in a few 20 years . And when you start changing things from 21 residential to farming, you've changed what all of us 22 bought our houses thinking it was going to be like. I 23 just don ' t think that ' s fair to the people . What ' s the 24 point of zoning then if you' re going to allow it to change 25 that much? ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 51 1 At any rate, I 'm opposed to the farming on the 2 approximately eight acres that are zoned residential . I 3 think if you zone something residential, you ought to keep 4 it residential . You owe that to the people who have 5 bought houses in the neighborhood. That ' s what everyone 6 is counting on who buys . Every time you buy a house you 7 look at what is going to be around. And to change that is 8 just not fair; I don't think. 9 I also have a concern about traffic . A big concern 10 about traffic. I 'm right at the corner of Wernett and 11 Road 68 . And that ' s where two people were killed this 12 last year. The two women. And their car ended up on my 13 property. It was hit right when it got on Road 68 coming 14 from Wernett and was knocked onto my property kind of down 15 -- there ' s a little hill there . And both women were 16 killed. And anything that increases traffic or changes 17 the nature of the traffic in this area has to be watched. 18 68 is very dangerous right now. Not just that case, but 19 there have been other serious injuries in the area. And I 20 think it ' s very important to watch what goes in and to 21 avoid any unnecessary traffic in that area, including farm 22 equipment and things like that that might be moving 23 around. Anyway, that ' s what I have to say. Thank you. 24 MR. CRUZ : One more thing before you leave, just for 25 the benefit of the audience. Zoning changes are one of ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 52 1 those things that just kind of happen. And it is 2 interesting here because, you know, I remember a case -- 3 what is the subdivision right below Desert Plateau that 4 was farmed? Is it First Place? 5 MR. MCDONALD: It ' s called First Place now. 6 MR. CRUZ : First Place. And in this case the 7 property owners, you know, didn't want it to change from 8 agricultural to residential . That is a natural part of 9 increasing density in the city. So as much as we would 10 like it all to stay the same, that ' s kind of part of how, 11 you know, we start to build urban density and things 12 consistent with our plan. So just for everybody' s 13 benefit. 14 Anything, Mr. White or Mr. McDonald? 15 MR. MCDONALD: No. 16 MR. CRUZ : That ' s just kind of part of the deal . 17 One of the other things is that as development 18 increases or decreases to suit the City' s needs, sometimes 19 we have to make those changes a part of the process as 20 public input. You know, these are a little bit unique . 21 Churches, agricultural operations are unclassified or 22 special uses so we have to do something different but. . . 23 MS . JANET JOHNSON: It ' s kind of a reversion of what 24 usually would happen. 25 MR. CRUZ : Exactly. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 53 1 MS . JANET JOHNSON: Which is a breakdown of the 2 farming property into the more -- 3 MR. CRUZ : Exactly. Again, it ' s for everybody' s 4 benefit. 5 MS . JANET JOHNSON: I think I don' t want to go 6 backwards . 7 MR. CRUZ : Okay. Thank you again for your comments . 8 Okay. Anybody else who hasn't had a chance to speak 9 that would like to, come forward at this time. 10 All right, Jesse, come on back. 11 MR. JESSE RODGERS : Like I say, I guess I gave my 12 name already. But, like I say, I live right north of 13 there . I see what' s going on, so I 'm addressed to Dave -- 14 MR. CRUZ : Jesse, we need to have you please re-state 15 your name and address for the record. Sorry. 16 MR. JESSE RODGERS : Oh. Jesse Rodgers . 7309 Wernett 17 Pasco, I guess . 18 MR. CRUZ : Thank you. 19 MR. JESSE RODGERS : Well, I 'm not here to question 20 Mr. Schmitt ' s integrity. But if, for some given reason 21 this is passed, I have not heard anything from you what 22 you ' re going to demand on sanitation out there . The use 23 of a farm wheel tractor was good in the old days out in 24 the blocks . But when you got neighbors around you and 25 somebody gets off the tractor and goes to the back ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 54 1 bathroom, my wife does not need to see this . Or when the 2 children are playing out there and they go to the 3 bathroom. This does not need to be seen . And the reason 4 I 'm saying this is I did not hear anything that would 5 require sanitation out there if, for some given reason, 6 you guys pass this . And a lot ifs to him. I thank you. 7 MR. CRUZ : Thank you very much. 8 Okay. Anybody else who would like to speak on this 9 before we bring the applicant back up? 10 All right, Mr. Lenk. 11 MR. ROGER LENK: I just have to defend my wife. 12 Roger Lenk, 1817 North 76, Pasco. 13 You could come to our property. It ' s the finest 14 piece of property on that entire block. You couldn' t find 15 one piece of paper. There is no trash. My wife won an 16 award for the bird bluffs that are in the back. Totally 17 irresponsible characterization of how we keep our property 18 up. 19 MR. CRUZ : All right . Thank you. Okay. So what 20 we ' ll do is we will recess for -- how long? Ten minutes . 21 We will recess for 10 minutes . It ' s been an hour and a 22 half straight. Then we will reconvene at 8 : 40 p.m. 23 (Recess was taken. ) 24 MR. CRUZ : You know, I hate to use this thing, but it 25 works (indicated) . Again, so it ' s been about 8 : 40, so we ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 55 1 are going to pick up the hearing where we left off. Let ' s 2 see, we are at Mr. Schmitt. If you would like to come 3 back to the podium. It ' s your turn, if you would like 4 one . 5 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: My name is Phil Schmitt, 1523 6 "A" Fowler Street, Richland, Washington. 7 Just in rebuttal, a couple of things that the 8 neighbors said or that they have concerns with. I ' d like 9 to address those, if I could. Number 1, in 2009 we 10 applied for a corn maze, to operate a corn maze and 11 pumpkin patch at the site, a commercial operation that 12 would bring visitors and people out to that site . And 13 just to clarify 100 percent, this is only for farming here 14 that we are applying for tonight. 15 Let ' s go back to 2009 . A little bit of back history 16 on that. We applied for that and there was a public 17 hearing in mid July. We started farming almost 18 immediately within two days of that point when irrigation 19 water was then provided by the irrigation district. We 20 waited for electricity to get pulled. So we weren' t 21 trying to pull the wool over anyone ' s eyes . We started 22 farming. We had absolutely no idea that we needed a 23 permit from the City of Pasco to farm. 24 Since 1997, ever since I finished up at Washington 25 State University in the ag business program, been farming ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 56 1 in Benton/Franklin County, whether it be corn maze or 2 raising produce or custom farming and I had absolutely no 3 clue that we needed a permit to farm. I always knew we 4 needed a permit to operate a corn maze, which we had done, 5 up to that point, 16 corn mazes in a 12-year span. We 6 also had done it in Spokane County, Yakima County and then 7 Franklin and Benton County. So we have had absolutely no 8 idea that we were illegally farming. We found out in mid 9 August from a letter. We got a letter from the planning 10 council -- or from the Planning Commission. I think it 11 was from Dave -- by Dave McDonald -- that we were 12 illegally farming. We came in, we had that meeting two 13 days before the public or the next Planning Commission 14 date in August and we met with Dave White -- excuse me, 15 Rick White and Dave McDonald. And we were completely 16 advised by municipal code how we were illegally farming. 17 It was utter shock at that point. 18 We continued to irrigate at that point in the field 19 with the hopes that we would get a farm permit. We 20 weren' t trying to create a ruse or be dishonest or 21 anything like that. We were just irrigating the crop at 22 that point . We did not plant our pumpkins that year 23 because we were told we are illegally farming. We did not 24 transplant our pumpkins . We had about 12, 000 pumpkins 25 transplants we were going to put in the northern part of ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 57 1 that site on that overhead right there. We did not plant 2 that seed. That ground was fallow and laid open. 3 And so there ' s been all kinds of interesting 4 accusations about we ignored the City. We did not. We 5 quit farming at that point. We did keep irrigating in the 6 hopes that in the permit process we would be allowed to 7 farm. But because our permit process was for a commercial 8 venture to run a corn maze, not to farm, that ' s why it was 9 not allowed. 10 There was notification beyond 300 feet. And to be 11 illegally allowed to keep farming in 2009 we granted that 12 permit, even though in our special use permit it said we 13 couldn't farm in there . Most of it is pertaining to 14 operating the corn maze. And that ' s a commercial venture 15 so we understand why the City said, no, you cannot farm 16 because it wasn' t properly done. There was no 17 notification to 1, 000 feet and there was other 18 circumstances that we were illegally farming. Not a good 19 way to start off an operation; hence, why we are doing it 20 this way. 21 We did not abandon the property. We were notified by 22 letters, and also by the code enforcement, that if we did 23 farm anymore, that Faith Assembly being the landlords for 24 us on that property, could be fined $500 a day per day for 25 any violations . We quit farming immediately. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 58 1 In September we did not knock down the corn. We left 2 it up as a cover crop as per the natural resources 3 conservation. That ' s by the Department of the United 4 States Government. And corn stalks are traditionally left 5 up. We left the corn up to conserve the soil . We also 6 talked about that plan with Dave McDonald and it was 7 agreed to leave the corn stalks up. 8 The area that was going to be the pumpkin patch that 9 was fallow in the fall of 2009, we planted spring wheat in 10 it as a cover crop to make sure that soil did not move and 11 we irrigated that. That happened the first week of 12 October. We had permission from Dave McDonald to get that 13 done . We were trying to make everybody happy to do that. 14 Throughout this process there have been interesting 15 phone calls to Department of Labor and Industries for 16 working our children out there, moving irrigation pipes 17 to, my absolute favorite, was the child protective 18 services who came out and investigated having children 19 working out there under extreme duress as it was called. 20 We were not allowed to find out or contact the people that 21 contacted those agencies . But there was just a little bit 22 of harassment going on right there . 23 And I understand that the neighbors who were upset we 24 were illegally farming. We were upset we were illegally 25 farming. We invested an incredible amount of money in ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 59 1 2009 on the property -- the pump irrigation system, the 2 three phase power we brought in, the irrigation rights, 3 fertilizer, the corn and all the labor. I mean, 4 unbelievable amount of money. We did not bring in a penny 5 from the property. We left it fallow. We did not abandon 6 the property. We were told that we would be fined -- 7 Haywire Farms, my family -- would be fined if we did 8 anything to that ground. We couldn't bring a disk out 9 there . We couldn' t mow it. We couldn' t do anything, so 10 we left it as it was . 11 So under normal agricultural practices once the field 12 corn, for example, is harvested most farmers come in and 13 till one pass . Breakdown the corn a little bit and 14 incorporate the leaves . We weren' t allowed to do that . 15 We did not do that. We didn ' t want to get fined, nor did 16 we want Faith Assembly our landlords to get fined for 17 that. We did not touch that property. We were planning 18 in 2010, one year ago today basically, to apply for a farm 19 permit, just a farm permit. We did not proceed with that 20 in 2000 -- the winter months of 2010 because Faith 21 Assembly was then going through the process of getting a 22 special permit to run their preschool . We didn ' t want to 23 interfere with that process . Once that was done, then we 24 wanted to go forward. It didn't make economical sense to 25 go to apply for it after Faith Assembly received their ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 60 1 special use permit, later on in early, that summer, for us 2 to plant that year. So that ' s why we chose to do it now. 3 So we left our equipment in place there, a disk, our 4 corn planter, our irrigation trailer, things that we would 5 farm in 2009 -- or in 2010 . And we pulled that equipment 6 as soon as we realized we weren' t going to be able to farm 7 that year, nor apply for a permit . So I apologize to the 8 neighbors that think that we were trying to -- well, have 9 illegal activities in Pasco. We were not. We had no clue 10 until after we were notified in mid August that we were 11 illegally farming. That being said, I hope that covers 12 most of that. 13 And so, yes, there were this last year tumbleweeds 14 grew back up, the cheat grass grew back up. I 'm sure 15 there was mice out there. Lots of pheasants . Everyone 16 was enjoying the corn stalks and the wheat that came up. 17 When we farm there are no weeds out there because we 18 continue farming on a year round basis . We spray the 19 weeds . We mow the crops down. And our farming practices 20 and the history of what we 've done in the past shows that 21 we quit farming, we completely quit farming when we were 22 told to and we haven' t been back on the property except to 23 move the irrigation pipes and the equipment. 24 So I am very sorry that any corn leaves blew onto 25 anyone ' s property, along with the tumbleweeds . Our phone ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 61 1 number is readily available and we will share it with the 2 planning department and the neighbors . If they would like 3 to call us, we would gladly come take care of any trash, 4 agricultural trash, organic trash that grows up and blows 5 onto their property. We have no problem doing that. 6 As for Mr. Carl Wisse, you were shown some 7 photographs here of the cattle . And you were asking, Mr. 8 Cruz, about how many cattle you see on that operation. 9 The shed in the background with a cow, that property you 10 are looking at, those two photographs, that was county 11 property right there . That was Mr. Wisse ' s property. As 12 to how many he ' s allowed to keep right there, I am not 13 sure . You would have check with him. 14 I want to make sure the commission and the planning 15 department understands that was County property you were 16 looking at; that you were not looking at Faith Assembly' s 17 ground right there . 18 There' s a brush pile on that property. I 'm sure you 19 saw a photo of that. That was from the trees that were 20 cut down from the bottom corner of the field. And we ' re 21 slowly disposing of those, but we haven' t touched those 22 because we don' t want to get called for illegal activity 23 out there . So until we find out what we are going to do, 24 the brush pile will mostly likely stay. 25 Pastor John was referring to a brush pile that our ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 62 1 neighbor Mr. Lenk has on the corner that ' s been 6 feet 2 tall and it ' s just brush, but he has one there. It ' s in 3 the county so his is legal; our' s, I guess, is illegal to 4 have that brush pile right there . 5 I think I covered that. I would like to jump to Page 6 4 of Mr. Lenk' s letter. That' s one thing I don ' t know if 7 it ' s an attachment in your packet . 8 MR. CRUZ : Okay. 9 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: But, Mr. Cruz, you commented 10 earlier how impressive and what a neat packet that was and 11 how well organized -- and it was . When I received that 12 last week I was impressed by that. But having a well 13 organized, well typed and presented opposition letter is 14 one thing. Having it be truthful is a completely separate 15 matter. 16 There ' s a couple things Haywire Farms, my family, was 17 attacked for and I would like to invite the commission to 18 pay attention to a few of the phone numbers I 'm going to 19 share with you. Actually I need to grab my notebook back 20 there. It ' s got the phone numbers in it . Be right back. 21 On Page 4 Mr. Lenk goes on to talk about our farm 22 practices in 2009 . I ' ll just throw out some quick quotes 23 here . Unfettered irrigation, disproportionally high 24 utilization of fertilizer, drainage onto other properties 25 and that we were offensive to other farmers and their ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 63 1 certified organic methods in the area because of our 2 farming practices . 3 Haywire Farms, Phil Schmitt, 5T Farms, those are all 4 organizations that I farm under. We are regulated by not 5 only the USDA, which is the U. S . Department of 6 Agriculture, but more importantly, our local agency which 7 is the Washington State Department of Agriculture . It ' s 8 based out of Olympia. It ' s a large bureaucracy that 9 controls and runs all facets of agriculture in Washington 10 state. Haywire Farm abides by all of those rules . 11 What ' s interesting, if you contact anyone in the 12 departments there concerning our farming practices -- 13 Haywire Farms, 5T Farms, Phil Schmitt doing business as a 14 farming organization -- does not exist in their database 15 at all for any investigations, fines or complaints . 16 Jeff Canaan is the deputy director for the Washington 17 State Department of Agriculture, under his computer 18 search, we don' t exist. There ' s never been a fine or 19 complaint or investigation about any improper agricultural 20 practices, whether it be in 2009 on that property on Road 21 72 or Wernett or any property that we 've ever farmed since 22 1997 . 23 On Page 4 Mr. Lenk wrote that we had drainage on 24 other properties, referring to irrigation water containing 25 fertilizer. And then also talking about the pesticides ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 64 1 and herbicides, and that was in the recent Tri-City Herald 2 article. And it ' s interesting for a person that claims to 3 be a certified organic farmer to make complaints that our 4 chemicals were moving onto his property or any other 5 properties . But there ' s never been any proof or complaint 6 to the agencies in Washington state that regulate that . I 7 find that curious . There are some great phone numbers 8 here . Anyone could access this information. So Jeff 9 Canaan, the deputy director to the Washington state 10 Department of Agriculture, his phone number in Olympia is 11 360-902-1810 . 12 The compliance office for all fertilizer runoff that 13 Haywire Farm has been accused of letting it run off or 14 using unfettered amounts of liquid irrigation -- or liquid 15 fertilizer. The compliance office is in Moses Lake . That 16 phone number for that office is 509-766-2575 . There are 17 several compliance officers that can instantly run our 18 name or history. They can actually run those parcel or 19 lot numbers to see if there ' s been any problems in the 20 past. 21 For the herbicide and pesticides division, that ' s 22 based out of Yakima. Gale Amos is the compliance officer 23 that I spoke to on this . He cannot find me in the system, 24 nor was he aware of our farming operations since we are a 25 quite small operation. He checked all backgrounds for ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 65 1 herbicide or pesticide, what they call, chemical 2 pollution, whether it flows through the air or runs off 3 and runs off somebody' s property, we didn't exist in their 4 record. His phone number in the Yakima office -- and even 5 though he ' s based in Yakima he covers Klickitat, Yakima, 6 Benton and Franklin County. His phone number is 7 509-249-6923 . 8 So I know how busy all of you are, but in the next 9 month before we meet again before the decisions start 10 coming down, I plead to you to make some phone calls to 11 find out if there ' s any history on us . There ' s some 12 pretty interesting things that we 've been accused of. And 13 I think you could clear that up instantly and we would 14 find out what the truth is and what the untruth is . 15 One more thing on Page 4 Mr. Lenk accuses us, along 16 with his apiarist, Jeff McClure, of the bee colony 17 collapse disorder because of our field corn that was 18 planted that year. I couldn't get ahold of Jeff McClure, 19 but if that has been determined that bee colony collapse 20 disorder from our corn crop was -- I assume he ' s talking 21 about the pollen -- if they found that out to be true, 22 they are going to be some of the wealthiest men in the 23 world very soon. Bee colony collapse disorder is a major 24 disorder that attacks bee hives around the world, a 25 world-wide problem. Department of Agricultures in every ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 66 1 nation of the world has attacked this problem because 2 there are so many crops that we, as humans, are relying 3 upon that the bees pollinate . Without the bees we have 4 serious issues with feeding ourselves as humans . And as 5 of right now it ' s never been determined what causes the 6 bee collapse disorder. 7 So you are being presented that in your packet as 8 fact . And so much of that is absolute false . The bee 9 collapse disorders -- just a few things I researched 10 really quick at the Washington State Extension Office 11 website on it. Bees can collapse from mites or pathogens, 12 pesticides, cellular transmissions, exhaust, DDT from the 13 ' 60s . There' s all kinds of crazy things out there. 14 So please be careful when you are reading the packet 15 to take the time, if you have the time, to determine what 16 is truth and what is just speech. I understand this is a 17 public hearing and anything can be said. But please take 18 your time. 19 In 2009 all kind of things were said about our 20 operation pertaining to the corn maze: garbage, noise, 21 crime in the area. All kinds of interesting things . And 22 there all of these neat agencies in the state whether it 23 is -- I 'm trying to think. Who deals with the dust in the 24 Tri-Cities, Dave, do you know that? 25 MR. CRUZ : Clean Air Authority. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 67 1 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: Air Authority. We did corn 2 mazes in Franklin County and Benton County. We farmed in 3 both counties . There ' s never been a complaint with us in 4 their office or an investigation or even a phone 5 concerning our practices . So we know how to farm. We 6 know how to keep the soil down. We irrigate before we do 7 tillage. So all of this stuff is fact. If you'd take the 8 time to call those agencies and see if there ' s any kind of 9 background on Haywire Farms . 10 And that ' s about it. We are always available to any 11 of the neighbors that have concerns about what we are 12 going to do on this property. We will gladly float our 13 phone number around. We are always available. We are 14 part of the community. We have been attending Faith 15 Assembly for the last four years and we do want to be good 16 neighbors . 17 MR. CRUZ : Do any of the commissioners have any other 18 questions for Mr. Schmitt? 19 MS . GEMIG: If, for some reason, you are allowed to 20 have cows, what kind of fencing are you going to have in 21 place for the neighbors? 22 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: Well, most of the time, for 23 insurance purposes, liability insurance, you need a four 24 string electric fence. You've got four hot wires with 25 steel T-posts, not the plastic posts . Some animal ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 68 1 raisers, if you raise sheep, for example, you have 2 electric posts . To raise cattle under our liability 3 insurance, we have to have steel T-posts, 6 feet in 4 height . So, yeah, about 4 feet; 2 feet in the ground then 5 4 wires around the insulated wires that are electrified. 6 So that ' s liability. 7 I don't know what City code is on that. But if we 8 plan to run cattle out there and we are allowed to, to 9 break down the residue over the winter and fertilize the 10 field, we will abide by whatever rules the City puts in 11 place for us . 12 MS . GEMIG: Okay. Thank you. 13 MR. CRUZ : Okay. Thank you. Any other questions 14 from the commissioners? 15 I have one . What is your code violation history with 16 the City of Pasco? Do you recall any instances of codes 17 violations or citations? 18 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: I have parked backwards a few 19 times on the street. 20 MR. CRUZ : No, with regard to your farming 21 applications . 22 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: No. I don ' t know if we had an 23 official violation. We were never fined for a violation 24 in 2009 . Letters were written to Faith Assembly because 25 they were the tax parcel landowner and then they notified ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 69 1 us that we needed to cease and desist farming to move our 2 equipment because of the sunrise issue, such and such. 3 But I 've never been notified that I owe any money or a 4 fine . 5 MR. CRUZ : That answers the question. 6 Okay. All right . I assume there' s no additional 7 questions . Thank you very much. 8 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: I do have one more thing to 9 say. I 'm sorry. 10 MR. CRUZ : Go ahead. 11 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: In that packet it talks about 12 certified farming. Also an interesting agency to talk to 13 is the Washington State Department of Agriculture, the 14 certified organic program. Linda Condon, she ' s the 15 coordinator for crop producers in the area. Joey Bailey 16 is the Eastern Washington inspection officer. There are 17 no certified farms of any type south of Argent Road. So 18 it ' s interesting the word "certified farming" has been 19 used a few times in the newspaper and also in that packet. 20 There are no certified programs . 21 A certified program for Washington State Department 22 of Agriculture is a 3-year program, tends to go 3 years of 23 following the procedures set down for the State before you 24 give your stamp of approval . So it ' s interesting the word 25 "certified" is being thrown around. It doesn' t exist. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 70 1 There is no program down there . Not to be on the tack, 2 just clarification for that fact. Thank you. 3 MR. CRUZ : Thank you. Okay. I think that covers 4 everybody who wanted to speak. So I 'm going to ask the -- 5 we ' ll do the three strikes on public comment here . So 6 first call or -- any other people that who would like to 7 speak please raise your hand at this time? 8 Okay. Second call for public comment. 9 Third and final call for public comment on this 10 issue. 11 Okay. The public hearing is now closed. 12 Thank you everybody for your testimony and for those 13 of you later in the agenda thank you for your patience . 14 At this time, any comments from the commissioners 15 relative to the proposed conditions in the packet, or just 16 general discussion on the issue? 17 MS . GEMIG: I believe we should discuss Mr. Schmitt' s 18 requests if we do approve . He ' s requested a couple 19 modifications to approval conditions . 20 MR. CRUZ : Okay. 21 MS . GEMIG: I find that they are acceptable if 22 approval does occur. 23 MR. CRUZ : So specifically -- 24 MS . GEMIG: Specifically the allowance of field corn 25 because of reduced fire issue. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 71 1 MR. CRUZ : Okay. 2 MS . GEMIG: The cattle limit, one per acre . And then 3 the number 12 special permit shall be nul and void if 4 farming activity has not begun by September 30th. We 5 should adjust that, as most likely that there will be not 6 be time to plant this year. 7 MR. CRUZ : Okay. Any other items or discussions from 8 the Planning Commission? Thank you very much. 9 MR. CRUZ : Commissioner Hay. 10 MR. HAY: I 'm going to express my ignorance on 11 farming. I don' t have an idea what farming is all about . 12 But I see along Road 68, I see four different areas that 13 look like some kind of farming or some kind of tractors 14 that moved up and down because I see these kind of roads . 15 Along Road 72 I see a couple, three more and then the 16 corner of Road 72 and Court Street I see where it looks a 17 tractor has probably run back and forth. What kind of 18 farming, or is that farming that goes on in those areas? 19 I don' t know who to ask that. But it looks to me like 20 there' s already farming in the area. 21 MR. CRUZ : I ' ll take a stab at that . And Dave and 22 Mr. White, can you guys pipe in? 23 We have a number of small, multiple-acre kind of 24 residential or hobby farming operations within the city 25 limits up to, you know, whole circles or series of circles ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 72 1 that are being farmed. You know, I 've lived a little bit 2 too far west to run into to many of them. Certainly 3 between Road 144 there ' s a number of 2- to 8-acre plots 4 that are being farmed routinely. Is that inaccurate? 5 MR. MCDONALD: No. There are a number of little 6 farms throughout all of west Pasco . The rows that Mr. Hay 7 is referring to may be the vineyards at the corner of 72 8 and Court Street with the northeast corner. There ' s 9 actually a commercial grape vineyard there . And that ' s 10 why you see the little rows or lines on the map. And at 11 Court Street and Road 68 there was a vineyard there for 12 years . It goes up 1300, 2600 north of Court Street . And 13 that was and/or is a vineyard. Above that we just have, 14 right now, some pasture in areas . 15 The property directly north of Mr. Lenk' s house, on 16 the overhead there ' s a little red roof -- I don' t know if 17 you can see that -- just northwest of the church parking 18 lot. Right in there that ' s a grape vineyard at that 19 location. It wasn' t there a few years ago. That whole 20 general area has been used either for a grape vineyards or 21 other types of agricultural production. And, of course, 22 you have bus tours with various types of animals that Mr. 23 Lenk showed in his photos . 24 MR. CRUZ : I believe there' s the plastic dinosaur on 25 Road 68 . ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 73 1 MR. MCDONALD: There ' s one of those, too, yes, Mr. 2 Hay. Thank you. 3 MS . GEMIG: I actually forgot to mention something 4 earlier that was requested to maintain up to six small 5 farm implements . That needs to be incorporated as well . 6 MR. CRUZ : Okay. Any other comments from the 7 commission? Ms . Kempf? 8 MS . KEMPF: I 'm quite happy with the approval of 6 as 9 it is . I would recommend -- I would recommend -- I would 10 recommend approval of condition 6 as it is . 11 MR. CRUZ : Okay. I ' ll take a minute. First, you 12 know, one of the things I wanted to keep at the forefront 13 of the discussion, you remember that the Faith Assembly' s 14 growth and presence in the neighborhood has created 15 issues, some fair, maybe some not too fair in the eyes of 16 the neighbors . And I think we need to be careful to 17 separate Haywire ' s proposed operation from kind of the 18 historical challenges with Faith Assembly. 19 One of the things I learned through both the most 20 controversial items I 've sat through here is we have to 21 make a decision in terms of what we have in terms of fact; 22 not what will or may happen. So if we look at this and we 23 look at the group of testimony that we have around us, I 24 believe that we have the ability to grant a permit -- to 25 recommend a permit for this with appropriate conditions . ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 74 1 And so from my perspective, I agree with the comments 2 made, with the exception of corn. I don't have a problem 3 with corn. I think it ' s wise to limit the grazing. I 4 think just to make the neighbors feel comfortable, we need 5 to be a little specific about substantial animal fencing 6 if they' re grazing. In addition to the animal issue, 7 limit it to some number of months during the year, October 8 through -- or November through March, would be acceptable 9 based on the testimony I think. 10 I think the noise discussion as proposed by Mr. Lenk 11 bears consideration. 12 And the last thing I ' ll say, you know, what we found 13 in the past when you make a short term on a permit it 14 implores the applicant to be a good neighbor as they often 15 say that that will . Most of the time we find that they 16 are. But occasionally we have some choose not to . If 17 they know that their permit isn't granted in 5 years, in a 18 couple years they have to come back, that gives us a 19 chance to make a recommendation to continue or deny the 20 special permit. 21 And so with that in mind, I don' t have any problem 22 with five years, but I ' d rather see us do something like a 23 2 plus 3 and then re-up the permit . And I think that 24 gives Mr. Schmitt the opportunity so that he can be the 25 neighbor, good neighbor that he ' s pledged to be . And it ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 75 1 gives neighbors some confidence that if there ' s additional 2 pain to be dealt with as this operation goes forward, that 3 they' ll get opportunity in a timely fashion to come 4 forward and then we ' ll have actual facts based on the 5 experience with the farming. 6 It ' s unfortunate this has gone the way it has 7 because, you know, if you look at the situation that the 8 applicant has been put in, you know, they start farming, 9 then they kind of have to stop. That ' s a weird place to 10 be in, especially if you look at the way the code 11 enforcement regulation is written. It can get expensive 12 in a hurry. 13 So with that in mind, those are all of my comments on 14 approval conditions . Again, I 'm pro corn; more 15 substantial fencing; a limit on the livestock grazing, 16 both in terms of the total number of animals and the time; 17 and the noise; and then the two plus three. 18 So one other thing I just wanted to add in my notes 19 is that some of the concerns that were stated by the 20 residents about, you know, dust and all of that other 21 stuff, that ' s regulated already. There ' s other ways to 22 deal with that. So sometimes we put that in special 23 conditions; sometimes we don 't . 24 So with that in mind, does anybody else have any 25 comments or questions or guidance to staff? ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 76 1 MR. HAY: Are you suggesting like on number 11 for a 2 period of 2 years and automatically to extend to five 3 years? 4 MR. CRUZ : No. Two years and then a review and then 5 an extension. 6 MR. HAY: Okay. I don ' t have a problem with that . 7 MR. CRUZ : Okay. 8 MS . GEMIG: I would tend to be more in favor of three 9 years with a 2-year extension because of the financial 10 outlay that ' s required to get up to speed and get going. 11 I think 2 years is a bit risky. 12 MR. CRUZ : Okay. We ' re getting close to the time, 13 Mr. McDonald, where we have to make a decision, so we need 14 to be pretty clear. Do we agree with a 3 plus 2, or 2 15 plus 3? Ms . Greenaway? 16 MS . GREENAWAY: I would go with the 3 years plus 2 17 years because of the initial outlay. It ' s not 18 inexpensive, tax purposes, everything. 19 MR. CRUZ : Okay. Ms . Kempf? 20 MS . KEMPF: Three plus 2 . 21 MR. CRUZ : Okay. Mr. Hay? 22 MR. HAY: Two plus 3 . 23 MR. CRUZ : Wow. I 'm going to flip. I think the 24 commissioners ' arguments about the initial outlay and the 25 inability to farm for a couple years is kind of a ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 77 1 hardship. So I would be willing to change to a 3 plus 2 . 2 But make no mistake about it, if those 3 don't go well, 3 it ' s not going to be easy to get another 2 years . 4 Any other items that we want to discuss a little bit 5 more for Mr. McDonald' s benefit? 6 MR. HAY: The fencing. I think that fencing needs to 7 be clear. 8 MR. CRUZ : Support of fencing being substantial? 9 MR. HAY: Yeah. 10 MR. MCDONALD: So we ' re clear, on item number 11 11 we ' re talking the initial period of 3 years and that will 12 automatically extend for 2 years if there are no problems . 13 So it will give them 5 years . After 5 years he definitely 14 has to come back if he wants to continue for another 15 special permit? 16 MR. CRUZ : (Nodded head. ) 17 MR. MCDONALD: Cattle. I didn' t hear a number. I 18 heard at one time one per acre, which would be 18 . And I 19 heard a time frame of November to March. 20 MR. CRUZ : Yeah. 21 MR. MCDONALD: The rest of the year no cattle? 22 MR. CRUZ : Correct. That was consistent with the 23 applicant' s testimony. 24 MR. MCDONALD: Then I heard some comments about 25 substantial fencing. We ' re going to have to come back to ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 78 1 you on the fencing. There is a prohibition against the 2 electric or electrified fences in most residential areas . 3 And unfortunately, I can' t remember if that applied in the 4 suburban residential districts . I have it in my mind -- 5 unless you know, Shane, all residential districts . 6 So that is an issue I seem to recall a provision in 7 the code where the electric fence is allowed, but it has 8 to be behind another fence. Keep it away from little 9 children. So if there ' s an issue there with the electric 10 fences in the city -- 11 MR. CRUZ : Okay. 12 MR. MCDONALD: So we ' ll need to research that a 13 little more . 14 I heard some discussion about corn from a few of you. 15 Field corn. Sweet corn. We need a little more direction 16 there. 17 MR. CRUZ : I think in terms -- it' s just in my mind 18 in terms of nuisance it stands whether it' s field corn or 19 sweet corn. The nuisance is going to be relatively 20 comparable and so I 'm okay with corn because I think what 21 we have to protect the residences is that the potential of 22 the permit would not be renewed. 23 MS . GREENAWAY: Yeah. 24 MS . GEMIG: I 'm pro corn. 25 MS . KEMPF: I 'm opposed to the corn. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 79 1 MR. MCDONALD: We have 3 for it and 1 against. 2 MR. CRUZ : That ' s okay. You get that on record. 3 MR. MCDONALD: Then equipment storage, I heard a 4 comment about allowing some equipment storage there . 5 MS . GEMIG: I think a lot of the equipment were 6 concerned about the increased traffic on the roads . I 7 think Mr. Schmitt made a good point that if he gets to 8 store on the property, there will be less road traffic 9 with these large implements . 10 Growing up in a farm community, I 'm always in favor 11 of farm implements being off the road. So I would just 12 stick that in there . It' s just my opinion. 13 MR. CRUZ : So let me build on this . I would be okay 14 with seven small -- just say small implements parked on 15 the property. And some note in the record or on the 16 conditions that reminds the applicant they shouldn' t be 17 turning the farm equipment around on the road when they' re 18 doing the rows . They need to contain their farming 19 operations to the plot and not turn on the dirt road. 20 I 've seen that there in my time up in the blocks . 21 MS . GEMIG: That ' s a great addition. 22 MR. CRUZ : You know, just one other thing. To those 23 who sat with us through the whole thing and have concerns 24 about this, the conservation plan is one thing. The 25 complaint monitoring plan is another thing that gives the ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 80 1 surrounding occupants the opportunity to provide feedback 2 if these conditions are not being upheld in a timely 3 fashion. And again, once code enforcement gets involved 4 in these kind of situations, if there ' s a habitual 5 nonconformance, I can promise you it gets expensive and 6 painful very quickly. 7 So with that, do we have enough guidance? 8 MR. MCDONALD: One other item. Mr. Rodgers mentioned 9 sanitation. Is it necessary to have a port-a-potty out 10 there? 11 MR. CRUZ : Isn' t that kind of part of -- I mean, is 12 that something that we would maintain as far as a special 13 permit? 14 MR. MCDONALD: That ' s part of this process that you 15 can. 16 MR. CRUZ : Okay. I 'm acceptable in mandates, if 17 there' s workers present, then there needs to be sanitation 18 present. 19 MS . GEMIG: I agree . 20 MS . GREENAWAY: I ' ll agree. 21 MS . KEMPF: No, I 'm not into sanitation. (Laughing) 22 MR. CRUZ : Okay. We closed the public hearing, so 23 you' re just going to have to roll with it. 24 MR. PHILIPP SCHMITT: Prior to putting a port-a-potty 25 out here I want to know where to put it so it doesn ' t ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 81 1 necessarily upset things in 6 to 7 months and I just want 2 a little direction on that. 3 MR. WHITE: We ' ll try to draft something into the 4 conditions, Mr. Chairman. 5 MR. CRUZ : Typically these conditions, before they 6 are finalized with us, are worked with the applicant. So 7 there' s a little bit more for you to do . 8 Okay. We ' re ready for a motion. Okay. 9 MR. HAY: Mr. Chairman, I 'd like to move to close the 10 hearing on the proposed farm and schedule deliberations, 11 adopt findings of fact and conclusions and a 12 recommendation to the City Council for the March 17, 2011 13 meeting. 14 MS . GEMIG: Second. 15 MR. CRUZ : I ' ll give that to Ms . Greenaway. 16 It was moved by Commissioner Hay and seconded by 17 Commissioner Greenaway. All those in favor say aye . 18 COMMISSIONERS (In unison) : Aye. 19 MR. CRUZ : All those in favor say nay. 20 Let the record show the motion passed unanimously. 21 Again, thanks to everybody for your testimony and 22 thanks for your patience . 23 With that, we ' re going to move to the next item. If 24 you would like to pause for a little bit for those who 25 came for the proceeding item, then we will move on. We ' re ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 82 1 not going to recess; just not going to roll until 2 everybody gets a chance to shuffle out. 3 4 5 6 (ITEM CONCLUDED. ) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 83 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS . 3 COUNTY OF BENTON ) 4 This is to certify that I, ChaRae Kent, Certified 5 Court Reporter in and for the State of Washington, 6 residing at Richland, reported the within and foregoing 7 Planning Commission meeting; said Planning Commission 8 meeting being taken before on the date herein set forth; 9 that said examination was taken by me in shorthand and 10 thereafter transcribed, and that same is true and correct 11 record of the testimony of said meeting. 12 I further certify that I am not a relative or 13 employee or attorney or counsel of any the parties, nor am 14 I financially interested in the outcome of the cause. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 16 affixed my official seal this day of , 17 2011 . 18 19 20 CHARAE KENT, RPR, CCR 21 CCR NO. 2408 Notary Public in and for the State 22 of Washington, residing at Richland 23 24 My commission expires January 17, 2012 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 Adjoining Property Owners c/o Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 February 15, 2011 VIA EMAIL City of Pasco Planning Commission 525 N. Third Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 Re: SPECIAL PERMIT— CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Honorable Members of The Planning Commission: Below you will find information and testimony related to MF# SP2011-002. This correspondence is divided into three (3) sections. This first section details why consideration of the Application, as- submitted and in its present state, is not permitted under the Pasco Municipal Code. The second section details how this application is detrimental to the local suburban residential environment and assists the Commission in developing their Findings of Fact and Conclusions. The final section summarizes the position of adjoining neighbor's and provides recommendations to the Planning Commission. Please provide a copy of this correspondence to each member of the Planning Commission prior to this evening's meeting, and incorporate a copy into the Open Hearing Record. CONSIDERATION OF MF# SP2011-002 NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE APPLICATION DOES NOT CONFORM TO PMC 26.08.160 AND PMC 25.86.35 Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.08.160 LOT (see Attachment 1)provides as follows: "Lot" means a portion of a subdivision, or other parcel of land, intended as a unit for transfer or ownership or development being of sufficient area and dimensions to meet minimum zoning requirements for width and area. The term shall include tracts or parcels. In other words, a lot, parcel or tract is the single unit by which minimum zoning requirements are measured. Re: SPECIAL PERMIT— CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Page: 2 Furthermore, Pasco Municipal Code Section 25.86.35 AGRICULTURAL USES (see Attachment 2) provides as follows: Commercial agricultural uses listed as conditional or unclassified uses in this Title shall conform to the following prior to the issuance of a special permit: (a) Special permits for agricultural uses (commercial) may be granted for tracts of land over ten acres in size (emphasis added) within 1,000 feet of a residential zoning district, subdivision or a dwelling unit excluding dwellings associated with agriculture uses. MF# SP2011-002 is within 1,000 feet of a residential zoning district. Applicant's site plan is comprised of two (2) separate tracts (parcel# 118-481-019 - 9.00 acres and parcel# 118-481-037 - 9.13 acres - see Attachment 3), neither of which meet the (10) acre minimum zoning requirement. In a veiled attempt to satisfy the minimum tract size requirement of PMC 25.86.35, Applicant combines the acreage of two (2) substandard parcels. This is akin to owners of multiple lots banding together in an attempt to meet a minimum zoning requirement, that individually they otherwise could not satisfy. Therefore, MF# SP2011-002 does not meet the minimum tract size requirements for an agricultural use. In order to be eligible for an agricultural use, the two (2) separate substandard. parcels must be consolidated prior to consideration. PMC 25.86.050 NOT COMPLIED WITH Pasco Municipal Code Section 25.86.050 (again, see Attachment 2) details the Open Record Public Hearing Requirements for Special Permits. Generally, notifications must be mailed to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject site. However, PMC 25.86.050 further provides "Except that in the case of commercial agricultural uses, the notification distance shall be increased to 1,000 feet" (emphasis added). The Special Permit being requested by way of MF# SP2011-002 is for a commercial agricultural use. Therefore, the Planning Commission was required to mail Open Record Public Hearing notifications to property owners of record within a 1,000 foot radius of the subject site. For its February 17, 2011 Open Record Public Hearing, the Planning Commission only mailed notices to properties within a 300 foot radius of the subject site. Many impacted property owners live outside the 300 foot radius, and within the 1,000 foot radius. As such, they were denied requisite notices via mail and an opportunity to provide testimony at this February 17, 2011 Open Record Public Hearing. This was a significant abridgment of their rights. During its consideration of MF# SP09-007, City Staff and City Council concurred with the necessarapplication of this requirement. In order to comply with PMC 25.86.050, the Planning Commission must establish a new date for an Open Record Public Hearing for MF# SP2011-002, and order that notices be mailed out to property owners within a 1,000 foot radius of the site well in advance. Re: SPECIAL PERMIT— CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Page: 3 ANIMAL PASTURING NOT PERSONAL TO APPLICANT Applicant is requesting to pasture animals. However, Applicant is actually requesting that Carl Wisse of 7408 W. Wernett Road, Pasco, Washington 99301 be allowed to pasture animals. Mr. Wisse currently pastures beef and provides animal husbandry in a a squalid, foul smelling, offensive, fly ridden, unsecured, unmaintained and unhealthful pen at his property. This operation is offensive to everyone in the neighborhood, especially the resultant fecal infested effluent which impacts all adjoining properties. Applicant intends to assist Mr. Wisse in the expansion of his squalid operation onto the vacant property. Since all Special Permits are personal to the Applicant, MF# SP2011-002 as submitted is a rouse to permit Mr. Wisse to expand his offensive squalid operation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE INTENDED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT APPLICANT MUST BE REMINDED THAT THIS IS THE BEGINNING. NOT THE END OF THE PROCESS On July 17, 2009, hours after completion of the Planning Commission's Open Record Hearing for MF# SP09-007, Applicant initiated farming activities on the subject site, despite not having received any approvals. The Planning Commission and City must remind Applicant that no activity may be engaged in prior to the issuance of a Special Permit under MF# SP2011-002. The City must be responsible for monitoring to ensure that such activities do not take place. The City should not again tip-toe around the issue solely because of the political clout of Faith Assembly Christian Center. THREAT TO DEVELOP SUBJECT SITE NOT CREDIBLE Each time Faith Assembly Christen Center seeks zoning amendments, neighbors are admonished to go along with the proposed changes, or Faith Assembly may have to develop the two (2) subject vacant parcels (e.g. MF#02-88-SP - "Condominiums for Retired Pastors" and MF#09-007 — "32 single family homes"). Although their intent is to intimidate neighbors, the threat of development is not credible in practical economic terms. The total market value of all parcels on the Faith Assembly compound is $3,288,800 (Church Building/#118-491-062 - $2,211,300); (Church Office/#118-491-044 - $428,500); (Assistant Pastor's Cottage/#118481-046 - $178,000); and (Vacant Parcels #118-481-037 - $237,000; #118-481-019 - $234,000). However, according to AG (Assemblies of God) Financial Solutions of Springfield Missouri, in total, these properties have a lien in the amount of$4,380,000. In the vernacular of California, Faith Assembly is under-water to the tune of$1,091,200, less any principal pay-offs. In order to maintain lien covenants, even abandoning these two (2) vacant lots would cost $1,562,400 (value of vacant property plus amount the lien exceeds value of the remaining properties). The threatened development project is economically unfeasible, and will not be for an exceeding long time. Re: SPECIAL PERMIT— CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Page: 4 Therefore, neighbors should not be coerced into believing that approval is necessary in order to avoid the inevitability of development. APPLICANT'S ESTABLISHED FARMING PRACTICES HAVE BEEN DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTENDED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT The City is well aware of the negative impact on local neighbors resulting from Applicant's activities and his pursuit of of MF# SP09-007, more commonly referred to as "The Corn Maize" (incorporated by reference as Attachment 4). Despite no approvals, and no permits being issued, on July 17, 2009, Applicant commenced farming activities. Electrical and irrigation service were installed via subterfuge. Irrigation lines were laid, and crops cultivated. Farm equipment and irrigation lines were stored at the Faith Assembly Christian Center parking lot. Moreover, Applicant's illegal farming activity included the tilling, unfettered irrigation and a disproportionally high utilization of fertilizer, resulting in over-spraying, and drainage onto adjacent properties. This issue was especially offensive to other local farmers who have adopted and abide by certified organic agriculture methods. In addition, Applicant's field corn crop resulted in "colony collapse disorder" in bee hives on two local farms. This situation was diagnosed by certified Apiarist Jeff McClure. After MF# SP09-007 was denied by the City Council, Applicant abandoned the site resulting in blowing corn leaves, dried vegetation and weeds, fugitive dust; storage of unsightly farming equipment; storage of unsightly amusement ride and ancillary equipment; storage of two (2) commercial tractor trailers; storage of irrigation pipe and other non-farming equipment. These numerous code violations were not resolved until nearly a year later. Neighbors were, and. remain outraged at Applicants total disregard for the intended suburban residential environment. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ALREADY MADE BY COUNCIL Pasco Municipal Code Section 25.22 (see Attachment 5) outlines the permitted, permitted accessory and conditional uses within the R-S-20 Suburban Residential District. PMC Section 25.86.60 (again, see Attachment 2) details the six (6) criteria by which the Planning Commission judges whether a Special Permit is or is not "detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment", and becomes the basis of its recommendation for or against approval. At its November 2, 2009 and December 7, 2009 Closed Record Hearings, City Council considered both Corn Maize, and Farming Only uses by way of MF # SP09-007. Same use, same site, same applicant. Yogi Berra put it best, "This is like deja vu all over again". Fortunately, by way of Resolution 3205 adopted on December 7, 2009 (see Attachment 6), in denying MF# SP09-007, the Pasco City Council provided the Planning Commission direction on how to answer the questions posed under PMC 25.86.60 for a farming only use at this site, by this applicant. Those verbatim findings of fact and conclusions taken with the information herein are as follows: Re: SPECIAL PERMIT— CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Page: 5 1. The proposed use may be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive plan. THE ANSWER IS NO. According to the "conclusions" taken from Resolution 3205 (again, see Attachment 6), farming uses are unclassified uses. Resolution 3205 further states that "Unclassified uses require extraordinary review (emphasis added) through a public hearing process (special permit process). "Applying for a special permit does not guarantee the application will be approved." 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained, and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? THE ANSWER IS NO. According to the "Conclusions" taken from Resolution 3205 (again, see Attachment 6), "The existing character of the area is that of a suburban residential neighborhood. The additional vibration, dust and equipment usage associated with the (farming activity)ctivity) will. not encourage the development of permitted uses in the general vicinity". In addition, Applicant's demonstrated aggressive tilling, unfettered irrigation and a disproportionally high utilization of fertilizer, resulting in over-spraying, and drainage onto adjacent properties, some of which exercise organic farming methods, will not be in harmony with the local environment. Applicant's demonstrated disregard for adjoining properties via improper storage of farm equipment and irrigation lines will similarly distract from the harmony. Further, Applicant's demonstrated disregard for local neighbors after completion of farming activities by abandoning the site resulting in blowing corn leaves, dried vegetation and weeds, fugitive dust; storage of unsightly farming equipment; storage of unsightly amusement ride and ancillary equipment; storage of two (2) commercial tractor trailers; storage of irrigation pipe and other non-farming equipment requiring intervention by Code Enforcement Officials adds to this dis-harmony. Finally, Applicant's choice of field corn crop resulting in"colony collapse disorder" in bee hives on two local farms clearly added to the injury of local neighbors. Furthermore, the squalid conditions created by the proposed pasturing activity will negatively impact all neighbors and is not in harmony with the residential suburban environment. 5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? THE ANSWER IS YES. According to the "Conclusions" taken from Resolution 3205 (again, see Attachment 6), "The use of farm equipment to plow and plant fields in the neighborhood will also create. noise, dust, vibrations and diesel exhaust that is typically not present in suburban_ neighborhoods". The squalid environment created by pasturing of animals on an unsecured site will be very objectionable. Re: SPECIAL PERMIT— CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Page: 6 6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? THE ANSWER IS YES. According to the "Conclusions" taken from Resolution 3205 (again, see Attachment 6), the "farming activities have a very high probability to become a nuisance to current and future residents of the neighborhood". The pasturing activity will endanger public health given the squalid practices endorsed by Mr. Wisse, and certainly become a nuisance to the permuted uses of the district, especially since the proposed site is unsecured. Utilizing information herein, as well as City Council's own conclusions taken directly from Resolution 3205, the Planning Commission cannot make a favorable finding and should not recommend approval of MF# SP2011-002. SUMMARY First, MF# SP2011-002 does not meet the minimum tract size requirements for an agricultural use as outlined in PMC 25.86.35. In order to be eligible for an agricultural use, the two (2) separate substandard parcels must be consolidated prior to consideration. Second, the provisions of PMC 25.86.050, as recognized by City Staff and Council in MF# SP09-007, dictate that the Planning Commission establish a new date for an Open Record Public Hearing of MF# SP2011-002, and order that notices to property owners within a 1,000 foot radius of the subject site be mailed out well in advance. Third, since all Special Permits are personal to the Applicant, MF# SP2011-002 as submitted is a rouse to permit Mr. Wisse to expand his offensive squalid pasturing/husbandry operation. Fourth, neighbors should not be coerced into believing that approval of MF# SP2011-002 is necessary in order to avoid development of the two (2) separate vacant tracts. Fifth, utilizing information herein, as well as City Council's own conclusions taken directly from Resolution 3205, the Planning Commission cannot make a favorable finding and cannot recommend approval of MF# SP2011-002. Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request, and believe by way of the Pasco Municipal Code.. and prior Conclusions of the City Council, that the Planning Commission NOT recommend approval of MF# SP2011-002. Finally, neighbors remain concerned that political expediencies may again take precedent over the rule of law. If the Planning Commission is predisposed to recommending approval of MF# SP2011-002, local neighbors see necessary the inclusion of Mitigating Conditions and Requirements (provided as Attachment 7) to seriously address the issues brought forward herein. Re: SPECIAL PERMIT— CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Page: 7 Adjoining property owners and neighbors thank you in advance for your consideration of their concerns. Best Regards, Roger E. Lenk Attachment 1 - PMC 26.08.160 Attachment 2 - PMC 25.86 Attachment 3 - Franklin County Parcel Records Attachment 4 - Closed Record File MF# SP09-007 Attachment 5 - PMC 25.22 Attachment 6 - Resolution 3205 Denying MF# SP09-007 Attachment 7 - Mitigating Conditions and Requirements Should MF# SP2011-002 Be Predisposed to Recommendation cc: The Tri-City Herald ATTACHMENT 1 26.08.160 LOT. "Lot" means a portion of a subdivision, or other parcel of land, intended as a unit for transfer of ownership or for development being of sufficient area and dimensions to meet minimum zoning requirements for width and area. The term shalt include tracts or parcels. (Ord. 3398 Sec. 2 1999.) 26.08.170 MONUMENT. 'Monument" means a permanent type survey marker, which conforms to the City of Pasco standard detail for monuments, or an approved substitute. (Ord. 3398 Sec. 2 1999.) 26.08.180 PEDESTRIAN WAY. "Pedestrian Way" means a right-of-way dedicated to public use, which cuts across a block to facilitate pedestrian access to adjacent streets and properties. (Ord. 3398 Sec. 2 1999.) 26.08.190 PLAT CR SUBDIVISION. "Plat or subdivision"means an area of land, which has been divided into two or more lots, tracts, parcels or other divisions of land, and shall include a map, or maps related thereto for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership, or for building developments, including all designations in street lines, alley lines, public area boundaries, lot lines, easements, rights-of-way, pavement widths, curb lines, location and size of utilities, location and size of land areas to be dedicated; those divisions of land for agricultural purposes, where each parcel is five acres or more in area and which does not include any new streets, easements, rights-of-way or other provisions for necessary public areas and facilities; and further provided this definition shall not apply to the division by description of a portion of a platted lot. (Ord. 3398 Sec'; ATTACHMENT 2 2-�-- - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (509)545-3441 I Fax(509)545-3499 P.O. Box 293,525 North Third Avenue,Pasco,Washington 99301 AM NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Philipp W. Schmitt has filed a petition (MF# SP 2011-002) requesting a special permit for Agricultural uses on the following described property: Legal: The East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21 Township 9 Range 29; Less Tax Parcel #118481028. Location: The 2000 Block of Road 72 THEREFORE, LET ALL CONCERNED TAKE NOTICE that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Commission of the City of Pasco, Washington, in the City Council Chambers, Pasco City Hall, 525 N. Third Avenue at the hour of 7:00 p.m., Thursday, February 17, 2011, so that all concerned may appear and present any objections or support for the proposed special permit. State law permits only one open record public hearing on this matter. This will be the only opportunity to provide input on this issue. For additional information, please contact the Pasco City Planner at (509) 545-3441. { David I. McDonald Planning Commission Secretary SITE Pasco, Washington �FT�L■I FT N ���, •iMr�s� NOTE: Property Owners within 300 feet of this site were mailed this notice. CHAPTER 25.86 SPECIAL PERMITS Sections: 25.86.010 GENERAL PROVISIONS..............................................................149 25.86.020 UNCLASSIFIED USES.................................................................149 25.86.025 HISTORIC PLACES.....................................................................150 25.86.030 TEMPORARY USES ....................................................................150 25.86.035 AGRICULTURAL USES................................................................150 25.86.040 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS...................................................151 25.86.050 PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED .....................................................151 25.86.060 FINDINGS OF FACT BY PLANNING COMMISSION.........................151 25.86.070 RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION........................152 25.86.080 APPEAL - FILING REQUIREMENTS ..............................................152 25.86.090 CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION................................................152 25.86.100 EFFECTIVE DATE ......................................................................153 25.86.110 EXPIRATION .............................................................................153 25.86.120 EXTENSIONS ............................................................................153 25.86.130 REVOCATION OF PERMIT ..........................................................153 25.86.010 GENERAL PROVISIONS. Unclassified uses enumerated in Section 25.86.020, conditional uses listed within each district, and any other uses specifically referred to this chapter shall be subject to the regulations contained in this chapter, in addition to all applicable requirements of this Title. All such uses, due to their nature, are deemed to require special review to consider, on a case by case basis, their impacts on which would serve them. Conditional uses and other uses specifically referred to this chapter may be permitted only in their respective districts. Unclassified uses may be permitted within any district where not otherwise prohibited. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.020 UNCLASSIFIED USES. The following uses shall be considered unclassified: (1) High schools, colleges, universities, vocational schools, business colleges and other similar academic or skills training facilities or institutions not heretofore permitted within any district; (2) Cemeteries, crematories, mausoleums, and other places of burial or interment of remains; (3) Churches; (4) Community service facilities, as defined in Sections 25.12.155 and 25.12.156; (5) Airports, heliports, or any other landing or maneuvering space for aircraft, together with terminals and other customary facilities accessory to the unclassified use; (6) Golf courses, pitch and putt courses, miniature golf courses, and similar facilities for public, private or membership use; PMC Title 25 9/15/2008 149 (7) Monasteries, convents or other functionally similar facilities; (8) Mines, quarries and gravel pits; (9) Landfills, garbage dumps, and resource recovery facilities; (10) Off-site parking lots, except those required for a residential use, provided such parking area is not more than five hundred feet from the building; (11) Electrical substations and load transfer stations, natural gas booster stations, and other similar utility facilities; (12) Park and ride lots, off-street transfer stations or other similar facility involving the storage, start-up, idling and movement of public or private operated carrier, charter or transit buses, vans, and similar vehicles; and (13) Agricultural use (commercial) except in areas 1,000 feet from a residential zoning district, subdivision or dwelling unit. (Ord. 3514 Sec. 7, 2001; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.025 HISTORIC PLACES. A special permit for the preservation by adaptive re-use of an historic place, accepted on the National Register of Historic Places, may be requested for uses not otherwise permitted within the applicable district: (1) A special permit granted under this section is personal to the applicant and shall permit only the applicant to exercise the adaptive re-use authority, and shall not be assigned, transferred, conveyed or passed to heirs or beneficiaries of the applicant's estate; and (2) Each applicant granted a special permit shall be required to substantially preserve the intrinsic qualities of the historic place which led to its acceptance on the National Register of Historic Places. Prior to issuance of any building permits the City may consult with the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to insure compliance with this requirement. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.030 TEMPORARY USES. A temporary special permit for any use not otherwise permitted within the applicable district, may be approved by the City Council, provided that such use is clearly of a temporary nature and does not involve the erection of a permanent structure. Requests for temporary special permits shall be applied for and processed in the same manner as herein established for uses requiring a special permit, including such conditions as will safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare for the duration of the permit. This Section shall not apply to temporary structures permitted under Section 25.70.145. (Ord. 3465 Sec. 2, 2001; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.035 AGRICULTURAL USES. (1) Commercial agricultural uses listed as conditional or unclassified uses in this Title shall conform to the following prior to the issuance of a special permit: (a) Special permits for agricultural uses (commercial) may be granted for tracts of land over ten acres in size within 1,000 feet of a residential zoning district, subdivision or a dwelling unit excluding dwellings associated with agriculture uses. PMC Title 25 9/15/2008 150 (b) The applicant for a special permit shall be required to submit a conservation plan approved by the Farm Service Agency. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.040 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) Certificate of ownership and a list of owners, with addresses, of all property within three hundred feet of the applicant's property, as provided and certified by a licensed Title company; and (6) Any other pertinent information that may be necessary to determine if the use meets the requirements of this Title. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.050 PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED. Upon the filing of a complete application for a special permit, the application shall be scheduled for a open record pre-decision hearing before the Planning Commission. Notice of such open record hearing shall be given as provided for in Section 25.88.015. 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 recommendation to the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Sections 25.86.060 and 25.86.070. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.060 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; (2) The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure; (3) The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity; PMC Title 25 9/15/2008 151 (4) The location and height of proposed structures and the site design will discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof; (5) The operations in connection with the proposal will be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district; and (6) The proposal will endanger the public health, or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.070 RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION. After a 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 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.080 APPEAL - FILING REQUIREMENTS. (1) Any recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding a special permit application may be appealed in accordance with one of the following methods: (a) Applicant. Within ten calendar days from the date of the Planning Commission recommendation, the applicant files written appeal with the City Planner stating the basis of appeal from said recommendation. (b) Other Person. Within ten calendar days from the date of the Planning Commission recommendation, any person aggrieved by said decision files written appeal with the City Planner stating the harm to be experienced by such person as a result of the Planning Commission's recommendation. (c) A proper and timely filed appeal shall cause the City Council to schedule a closed record hearing, notice of which shall be given in accordance with Section 25.88.040 to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation. (2) Either method of appeal shall include payment of an appeal fee in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100) at the time of filing said appeal. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.090 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 effected by proper 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 Section 25.88.040; (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. PMC Title 25 9/15/2008 152 (b) Deny the special permit. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.100 EFFECTIVE DATE. Special permits shall become effective on the day after the date of the decision of the City Council. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.110 EXPIRATION. Unless otherwise specified within the special permit, the applicant shall commence the special use authorized or obtain a building permit for construction of authorized facilities within six months after the effective date of the special permit, or the special permit shall expired. In the case of temporary special permits, unless otherwise specified within the permit, the permit shall expire after six (6) months from its effective date. Within thirty (30) days after the date of expiration, the applicant shall have removed from the premises the temporary use and any improvements of a temporary nature authorized by the permit. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.120 EXTENSIONS. A one-time extension of a special permit may be granted provided the extension does not exceed six months and an application for extension is submitted to the City Planner no later than thirty days after the expiration date of the special permit. This provision does not apply to temporary special permits. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.86.130 REVOCATION OF PERMIT. Any special permit may be revoked by the City Council if, after a public hearing, notice of which shall be given in accordance with Section 25.88.0401 it is found that the conditions upon which the special permit was authorized have not been fulfilled or if the use authorized has changed in size, scope, nature or intensity so as to become a detriment to the surrounding area. The decision of the City Council is final. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) PMC Title 25 9/15/2008 153 ATTACHMENT 3 TerraScan TaxSifter-Franklin County Washington http://terra.co.franklin.wa.us/TaxSifter/AppraisalDetails.aspx?keyL.. FRANKLIN COUNTY WASHINGTON TAXSIFTER SIMPLE SEARCH SALES SEARCH REET SIFTER COUNTY HOME PAGE CONTACT Steve Marks Franklin County Assessor 1016 N.4th Ave Pasco,WA 99301 Assessor Treasurer Appraisal MapSifter Parcel Parcel#: 118481019 Owner Name: FAITH ASSEMBLY CHURCH CTR DOR Code: 18 - Residential -All other Addressl: Situs: Address2: 1800 N ROAD 72 Map Number: 092921-00-000000-000-0000 City,State: PASCO WA Zip: 99301-1875 Description: NE4NW4SE4, LESS E 208.71'OF 21-9-29 OF S 208.71', LESS N 30' FOR WERNETT RD(265275) TerraScan TaxSifter-Franklin County Washington http://terra.co.franklin.wa.us/TaxSifter/AppralsalDetails.aspx?keyI... Land Land Land Unit Units Land Width Depth Code Type Shape Res Acres 9.00 Rectangle AC TerraScan TaxSifter-Franklin County Washington http://terra.co.franklin.wa.us/TaxSifter/AppraisalDetails.aspx?keyL.. FRANKLIN COUNTY WASHINGTON TAXSIFTER SIMPLE SEARCH SALES SEARCH REET SIFTER COUNTY HOME PAGE CONTACT Steve Marks Franklin County Assessor 1016 N.4th Ave Pasco,WA 99301 Assessor Treasurer Appraisal MapSifter Parcel Parcel#: 118481037 Owner Name: FAITH ASSEMBLY CHURCH CTR DOR Code: 18 - Residential -All other Addressl: Situs: Address2: 1800 N ROAD 72 Map Number: 092921-00-000000-000-0000 City,State: PASCO WA Zip: 99301-1875 Description: SE4NW4SE4, LESS S 165'OF E 21-9-29 230'THEREOF TerraScan TaxSifter-Franklin County Washington http://terra.co.franklin.wa.us/TaxSifter/AppralsalDetails.aspx?keyI... Land Land Land Unit Units Land Width Depth Code Type Shape Res Acres 9.13 Rectangle AC ATTACHMENT 4 AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. November 2,2009 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion(in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Councilmembers or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. (a) Approval of Minutes: 1. Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated October 19, 2009. (b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance Manager's office.) 1. To approve General Claims in the amount of$2,598,921.24 ($78,923.68 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 5331 and 5332; and $2,519,997.56 consisting of Claim Warrants numbered 174010 through 174216). 2. To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of $1,849,857.24, Voucher Nos. 40361 through 40453; and EFT Deposit Nos. 30033175 through 30033722. (c) PUD Easement in Heritage Park(MF#INFO09-1 0 1): 1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated October 21, 2009. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. PUD Easement. 4. PUD Power Line Map. To authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to sign the document granting the Franklin County PUD an easement across a portion of Heritage Park for electrical power lines. (d) Tourism Promotion Area: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated October 22, 2009. 2. 2010 TPA Budget Summary. 3. 2010 TPA Business Plan (provided in Council packets of 10/26; copy available for public review in the City Manager's office). To approve the 2010 operating budget for the Tourism Promotion Area in the total amount of $810,000. *(e) Final Plat: Three Rivers Crossing Division 2,Phase 2 (Hayden Homes) (MF#FP09-006): 1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald,City Planner dated October 28, 2009. 2. Final Plat (Council packets only; copies available for public review in the Planning office,the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at http_i/www.pasco- wa.cov%�,,eneralinfo/citycouncilreports). 3. Overview Map. 4. Vicinity Map. To approve the Final Plat for Three Rivers Crossing Division 2, Phase 2: (RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: (a) (b) (c) 5. VISITORS-OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: (a) (b) (c) Regular Meeting 2 November 2, 2009 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers (b) (c) 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: (a) Local Improvement District No. 147 to Create LID for California Avenue from Broadway Boulevard to Bonneville Street and Bonneville Street from Oregon Avenue to California Avenue. 1. Agenda Report from Michael McShane, City Engineer dated October 29, 2009. 2. Assessment Map. 3. Ordinance. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING(continued) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, relating to City street improvements; ordering the improvement to approximately 1100 feet of California Avenue south of Broadway Street and 600 feet of Bonneville Street east of Oregon Avenue, to City street standards all in accordance with Resolution No. 3182 of the City Council; establishing Local Improvement District No. 147, and ordering the carrying out of the proposed improvements; providing that payment for the improvements be made by special assessments upon the property in the District, payable by the mode of"payment by bonds"; and providing for the issuance and sale of local improvement district warrants redeemable in cash or other short-term financing and local improvement district bonds. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance , creating Local Improvement District 147 for California Avenue from Broadway Boulevard to Bonneville Street and Bonneville Street from Oregon Avenue to California Avenue and, further, authorize publication by summary only. *(b) Access and Utility Easement Vacation (Access and Utility Easements in the east half of Section 15,T9N,R29E) (Linda Loviisa)(MF#VAC09-012). 1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated October 27, 2009. 2. Overview Map. 3. Proposed Ordinance. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. an Ordinance vacating Access and Utility Easements in Section 15, Township 9 North, Range 29 East,W.M. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance , vacating access and utility easements in Section 15, Township 9 North,Range 29 East and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS: Q(a) Special Permit (Appeal) Location of a Corn Maze/Farm in an RS-20 Zone (2000 Block of Road 72)(Haywire Farms) (MF#SP09-007). 1. Agenda Report from David 1. McDonald,City Planner dated October 27, 2009. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Binder containing Hearing Record (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the :Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at http:/,,www.pasco- wa.gov/generalinfo/citycouncilreports). 4. Proposed Resolution Approving the Corn Maze and Farm. 5_ Proposed Resolution Approving only a Farm. 6. Motions. CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING 1. Motion to Accept Planning Commission Recommendation: (Not recommended by staff) Resolution No. , a Resolution approving a Special Permit for Philipp Schmitt of Haywire Farms to Operate a Corn Maze and Farm in the 2000 Block of Road 72. MOTION 1: I move to concur with the Findings of Fact of the Planning Commission and approve Resolution No. approving a Special Permit for a Corn Maze and Farm in the 2000 Block of Road 72. Regular Meeting 3 November 2, 2009 2. Motion to Approve a Farm only: (Recommended by staff) Resolution No. , a Resolution approving a Special Permit for Philipp Schmitt of Haywire Farms to Operate a Farm in the 2000 Block of Road 72. MOTION 2A: I move to adopt the Findings of Fact for a Farm only as contained in the staff report to the Planning Commission. MOTION 2B: Based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, I move to approve Resolution No. , approving a Special Permit for a Farm only in the 2000 Block of Road 72. 3. Motion to Approve a Corn Maze and Farm with Modified Conditions: MOTION 3: I move to table action on the Special Permit application until December 7, 2009 to allow staff time to prepare an approval resolution with the following additional or modified conditions(list the conditions). 4. Motion to Deny the Special Permit: MOTION 4: 1 move to table action on the Special Permit application until December 7, 2009 to allow staff time to prepare findings to support denial of the Special Permit. 5. Motion to Remand back to the Planning Commission: MOTION 5: 1 move to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review on (list the items of concern that need additional review or clarification). Q*(b) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending the zoning classification of Lot 2 and the westerly 50 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 Cline Addition from R-1 (Low Density Residential)to C-1 (Retail Business)with a concomitant agreement. 1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated October 27,2009. 2. Proposed Rezone Ordinance. 3. Planning Commission Report. 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated 9/17109 and 10115109. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , granting a rezone for a parcel of land at 4215 West Court Street from R-1 to CA with a concomitant agreement as recommended by the Planning Commission and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (a) Local Improvement District No. 146 for the Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvements, Phase 1: 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated October 28,2009. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Ordinance No. 3932, Original Boundaries and Costs. 4. Map with Original LID Boundary. 5. Ordinance No. 3932,Amended Boundaries and Costs. 6. Map with Revised LID Boundary. 7. Financial Comparison of the two Options. Ordinance No. 3932, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, relating to City street improvements; ordering the improvement to approximately 4600 feet in total, of Elm Avenue and Sycamore Avenue north of Alton Street and south of Lewis Street and Sycamore Avenue, Hugo Avenue, Waldemar Avenue and Cedar Avenue north of"A" Street and south of Butte Street and Butte Street east of Elm Avenue and west of Cedar Avenue, to City standards, to include curb, gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage system, street lighting, and roadway improvements all in accordance with Resolution No. 3179 of the City Council; establishing Local Improvement District No. 146, and ordering the carrying out of the proposed improvements; providing that payment for the improvements be made by special assessments upon the property in the District, payable by the mode of "payment by bonds"; and providing for the issuance and sale of local improvement district warrants redeemable in cash or other short-term financing and local improvement district bonds. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 3932, creating LID No. 146 for Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvements Phase 1. -OR- Regular Meeting 4 November 2, 2009 Ordinance No. 3932, an ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, relating to City street improvements; ordering the improvement to approximately 3400 feet in total, of Elm Avenue, north of Alton Street and south of Lewis Street and Sycamore Avenue, Hugo Avenue, Waldemar Avenue and Cedar Avenue north of"A" Street and south of Butte Street and Butte Street east of Elm Avenue and west of Cedar Avenue, to City standards, to include curb, gutter, sidewalks, storm drainage system, street lighting, and roadway improvements all in accordance with Resolution No. 3179 of the City Council; establishing Local Improvement District No. 146, and ordering the carrying out of the proposed improvements; providing that payment for the improvements be made by special assessments upon the property in the District, payable by the mode of "payment by bonds"; and providing for the issuance and sale of local improvement district warrants redeemable in cash or other short-term financing and local improvement district bonds. MOTION: I move to amend Ordinance No. 3932, creating LID No. 146 for Kurtzman Park Neighborhood Improvements Phase I, by removing properties on Sycamore Avenue, north of Alton Street, and reducing the cost accordingly as presented in the proposed amended Ordinance 3932. -AND- MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance 3932,as amended. 10. NEW BUSINESS: *(a) Improvements to the Martin Luther King Center: 1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated October 29,2009. 2. Bid Tabulation Sheet. (RC) MOTION: I move to award the contract for the remodel of the Martin Luther King Center Project to Dardan Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of$103,461.00 plus sales tax, including the base bid, and alternate bid number one (1) Accessibility to Gym, and alternate number two (2) Hot Water Heater upgrades and, further,authorize the Mayor to sign the contract. *(b) Commercial Avenue Water and Sewer Pipelines Project No. 10-2-01: 1. Agenda Report from Jess Greenough,Field Division Manager dated October 29, 2009. 2. Bid Summary. 3. Vicinity Map. (RC) MOTION: I move to award the low bid for Commercial Avenue Water and Sewer Pipelines Project No. 10-2-01 to Premier Excavation in the amount of$456,618.00, plus applicable sales tax and, further,authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. *(c) Award 2009 Sewer Lining Project No. 09-1-01: 1. Agenda Report from Michael McShane, City Engineer dated October 14, 2009. 2. Bid Summary. 3. Vicinity Map. (RC) MOTION: I move to award the low bid, including alternate area 1, 2, 3 & 4, for the 2009 Sewer Lining Project No. 09-1-01 to RePipe-California, Inc., in the amount of $346,242.50, plus applicable sales tax and,further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 13. ADJOURNMENT. (RC) Roll Call Vote Required * Item not previously discussed MF# "Master File#...." Q Quasi-Judicial Matter Regular Meeting 5 November 2, 2009 REMINDERS: 1. 1:30 p.m., Monday, November 2, KGH — Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN,Rep.; AL YENNEY,Alt.) 2. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 4, 2601 N. Capitol Avenue — Franklin County Mosquito Control District Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep., AL YENNEY, Alt.) 3. 4:00-7:00 p.m., Thursday, November 5, Three-Rivers Convention Center—Tri-Cities Visitor& Convention Bureau's Annual Meeting and Tourism Showcase Reception. (ALL COUNCILMEMBERS INVITED TO ATTEND) 4. 5:30 p.m., Thursday, November 5, Parks & Rec. Classroom — Parks & Recreation Advisory Council Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK, Rep.;MIKE GARRISON,:Alt.) 5. 8:30 a.m., Friday, November 6, Pasco Red Lion—Washington Council of the Blind Conference Welcome Address. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN) 6. 9:30 a.m., Saturday, November 7 — West Richland Chamber of Commerce Veterans' Day Parade. (COUNCILMEMBERS TOM LARSEN and AL YENNEY) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 27, 2009 TO: Gary Crutchfield, ager Regular Mtg.: 11/2/09 Rick White, ¢� Community&Eco mic Development Director FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT — (APPEAL) Location of a Corn Maze/Farm in an RS-20 Zone(2000 Block of Road 72){Haywire Farms) (MF# SP 09-007) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Binder containing Hearing Record* 3. Proposed Resolution approving the corn maze and farm 4. Proposed Resolution approving only a farm 5. Motions * (Attachments in Council packets only; copies available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at htt'v://www.pasco- wa.gov/geDeralinfo/citycouncilreports) 11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING. B. Council action based on the record(reports, correspondence and transcript)either (1) Approving the special permit as recommended by the Planning Commission; (2) Approving a Special Permit for a farm only; (3) Approving the Special Permit with modified or additional conditions; (4) Rejecting the Special Permit request; or, (5) Remanding the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review on a specific issue. C. Recommended motions are provided in Reference#5. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On July 16, 2007 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a Special Permit for the location of a corn maze and farm proposed for the field north of the Faith Assembly Church in the 2000 Block of Road 72. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the corn maze/farm. B. Following the Planning Commission decision, adjoining property owners filed a written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation. The attached appeal petition explains the reasoning behind the appeal. C. Following the appeal the City Council set a Closed Record Hearing for November 2, 2009. s(a) V. DISCUSSION: Consideration of an appeal occurs in the form of a"Closed Record Hearing" consisting of a review of the written record of the Special Permit application including the Planning Commission's deliberation. When considering this appeal, the City Council has the option of rejecting the application, accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation approving the application with additional conditions or approving only the farming portion of the application. In acting on the special permit application as per the criteria of PMC 25. 86.060 Council should determine whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; (2) The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure; (3) The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity; (4) The location and height of proposed structures and the site design will discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof, (5) The operations in connection with the proposal will be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district; and (6) The proposal will endanger the public health, or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district. Any option the Council chooses to select for the Special Permit application will need to be supported by Findings of Fact. The Findings identified in the staff report to the Planning Commission can be used as Findings to support approval of the Special Permit as recommended by the Planning Commission or to deny the corn maze and approve the farm as recommended by staff. For any other action the Council will need to develop a separate list of findings. Staff recommends the Council use motion # 2A and # 2B to deny the corn maze and approve the farm. REFERENCE #3 Resolution for Approval of a corn maze/farm RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PHILIPP SCHMITT OF HAYWIRE FARMS TO OPERATE A CORN MAZE AND FARM IN THE 2000 BLOCK OF ROAD 72. WHEREAS, Philipp Schmitt submitted an application for a Special Permit to locate and operate a corn maze and farm in the 2000 Block of Road 72 on June 30, 2009; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 16, 2009 to review the proposed maze/farm application, and; WHEREAS, following deliberations on August 20, 2009 and on September 17, 2009 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for both the corn maze and farm with certain conditions; WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recorded for the corn maze/farm application in a closed record hearing on November 2, 2009; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: 1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Philipp Schmitt and Haywire Farms for a Corn Maze and Farm located in the 2000 Block of Road 72 (Parcel #s 118-481-037 & 118-481-019) under Master File# SP09-007 with the following conditions: (1) The special permit is personal to the applicant; (2) The applicant must provide the City with a designated parking and traffic control plan to be approved by the City Engineer to ensure vehicles use the church parking lot; (3) No on street parking is permitted; (4) A daily litter control plan must be provided to the City to be approved by the Inspection Services Manager; (5) A site security plan must be submitted to the City for police and fire review prior to the issuance of a business license; (6) Portable toilets and sanitation (hand washing) stations must be provided on site. The Inspection Service Manager will determine the number of toilets and sanitation station needed; (7) Sanitation stations must meet all applicable laws and regulations; (8) Portable toilets must be located out of direct sight from adjoining homes and be no less than 75 feet from any adjoining property lines or street right-of- way; (9) Any night lighting on the site must not spill onto adjacent properties. All lighting must be shielded per PMC 12.32.020. (10) Illuminated signs are prohibited; REFERENCE #3 Resolution for Approval of a corn maze/farm (11) Signage must be limited to the entrance near the church parking lot. One directional sign is permitted on church property at the corner of Road 72 and Court Street; (12) No signage is permitted on Argent Road, Wernett Road or any other off-site location; (13) Event operations must cease by 9:00 pm on weekdays and 10:00 pm on weekends; (14) No amplified music or public announcement systems are permitted; (15) The applicant must at all times comply with City noise regulations (PMC 9.61); (16) The concession stand must be located adjacent to the church parking lot, (17) The corn maze must be setback 30 feet from the west property line of the site, 25 feet from Road 72 and 30 feet from the two homes on the west side of Road 72; (18) A two to three foot high fence is required around all areas planted with corn to stop corn leaves from blowing into neighboring properties; (19) The corn maze and festival activities will not be permitted until the applicant obtains a business license and approval of the parking and traffic plan and litter control plan; (20) The site cannot be used for produce stands selling produce other than pumpkins; (21) All temporary fencing, structures, portable toilets, concession stands and other items associated with the corn maze and festival activities must be removed from the site within 15 days of the close of the corn maze; (22) All fields used for crops (corn and pumpkins) must be tilled and restored to a state similar to that which existed prior to the planting of the crops within 15 days of the close of the corn maze; (23) All fields must be treated (with a cover crop or by other means) for dust control within 15 days of the close of the corn maze; (24) Any farming activity under this Special Permit shall be operated by using best management practices for agricultural production; (25) The applicant must prepare a conservation plan approved by a farm service agency. A copy of the plan must be submitted to the city prior to the operation of the farm; (26) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the adjoining right-of-way; (27) Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates; (28) The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops such as pumpkins, tomatoes, watermelons, peppers, and etc. The definition of row crops does not include wheat, barley, buckwheat and similar grains; (29) No farm equipment is permitted to be stored on the site; (30) The Special Permit for the farming portion of the application shall be valid for a period of 3 years and will automatically extend for an additional 3 years if the applicant adheres to the conditions of Special Permit approval; REFERENCE #3 Resolution for Approval of a corn maze/farm (31) The Special Permit for the corn maze portion of the application is valid for a period of one year during either the 2009 or 2010 season. Any subsequent use of the site for a corn maze and associated activities will require Special Permit review. (32) The Special Permit shall be null and void for the farming portion of the application if the farming activity has not begun by June, 2010. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this tad day of November, 2009 Joyce Olson, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney REFERENCE #4 Resolution for approval of a farm only RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR PHILIPP SCHMITT OF HAYWIRE FARMS TO OPERATE A FARM IN THE 2000 BLOCK OF ROAD 72. WHEREAS, Philipp Schmitt submitted an application for a Special Permit to locate and operate a corn maze and farm in the 2000 Block of Road 72 on June 30, 2009; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 16, 2009 to review the proposed maze/farm application, and; WHEREAS, following deliberations on August 20, 2009 and on September 17, 2009 the Planning Commission recominended approval of a Special Permit for both the corn maze and farm with certain conditions; WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the recorded for the corn maze/farm application in a closed record hearing on November 2, 2009; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: 1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Philipp Schmitt and Haywire Farms for a Corn Maze and Farm located in the 2000 Block of Road 72 (Parcel #s 118-481- 037 & 118-481-019) under Master File# SP09-007 with the following conditions: (1) The Special Permit is personal to the applicant; (2) The Special Permit shall be for farming only and does not permit the use of the property for a corn maze, a fall festival, or anything like unto it; (3) The farm shall be operated by using best management practices for agricultural production; (4) The applicant must prepare a conservation plan approved by a farm service agency. A copy of the plan must be submitted to the city prior to the operation of the farm; (5) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the adjoining right-of-way; (6) Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates; (7) The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops such as pumpkins, tomatoes, watermelons, peppers, and etc. The definition of row crops does not include wheat, barley, buckwheat and similar grains; (8) No farm equipment is permitted to be stored on the site; (9) The Special Permit shall be valid for a period of 3 years and will automatically extend for an additional 3 years if the applicant adheres to the conditions of Special Permit approval; REFERENCE#4 Resolution for approval of a farm only (10) The Special Permit shall be null and void if farming activity has not begun by April, 2010. (11) Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 2°d day of November, 2009 Joyce Olson, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra Clark,City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney REFERENCE #5 Motion Options The following motions can be used for action on the Corn Maze /Farm Special Permit 1) Motion to Accept Planning Commission Recommendation: (Not Recommended by Staff) Motion 1: I moved to concur with the Findings of Fact of the Planning Commission and approve Resolution No. approving a Special Permit for a corn maze and farm in the 2000 block of Road 72. 2) Motion to Approve a farm only: (Recommended by Staff) Motion 2 A: I move to adopt the Findings of Fact for a farm only as contained in the staff report to the Planning Commission. Motion 2 B: Based on the Findings of Fact as adopted I move to approve Resolution No. approving a Special Permit for a farm only in the 2000 block of Road 72. 3) Motion to Approve a Corn Maze and Farm with modified conditions: Motion 3: I move to table action on the Special Permit application until December 7, 2009 to allow staff time to prepare an approval resolution with the following additional or modified conditions (list the conditions). 4) Motion to deny the Special Permit: Motion 4: I move to table action on the Special Permit application until December 7, 2009 to allow staff time to prepare findings to support denial of the Special Permit. 5) Motion to remand back to the Planning Commission: Motion 5: I move to remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review on (list the items of concern that need additional review or clarification). SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRMAN: The final public hearing for this evening is item # 5C a special permit for the location of a corn maze/farm in a RS- 20 zone. This is at the 2000 block of Road 76. The applicant is Phillip Schmitt of Haywire Farms. This is Master File #SP 09-007 and we will start this item with some comments from city staff. SHANE O'NEILL, PLANNER 1: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The applicant Phillip Schmitt of Haywire Farms is requesting a special permit to conduct farming and an associated temporary event in an RS-20 zone. The site consists of 3 individual parcels with consistent ownership of the Faith Assembly of God Church. The site is located in the 2000 block of Road 72, south of Wernett Road. The cumulative site is approximately 28 acres. It has access from Road 72 as well as Wernett Road. The Faith Assembly of God Church is surrounded by county land on the northeast and west. The surrounding land use and zoning are as follows; to the north it is zoned RS-20 however it's in the county and is a residential use; to the south is within the city of Pasco, it's RS-20 zone owned and operated by the Nazarene Church; to the east is county land zoned RS-20 and used as residential; to the west is RS-20 county residential land as well. The comprehensive plan designates this area for low-density residential use. The proposal has been issued a determination of non-significance in accordance with SEPA. The applicant has requested a special permit to locate a corn maze and associated activities on 18 acres of land directly north of the Faith Assembly of God Church on Road 72. My understanding is that there will be a corn field and pumpkin patch where there will also be a summer festival, family oriented festival. The proposed corn maze will occupy 11 acres of the land directly north of the Faith Assembly of God Church. Twenty-three conditions relating to traffic, sanitation, lighting, signage, hours of operation, fencing, agricultural practices and permit expiration have been developed for your consideration. Because of the location of this proposal, the staff report has a condition for the permit to expire towards the end of this year. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRMAN: Commissioners, any comments or questions on this particular item? Let me ask a question with regard to special condition # 10. Signage must be limited to the entrance near the church; no signage of any kind is permitted on Court Street, Argent Road, or other offsite locations, what is the thinking on that? 1 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: Well, the thinking stems from the experience that occurred last year when Mr. Schmitt operated a corn maze on Road 68. In addition to that corn maze there was also, I guess, a produce stand and there were a number of signs placed up and down Road 68 and along Burden Boulevard that advertised his location and that signage violated the Pasco Municipal Code related to off-premise signs; and the other concern would be that this is in an area with a few homes in the neighborhood and it wouldn't be appropriate to have signage all over the place. Now Mr. Schmitt wants to address that this evening and perhaps ask that a sign be permitted at the corner of Wernett and Road 72 and a sign with the church office at the corner of Court and Road 72, but no others. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRMAN: Just before we go further on this, how does this relate to the sign code that we have like for yard sales that currently right now where someone wants to put a sign up for the day or for a couple of days saying hey I've got a yard sale at my house. Would it be permissible for him to do something similar to that, is that correct? DAVID McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: Well, my memory is not serving me well here on the sign code for yard sale signs and similar signs like that they are allowed to put them up and need to be taken down, can't be on fences or telephone poles although many people do that. This isn't a yard sale, it is a different animal which requires a special permit review and during that special permit review you can condition the activities that occur under this review. And one of those conditions that we as a staff are concerned about is the placement of signs and the number of signs. And that is why we included item in # 10. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRMAN: Other comments? COMMISSIONER CRUZ: I think your question is a very valid one. I think if we are going to enable a commercial enterprise we shouldn't be overly restrictive about signage and so I was a little curious why it was in here. I think Dave did a good job explaining it but I think there is a little bit more to the story because I remember that coming up at the Code Enforcement and I wish Angie was here. I think we are missing something here. I would just encourage everybody to think of this as you know having a bunch of people wandering through the neighborhood 2 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 because they can't figure out where it is at is not necessarily a good idea as well as plastered signs everywhere. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRMAN: K. Is the applicant here this evening to speak to this? Please come forward state your name and address and tell us what your plans are for this. PHILIPP SCHMITT, APPLICANT, 5604 McKinley Court, Pasco, WA 99301: To start off if I can take a second to correct something Mr. McDonald said and might have not been aware of. Last year we operated a produce stand and a corn maze right on the edge of the city limits of Pasco and Franklin County off of Road 68 about a half of mile north of the water tower. It was our first year at that location and I think our last year at that location. When we operated a produce stand early July we opened up the 12th of July last year and we painted signs. We put them on gooseneck trailers with big bails and we located them at Bank Reale's parking lot, TRAC's parking lot, and HAPO's parking lot. We had permission from these land owners to do that. We did not go out and what they call "gorilla tactics" with advertising for events or something like that and spread them around town. We had permission from those places. Mitch Nickolds contacted us about a week after they had been put up and notified we were in violation and they moved within three days. There was no second warning, there were no fines issued so we weren't trying "gorilla tactics" or anything like that, I thought I could legally do that. I wasn't... but since I asked permission... I didn't understand the code nor did I ever look into it. But, that was not repeated and when the corn maze opened up from August on and then we opened the corn maze on the 22nd of September last year. The only sign we had up was there on the edge of the property, so we did follow those rules I just wanted to clarify that. Ok. I would also like to take a half second to apologize my wife's' not here tonight because of a bureaucratic mistake on my part. I thought the meeting was next week. And so I sent my wife off and she is off crabbing in the San Juan's with my uncle and I am here shaking a little bit. Usually at least a week or so before the meeting my wife and I go around to our neighbors and we hand our proposal out. And introduce ourselves; who we are and answer questions at that point. I received my notification in the mail the other day because I am not opening my mail this week and I made a mad spin around today to my neighbors. It was very unprofessional last minute and I did not reach very many neighbors at all but I apologize we usually don't do it this way. It's our 12th year 3 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 doing this and this is the first time I have made this tactical mistake. But my wife and I own Haywire Farms and have been in operation since 1997. In the Tri-Cities primarily, we are a farming operation. We raise high density vegetable crops we sell at the farmers markets and to Yokes and the Red Apple in town. We also do seed crops and custom farming area. We have been doing the corn maze since 1998, and at that time for the first 4 years we had just started playing with the idea and had no idea where that road would end up. But we spent four years on Road 100 and Argent. That was our first location. My wife and I took over the whole full operation we were split up with some relatives at that point. And from then on we have been progressing since 2001 by ourselves. We had been bounced around in different locations in town. We like to stay near town and we are trying to buy ground farther out in the country but for right now we are land renters. So we look for good pieces of ground and we rent. After we left that location on Road 100 and Argent and 2001 was our last season and we moved over to Benton County for several years over there and had a great run and the ground opened up in Pasco last year and I got very excited because it was in my home territory and we moved over for a quick one year operation there and we went scampering this season looking for a piece. We have signed a lease with Faith Assembly to farm their ground, corn maze or not for the next three years with the option to farm for another three after that for a possible six years. That ground has not been irrigated from the knowledge we have got from the Franklin Irrigation District said since 1964. There has been no water rights to the ground and my wife and I attended Faith Assembly for the last year. I have been looking at that piece of ground it was in the City of Pasco I know I had a lot of hoops to jump through to make this try and work. And so we approached Faith Assembly to rent the ground with the intention of doing a corn maze. We did a little bit of research with the City and found out it was possible to do and so here we are today. We are currently putting an irrigation system into the ground. A pump station, utility with Franklin PUD and buying what they call outside water from the district. So yearly we will buy water from the Franklin district. Faith Assembly doesn't have plans at this point to bring it into the water district. So it is on a temporary basis. So just for the people, the neighbors that don't know what is going on, that's what we are planning to do. So whether the corn maze happens or not we will be farming that ground for several years it is a great piece of ground. But our history is one thing, but I know there are a lot of unanswered questions tonight. But what we primarily do is bring agri-tainment to 4 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 the Tri-Cities. It is a form of agriculture which is the same thing with the wineries bringing people out to tourism. But corn mazes and pumpkin patches are a fall festival type activity and we have been fairly popular in the Tri-Cities besides us there is the Country Mercantile on 395. And so, the two of us kind of battle for families and pumpkin sales every year in the Tri-Cities. Besides jumping to other pieces of ground we have got a fantastic record. I know that the committee up front and my neighbors behind me have all kinds of questions and I am just going to start off in the beginning. I know what most of those questions are since we went through the permits for years at different corn maze locations. Primarily they are noise, dust, traffic control, public safety, the possibility of trespass or vandalism on neighboring properties. Litter, sanitation, health codes from the Benton-Franklin Health Department. And in the last 12 years I am proud to say and this is a notable fact, we have never once been fined or been given warnings by any of the departments that regulate any of those situations. Whether it was clean air authority or Benton County, we have got flying colors from everybody. We take public safety, sanitation, litter, we take all those and we really appreciate the fact that we were allowed to operate and we really controlled those situations very tightly. And we have had no situations or fines ever in our history and that is a noble fact. I don't know how to present that or show that but we have a fantastic history. We are all in it to make the city or the county wherever or whoever we are dealing with happy with what we do and our neighbors cause we understand if neighbors aren't happy we are not going to be around there very long. We would like to be there for the next few years. Reading over the permit right here, our plans are basically, there is a map, do you have the map of our proposal of our corn field kind of like we would like to map it out this season. So I know some of my neighbors have a tentative map how we would like to layout the crops and I don't know if the committee does. But the layout explains quite a bit, so layout to us is everything. Over the last few years we have figured out how the traffic flow, how the crops flow, how to buffer sound and noise of our tractor rides to take the kids out for hayrides and we have learned how to do that quite a bit. So our layout is very important to us. If I speak loud may I walk over to the screen? COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRMAN: They won't be able to see on TV so you need to stay in front of the podium. 5 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 PHILIPP SCHMITT, APPLICANT: ok alright. So we have the church down here in the corner and this is their northern parking lot. Traffic flow we got permission from the church and urn we are renting their big parking lot. There is 210 paved marked parking spots here that are fully lighted at night time. The lights come on automatically I think at 8:45 or 8:30 and they shut off at 4 or 5 in the morning. That is where we are going to have people park at. They will be entering on the paved most northern paved entrance here on Road 72 just north of the church building. That's our entrance to the maze site right there, they park in obviously the parking area and then they enter our facility or our entertainment area in this brown section between these two trees right here if that is visible to people. And in that area we have about an acre, acre and a half that was printed here about half acre, almost an acre, acre and a half. In that area we have our concessions, our ticket booth, we have our kid activities which include a straw bale maze, a straw bale pyramid, all kinds of activities for families and kids playing. We do our pumpkin sales in there, we have our hayride that loops there and stops, that is where we load people up. We have, we will be building three little buildings this year on skids very, very small buildings. One will be a ticket booth, and then we will have a small little concession stand and a kettle corn stand. So we will have three little buildings out there the size of tool sheds basically. I will be doing our administration and concessions out of there, we are possibly going to be working a deal with the Kennewick Lions Club to do concessions this year. We have always done it ourselves but we are thinking of farming that out to their group as a philanthropy event this year. From this area they enter the corn maze and from our layout we haven't got that designed yet, we won't know until we disc the field and really see the soil conditions but we are looking at doing about a 7-acre corn maze right here in a rectangle pattern and if you have pictures of our past corn mazes we do all different kinds of different designs and this year it's either going to be the dust devils stadium or we are going to put the Pasco bulldog on one end of the field and the Chiawana hawk on it and are kind of our logo ideas just you know and so it begins cause we are going to have a big rivalry and its going to start up its early coming and going I got employees from both schools right there and its already on. So that is kind of our plan or idea. The maze will be about between six and seven acres in size we won't know until we lay it out and cut it, it will have two phases or two parts and we do that for when the public is in there. Most people it takes about 20 minutes to 25 minutes to do each half. Or what we call phase one or phase two. 6 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 We split it in two halves so if people go in there moms or dads you have little kids and they have to use the bathroom and it's not wise to have an hour long puzzle throughout there so they can get back out front, take a break, quit if they like or try the second half of the maze. So it is a two part puzzle and in the pictures you have of some of our past mazes those are in your packets you could trace your fingers on it you can see two distinct halves in there. Inside the maze we have usually two fire escapes that are clearly marked, so are what we call emergency escapes there are no fires in a green corn field and so people can go to the outside of the field which is clearly rototilled and packed down so people can walk around the outside and we do have people who occasionally say I am not for this and I am out of this thing, they walk around the edge and come right back into our entertainment area. The back half of our field is our pumpkin patch and that will range this year between five and six acres of pumpkins that might be a little confusing to people because we haven't planted anything yet but our backyard has about six acres of pumpkins planted nursery transplants we are ready to pop them in the ground as soon as we have water. So there you go with pumpkins. We usually plant our corn between the 20th and 25th of July every year. It's very late and we do this for a specific reason after doing corn mazes for 12 years we've learned really quick that corn dries out obviously and most farmers plant early in the spring, April or May, and they harvest it for feed corn or sweet corn whatever it might be. We plant very late and we have learned this neat little trick that if we plant late in the season it might not get as tall as some of the corn fields you see driving down the road. The neat thing is it stays green in October. And it stays very green it is lush and beautiful. Until we get our first heavy frost it bleaches it over a couple days. And that is just two things. Not only does it keep a very nice ambience in the neighborhood, but you don't have a fire hazard, there is absolutely no fire hazard out there and when we're in 2001 the city of Pasco annexed that ground that we have on Argent. Our 4th year at that location and we dealt with the Fire Marshall for the first time out there and it was the first time I had dealt with Dave in the Planning Office here and the Fire Marshall at that time was very concerned about dry corn. It took one trip out there and he said good bye its green. You know we are not worried about that so. That's why we plant so late and so for those of you who aren't sure why there is nothing in the field that's exactly it. So the corn pumpkin fields in the back we plant about 8 or 9 different varieties of pumpkins and we sell those to the public. We have hayrides that we make a little road out to 7 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 the corn, we just rototill a path out there and we take the hayride wagons out there and drop people off, they wander around for 15 minutes and every 10 or 15 minutes a wagon runs through there and we pick them up bring their pumpkins up front and weigh them and they are out of there. That is kind of our basic setup. And I'm not sure what else to say about our general setup. We have a road that will be around the outside of the field their asking for that here in the approval conditions and we do that. We have a road around the outside so if we ever do have an emergency and an ambulance for some reason or fire truck had to go around the outside we leave the wide roads there we basically turned dirt into an asphalt road, we rototill it, pack it, we water it once and its rock hard you could almost rollerblade after the first day. And we do that also inside the paths of the corn maze technique we use but it's hard to push strollers through corn. So we keep everything for us we want to keep that dirt down we rototill it, we pack it, it is solid no dust. And that is why we have never had a dust violation or warning from the Clean Air Department here in Richland and when we are in Benton County for years we had to go talk to them every single season about what we were going to do we've never had them visit or a phone call. So it has worked out really well for us and the best thing of all we have a paved parking lot so no longer do we have to run around with a water truck and water trailer to keep that thing soaked. We had one experience in Spokane years ago; we couldn't keep with a wind storm I never want to let that happen again. So never got a ticket from it but the neighbor owned a car lot about a half mile away was not very happy with us so. But, our entertainment area like I said will have a small petting zoo in there we bring in farm animals from friends that we know and from local 4H groups so we will have a donkey, we will have turkeys, chickens. We will have baby calves in there this year we would like to do our little piglet races again we get 6 or 7 piglets we teach them to run around a track after chocolate pudding at the end it's a fun family attraction. We need to follow and we do follow the rules that the USDA has in place. Anytime you have animals that the public can touch and pet we have to have sanitation systems set up and we do that with the Benton-Franklin County health Departments and so we have hand washing facilities out there that are that are serviced by a local sanitation company and then we also have to deal with veterinarian visits out there because we have animals in contact with the public and they want to make sure we're taking good care of the animals so we have a whole different set of guidelines to follow on that. Our opening hours are basically 8 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 Monday through Friday from about 4 o'clock in the afternoon until about 9 pm at nighttime and on Saturdays we're open from IOam to 10 pm at night and then on Sundays we are open after church about 1 o'clock until about 5 pm. On weekdays we are open in the mornings just to private tours. We do a very large amount of grade school tours and last year we did you know about almost 2,000 kids and individual tours in the mornings just a couple of school buses come in and we give them a personal tour and we have them for about an hour and a half at our site. It's a lot of fun it's a neat service that we like to do every season. So our main traffic flow is on Wednesday nights and Thursday nights those are our youth group nights and we get hit by the local youth groups from the churches and a lot of Boy Scout and Girl Scout groups those nights and we do get hammered on those nights so we are only there for about a hour and a half cause they are coming in a van pool or buses like that and those are very busy nights Fridays. Friday nights are usually fairly busy for us. Saturday is busy all throughout the day morning until night and then Sundays is just a real nice slow crowd for us we really enjoy it's kind of our laid back day on our farm. We I do totally acknowledge that we did have a lot of people come out last year we had between 7 and 9,000 people and I say that we are all over the board right there because we have a lot of free passes, promotion or doing local radio stations and businesses and we don't count the free passes so I do know we do have about 7,400 paid people that came through our facility last year and so you divide that up over the 4 to 5 weekends that we are going to be operating and those Wednesday and Thursday nights and you know you can start figuring traffic flow. We are going to increase the traffic flow and I understand that. And I am not really impressed with Road 72. It is a skinny, skinny road and that's always been a concern of mine but that is not something I cannot handle or deal with I have no ability to change or do anything on that. What we have done in the past is put signs all along the com field along the approached road say slow kids at play and we make these nice little tasteful signs but we litter the road we want people to see that every second driving down there just to know and I've already talked to 1 neighbor and they do have a dog and their area they are concerned about cause they have lost pets in the area and so we are going to increase the traffic there I do not deny that a bit. We would like to put those signs on the roads; small tasteful ones just to remind people to slow down there is people there is kids there is neighbors in the area. But beyond that it is up to not code enforcement but police patrols and if we do see a problem or sure if the neighbors 9 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 do see a problem we would like to get extra patrols out in that area and we occasionally do get the teenagers like to drive up and down that road showing off their wheels and we do hate that but that is something's out of our control we would love to control it but we don't know how to do that so. Without speed bumps and I don't think you guys would appreciate us making some out in the road. As for signage, we would like to put a sign obviously at the entrance at the parking lot here for Faith Assembly, we would like to put one at the north end of Road 72 and Wernett, and we would also like to put one down on Court Street on the comer of the Faith Assembly's property just so people are not driving around and not understanding the road system I mean it is fairly simple for us in Pasco but you have people coming from Kennewick or Richland or Walla Walla and it gets confusing for them and I would like to put those signs up definitely what we will do is a 4 X 8 sign very tastefully painted and put one on two 4 X 4's and stake them in the ground and then they're done. At the end of the season we pull them right out of the ground it's just a direction arrow you at least see the maze or haywire farms and at that point see the directions very simple. At our place my wife she usually speaks about this we are all into cosmetics we have one impression to make on people every fall when they come out so we are always improving we are trying to make that corn greener we are putting sunflowers up more pumpkins we want when they walk in they say wow and believe me when I say there is no garbage anywhere there is no garbage anywhere that's the last thing we want. We have a packed down dirt field when people walk into our entrance area that we water several times a day to keep the dust down to keep it nice and there's just not a speck of white out there. So we are methodical about garbage and I understand that will probably be a concern tonight with our neighbors because we are going to have several thousand people come out over the season and I can see where that would be a concern. We usually bring out a 3-yard dumpster and have the BDI, or whoever the local, yeah its BDI would be the local company to take care of that. Our sanitation is our portable potties requirement they regulate that for us and they usually have to bring out 4 to 7 each season it depends on who the inspector is basically we like to have 7. We personally clean them ourselves which isn't a pleasant deal but it is all about impressions to us along with hand washing facilities cause people are eating concessions out there and touching snouts of pigs and we are very serious into that. I am not sure what else I can cover on of if you have any questions at this point. On the tentative approval and I don't know if the audience 10 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 has these but in my proposal the Planning condition is given me ten approval conditions and there is a couple of them I have questions on. # 9 and # 10 the illuminated signs I am only interested in light possibly lighting the signs at both comers with battery packed lights so at night people can see them. We are not talking and definitely anything bright. And # 10, the signage obviously and # 11 event operations must cease by 9 pm on weekdays and 9:30 on weekends. We stop selling tickets at those times and so we have it's been our experience that if we have people come in at 9 pm which we usually do on weekdays until Friday night we are shut down by 10:30 they are in there for about an hour and a half for some reason an hour and a half is fine at night time and then people are off doing other things on weekends we are shut down by 11:30 completely. So we usually sell our last tickets at 9 and 9:30 then we shut the gate as we call it and we start flushing people an hour and a half after that. We send out our employees out through the maze with and they bring the people out front and shut doors. We don't have any ambient noise in the field we have small little boom boxes play country music right up front they could easily have a soft conversation that's how soft the music is we don't have PA systems. The only other thing I might I might change in here the set back rule. I wasn't sure if that was code or not but you are asking for 30 feet from the west property line and 25 feet from Road 76 or along Road 72. We would like to see if we can move that to 20 feet to give us more room to plant corn. Corn is a fantastic buffer for noise and everything else and a 20 foot road along there with the corn is nice and wide in case anyone had to drive around the field. Is been more than sufficient in the past and I would like to gain every little piece of acreage I can out there with planting our corn. # 19 we are a produce farm and it says here that the site cannot be used for produce stands selling produce other than pumpkins. We sell lots of pumpkins, we sell lots of gourds, we sell ornamental corn we will be selling sweet corn at that time late tomatoes, peppers, and the produce stand is not something just only open when the corn maze is there. It is small under a little 10 X 20 tent that we have and a couple of tables but we will be selling our produce, or we would like to sell our produce. We have done this at our other mazes and has worked very well for us. After about the 15th of October usually when the freeze hits us we are done selling the produce we will just only be selling ornamental pumpkins and gourds at that point. Item 21 under the tentative rules all fields and crops must be tilled and restored to a state similar to that which has existed prior to the planting. We are planning our agreement with Faith Assembly to put a barbed 11 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 wire fence around the entire property. On the property lines a 4-wire fence is what they call in standard ranching and then at the end of the season we would like to bring some angus cattle in. They will work the corn down, we have a lot of feed out there it's fantastic to those existing cattle on the ground for the last seven years. Faith Assembly has leased it to a property owner and they have had cattle in there and so we would like to split the field in half, run some of our cattle in the bottom half and then I think Faith Assembly would like to have their previous tenant back on the northern half but we don't want to disc the corn. The corn is our cover crop and usually we start breaking into the ground and in late February as soon as the ground thaws we got good moisture from some late winter rains and that is when we break in the first time and three weeks later we break it down again, three weeks later and every time the microbes love to break down and by the 3rd pass that field is ready to plant. And so we would like to keep the corn as our cover crop on the field. Item 20 temporary fencing, structures, portable toilets, concessions stands, everything must be taken down 15 days of the close which the close on this permit is November 15, so by November 30 you would like that those items moved from the field from out of that entire property where you see green and orange right there. We have all that stuff pulled out and in that brown area we would like to leave our existing structures that we put which would be the kid entertainment area. We do put up wood fences in there but we have what you would call a kiddie corral and a couple of different areas we would like to keep that in there. It is all wood, it's all very tastefully done; all our structures, our little concessions stand, our red and white little tool shed barns that you would see in people's backyards are all very small in size. We would like to keep that up. It will, I can't say enhance the area because people have different ideas of enhancements but it will fit the agricultural theme in the area and it will look very nice. So like I said we are into cosmetics when people first enter our place and we would like to keep that up to save us on cost of resetting up. We would like to be doing this year after year. So I think that about covers us, I didn't mean to talk or take up so much time up I'm just trying to cover a whole lot of it and without my wife here I'm kind of in trouble. We do take security and public safety extremely serious. I will be perfectly honest and in the year 2000 our third corn maze we ever had on Road 100 and Argent we had a terrible incident. We had a gang initiation stabbing at our farm and it was a really traumatic experience. A 14 year old came in here and as part of his gang initiation that night was coming and stab somebody. They move up in its 12 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 hierarchy and a Franklin County sheriff was trying to explain to me it's just silly stupid but that was a kind of a hierarchy; you stab someone you move up to a sophomore or junior status in your gang. Anyways so the kids after they were arrested, the sheriff discovered they were at the Pasco powder puff football game earlier that night with too much security, too much lights, so they came to our place which was embarrassing and it just blows our mind and so he came in at night he stabbed a kid with a letter pin knife on the side. He was fine it just took a couple of stitches, scared the heck out of us. That night we did have our haunted corn field that night but we have unbelievable security at our place and that night we had great security so even though that happened we were able to evacuate the field instantly and we had the help from the Franklin County Sheriff's Department, Pasco City Police came in instantly, State Patrol was there. It got real exciting very fast, we cleared the maze. I'm just saying this I want to be perfectly honest, lots of people don't know that it was us. We used to be called the Maize, now we are Haywire Farms, just escapes from the stigma that we had. We hated it and we cleared the maze gave everyone a full refund you know and there was no aftermath, there was no lawsuit or anything like that. The kid that made that decision and his friends, he only spent three months in juvi then they were off. I don't know where they are at anymore. But one of the things that helped us out tremendously that night is on those busy nights we recognize we can just sense that if it's going to be a busy night and we really catered to teenagers at that point. That's all we knew, we weren't into families or selling pumpkins, it was a corn maze. And we worked really, we love to have families out, we just didn't understand that is where we wanted to focus our business and so on a busy night with the teenagers we had hired sheriff deputies come work for us off duty. They came in for four hours for 150 bucks and they sit out front and those goofy little gang bangers, and they walked right through the ticket line, paid admission and the sheriffs car was parked right there out front and past him, he sat there and read the rules to people and they still went and did that and that just scared the heck out of us. So even though everything ended up fine, the kid was fine you know, and the guy that committed the crime and he wasn't punished at all. It really fired us up for public safety in a way we hadn't planned for. We were just goofy little farmers planting a corn field and having some fun. And so our public safety now is extremely tight. I hire a guy who is going to speak later on tonight, he is my main security chief out here. He is a gulf war veteran he got a lot of experience as 13 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 security, he is still in the field right now, he does a great job setting things up for us but all our employees have two-way radios. We have several members of myself and Sean, and several other members who will have certification in CPR and first aid. On busy nights, we will be hiring. I don't think we will be hiring the Sheriffs deputies I think we will be hiring the city police that they work in that area cause now that we are in the city out there, possible hire them if we feel the need and we can just kind of judge that we do not cater to teenagers anymore. We cater to families. The teenagers come in, but we are selective who we let into our property. If we have 2 or 3 gentlemen that are all by themselves, high school age and looking the part of that lifestyle, I'll say we don't let them in. And you know young boys that age should be in with a couple girls, go out there have a good time, horse around, so we do discriminate in that sense. And if they do get in past our ticket booth we shadow them all night and it is very uncomfortable for them. I am saying that I know that is an uncomfortable situation, but literally we put employees with two-way radios and they follow them all night and they leave really quick. We had two situations last year, but they got in past our people taking tickets and it was just two boys and we followed them all night we made them so uncomfortable they left right away. But out of all the people that come through those people of that lifestyle don't come anymore. They know that we won't deal with it and they just are not welcome out there and we will harass them. So I don't know how else to politely or politically correctly say it, but we did have an incident in 2000 that was at our place and we dealt with it really well I think, and we got a good history of how we deal with our public safety now, and with this permit if it is allowed, there is a lot of stipulations in here. I will be working closely with the city police and the fire department. Our emergency situations I am sure, will be getting some training, some ideas but we do not let that crowd in to our field anymore. We have not for a long time so I guess that's it. A lot of information, I was all over the board without my wife, I know I sound like a farmer rather than a public speaker. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Commissioners, any comments or questions? Have you received, you may have said this, I just want you to say it over again which is have you actually in during the time that you have been operating, have you received any complaints and if you have received complaints about your operations, what have they been? 14 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 PHILIPP SCHMITT, APPLICANT: We have when we applied for our permits since we always applied for special use permits, so we have done that in Benton County and then in Franklin County last year. The complaints we get are from neighbors that are unfamiliar with our operation and we did have one interesting neighbor over in Benton County that was concerned about pesticide use and herbicide and garbage and all kinds of stuff. He had lots of concerns about his property which I totally understand. We are moving into people's backyards and that is an uncomfortable situation sometimes, especially if they don't know who we are or how we run our operation. And so the complaints before the fact, we have opened the maze while applying for the permits are the concerns that individuals have been-noise. We don't want to hear anything and we understand that we don't want noise, we don't want loud music out there, we don't want rock bands, we don't deal with those items that's pretty easily covered. Dust you know. Cars in the parking lot, kids on 4-wheelers running around from the tractor hayrides whatever else, they don't want to deal with the dust and we've taken care of that situation. We've got that pretty much mastered and we have a great record of that. Noise, dust, sanitation hasn't been a big deal cause that is covered by the Health Department. Litter-it's another one people don't want. Litter or corn leaves blowing on the property, which I understand. Corn mazes are just like a giant elm tree blowing all the garbage in your lawn and so we take care of that pretty easily around the outside of the fence. We put a very small animal fence along the barbed wire and its very small square, we buy it from Ranch and Home, its about 2 feet high and the leaves don't make it to the neighboring property. If it does, we have had agreement to go clean it up, we have never been called but we did have one neighbor one year got very excited about that and that's when we started installing those fences. We do not have that in the property we were at last year. We didn't have the need to put it because we are in open farm ground area and didn't have the neighbors concerned about that. Here on this property line, Road 72 and Wernett, we would like to put up that fence to keep leaves from blowing over. It's not an orange construction fencing, it just like chicken wire, keeps the corn leaves from breaking off in violent wind storms like we had the other day and blowing in their yard, no one wants to see that. Those have been our primary concerns. Oh, safety of course and traffic. Traffic is going to be a big one and besides putting our signs up, control on that is kind of out of our step. We would love to control that 15 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 like I said unless you give us permission to put up a couple of speed bumps up there, that's out of our hands. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Is it your intention that or belief that the primary traffic in and out of this location is primarily the same traffic flow, same traffic approach that it would be for someone actually going to that church normally or is it different? PHILIPP SCHMITT, APPLICANT: Well the biggest crowd you are going to have at that church obviously are Sunday morning or possibly a Wednesday night, or whether the church rents the building out for marriages every once in a while or I can't pronounce this word quincenera's. DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: quincenera's PHILIPP SCHMITT, APPLICANT: Thank you for helping me out there. Thank you and so you know, those are large traffic days and so our weekday traffic won't be extreme at all, it really will not be. Wednesday night you will see church buses corning down the road and everything else but youth groups don't allow the teenagers to drive from their church in Kennewick or Richland by themselves. So where you're going to see the traffic flow is Friday night and Saturday and very light traffic on Sunday, I mean usually about 400 people come out on a busy Sunday. The last two weekends are fairly busy of course, if the weather holds nice but Saturday we are going to see traffic that's at the night time. We do get a lot of people come out night time and especially when we operate our field of screams which is a family haunted operation now and the corn and there is traffic on that. I don't know how to alleviate that, I mean we are trying to buy 60 acres out on Dent Road, you know 7 or 8 miles out of town and do this, but we are a little ways away financially in making that step. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Well I assume that the primary way to get to this corn maze is off of Court Street onto 72. It would... it's not a... hopefully people will give some public input on this about how often people actually access that location by going down Wernett and going down Road 72. And since you commented that that is a narrow road, I wonder if that is going to be an issue or not. Hopefully we will hear from the public about whether they think that is an issue and maybe they have some ideas about what we can do about it. 16 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 PHILIPP SCHMITT, APPLICANT: I do think that will be an issue. I can safely say in my opinion people that live in the city of Pasco that decided to attend Haywire Farms Fall Festival will know about Argent Road and drive down that direction. You'll head south and that's something I wish I could alleviate, but I think they will know that the clientele that we have from Richland and Kennewick most likely will be coming down Road 68, the entire way down and then over on Court. On our dollar off coupons, we have about 60,000 dollar off coupons, we print and we spread all over town every year. We are at every McDonald's, Sun- Mart, you know it and that's primarily how the people find us and come out to our place. Our map will not even show Argent Road. it's going to just show Road 68 all the way down to Court and then up that direction and I think there is only one or two residences that they will pass that are on the east side of the road that are on the map right here, that they will pass these two places right here. But the parking entrance is right here, so that's my solution to it. That's the best I think you can do unless there are some great ideas out there. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Rose? COMMISSIONER ROSE: I understand what the signs will be for but 8 feet in size? PHILIPP SCHMITT, APPLICANT: Yeah we use them when people are driving by. We can do a 4 X 4 sign; we use 4 X 8 sheets of plywood and they stand you know about 4 feet out of the ground and they stand 4 X 8 parallel to the ground. 4 X 4 is fine, anything smaller than a 4 X 4 sign, people driving by may not see that. At nighttime usually we paint the signs corn yellow and then we write The Maize or Haywire Farms in forest green. It stands out pretty well when headlights hit that. We would love to put a little set of Christmas lights on it you know tastefully done not garbage or junk. We are not the garage signs you see all over the roads trust me on that. But I do have pictures of those signs. I did not bring those. But I think a 4 X 4 foot sign would be easily visible for most people. But a 2 X 4 is getting a little small for people I think, but that's just my opinion. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Ok, any other comments? Alright, well thank you very much. Appreciate that now. I am going to open this up to a public hearing. Those individuals who wish to either speak for or against 17 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 this item please come forward, state your name and address for the record. We very much value your input on this. I am looking forward to hearing from the public as to what they think about this. JOHN PIETRUSIEWICZ, 2909 Road 72, Pasco, WA 99301: My name is John Pietrusiewicz I live at 2909 Road 72 and it is up the hill and my concern is traffic. We live like I said up the hill close to Argent and you ask the question how much of this traffic is there during church we don't see that much. But at various times they have meetings at Faith Assembly and traffic is heavy and heavy traffic is fine, but there is a 25 mile an hour speed limit and there is no enforcement. And I shudder to think about this coming in. You know he's concerned and I appreciate his concern about it and I wish there was something he could do. In my opinion, they come back when you get the problem solved well find someplace else. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: So you would not be for this proposal? JOHN PIETRUSIEWICZ: I would not be for it at all. You know the whole concept and I appreciate what he is trying to do and all but I don't think this is the spot. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Ok, very good. Thank you very much. Other individuals who wish to speak either for or against this item? JESSE RODGERS, 7309 W. Wernett Road: I'm Jesse Rodgers and I live on 7309 Wernett which would be just north of across the street where he is proposing this maze. When it first came out I thought the church was putting this on and I couldn't understand why the church would want to put a corn maze there. We are already overwhelmed with the traffic in this area. It's cars from the church but it's good to have the church in our area. But back to the roads, and back to the traffic, that road was put in probably in the 1950's. The road is no more than 20 feet wide, there is no sidewalks, there is tack weeds on both sides of the street or walk your dog or walk your horse or walk your wife, or walk with your wife. And you get 2 cars passing on that street and I am telling you now all these will verify these cars are not running 25 miles an hour that they should be running on that street because that is what the speed limit is. I would like to see it lower, but with that city posting. You get two cars passing there and you got a pedestrian on either side of 18 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 that road, he's in trouble. He's got to step off into the cockleburs. That is our major problem. My neighbor just lost a German Sheppard from a car hitting him on the way to church going 50 miles an hour coming down north off of Argent down 72. That's a tragedy loss to anybody. But we have had the police department called, we call our Sheriff Department, we get an officer out there maybe once he will come out and sit, the minute they see him, they slow down. We call the sheriff's department they tell they are understaffed, they can't patrol that because that parcel of ground from the church west is city, so we're in a little bit of a doughnut hole here. The County really don't want to work with us, the City, they are occupied elsewhere because we don't have the facility to set a man out there. So they bring out a speed trap wagon. Well most of the people just test to see how fast they are driving out there, that's what I have done but that don't slow anybody down. And the neighbors from Argent clear to Court Street is affected with this. Now the gentlemen says well the people will come in from different ways. Well I live on a graveled road across from that that's a graveled road; he said we're going to contain dust. Is he going to come out there and water that road when that other traffic that comes from Richland south Richland, from Benton City that's coming in from the west? They get mixed up, don't get the right roads so they turn and come down Road 76 and then they turn on Wernett Street. Now we got a dust problem. Is he going to have a water truck out there to maintain it? I have been trying to get it paved for 20 years, but I'm not getting much luck. The other thing is we are talking about, he's going to put the corn maze in there then when he gets done he is going to cut the corn maze down, the corn down and he is going to bring the cattle in. Now when you bring the cattle in the irrigation water goes off there is no way to prevent and you know as well as I know when cattle get to traveling around eating they chew up the ground then when we get our southwest winds that we get for the last 100 years. You know we get it and everybody that is east of this place and to the north of it we catch all the dust. Now what he is saying, oh yeah we are going to do this and this and this in the time that the corn maze is going to be there? Ok, but then you are going to bring the cattle in we're already got one landlord that's running abundance of cows and if you grow up and around and you probably all have the smell of cows. We get it in the southwest area all the time. So this is a temporary deal that he wants to bring in and then when the corn is gone he takes his cows out. We are still stuck there with the smell of the stuff on the ground, so yes I am very much opposed to this deal and if anything can be done to 19 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 stop it. I would like any and every one of you if you haven't driven on Road 72, come out and drive up the road or come out and sit on that road maybe one day or one night on Wednesday night when the church is going on, and see what the traffic is. You will realize that that road is not accustomed. He had a maze out on Road 100 and Argent, he had two major roads, wide roads, we don't have no wide roads to take there. He says they are all going to come in from the south end of the deal. No they will not. They come down 68 turn on Wernett and turn on 72 and head for the church. That's where our problem is, and then they go further and they missed it. They go down 72 and shoot down it. I guess I can't see them taking care of this and taking care of the traffic. Like he even admitted there was some knifings going on out there at the other maze, it's going to bring crime in, younger generation, I was young too but I also spun my wheels up dirt roads and gravel roads. You get them on this narrow pavement, I'm not saying younger kids are worse than I was, but it will happen and I hate to see the activities that will accumulate out there. One more thing I forgot to ask and I am not really up on it, but we got ground owls out there. Out in the middle of that dry field, that's their habitat. They are a protected bird. They have shut down some of the Hanford work because they come across these ground owls and their deal. Well my neighbor called on it and somebody in the city said well as long as they don't disturb the ground owls and run them out of there they can do it. Well when they go in there and start plowing up this ground to plant this corn I can't see any other way they are not going to disturb these owls. These owls are quite a little bird. I sit there with my telescope and I look out at them and there always is one sitting up on his little post that they put out there and he is a guard and the rest of them are just milling around until at night then they fly out into the road. They are a good little bird and I can't see if there is any reason they should be able to disturb them being a protected bird. So that is something else that someone might want to take into consideration. I probably spoke overdue myself, but I think everyone of our people here that's on this deal, is not, I don't think anyone of them would be for it. Like I say, it is just very dangerous to get out and walk on Road 72 and Wernett because they are narrow roads. So I thank you for listening to me and thank you. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much appreciate that very much. Other individuals who wish to speak either for or against this item? 20 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 SAL BELTRAN, 2316 Road 72, Pasco, WA 99301: My name is Sal Beltran; I live at 2316 N. Road 72. You're considering putting a commercial enterprise in a residential area. And those are the words he used commercial enterprise. Some of the items you consider noise, traffic, lights, hours of operation until 10:30 or 11:30 each night across the street, from your home, across the street from your pasture. I believe when I looked at this map and I looked at the example provided at previous locations. I counted one house in the photograph. The same photograph was taken of this location I believe there would be nine houses. There would probably be about I don't know probably about ten horses and other animals that are just across the street. This a farm that's one thing I believe that's probably what that area is the majority of the homes in that area are ranchettes, small plots of land with some animals. However a commercial enterprise is going to bring in thousands of people to this area. Well? There is no doubt in my mind it will change the lifestyle of all of the residents all of my neighbors. Most of the folks you see around me I see them walk their dogs each evening. I even see one of my neighbors walk her horse up and down that street. And now we are going to put your decision would potentially put thousands of people on that road. I've lost an animal a pet during a Sunday afternoon with an adult driver. This wasn't in the evening or there was a young teenager behind the wheel. That's why I can tell you I know for a fact it will change our lifestyle. My neighbors will not walk with their kids or walk their dog in the evening just because of the traffic. I am an avid runner. I don't run normally on the afternoon on Sunday afternoons I won't be able to run in my own neighborhood. Now look me in the eye and tell me that is not going to have an impact on the value of my home if I decide to sell my home while this is in operation. The amount of traffic look at this lovely don't bother venturing outside you won't want to hang out in your backyard. Road 72 is a tough road to try to walk or try to ride your horse on unless you're on the shoulder. And as Mr. Rogers mentioned, it's very difficult with the tack weed there to walk on the side of the road. So with your own criteria I ask you consider that noise, traffic I really didn't hear when the applicant talked about how they abided by the rules how they talked about lights especially with operations to 10:30 or 11:30 each night. Noise traffic lights and the decrease in home value and so I do not support this application. Thank you very much. 21 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Other individuals that wish to speak either for or against this item. This is very valuable input very much appreciate it. PAT GRADY, 2703 Road 72, Pasco, WA 99301: Yes my name is Pat Grady I live at 2703 Road 72 which is north of Wernett and basically I will reiterate the same things most people have said that live on our street. And I mean we have people who come up that street 60 miles an hour and for about six years it's just interesting. About 2 weeks ago I seen a city police, Pasco police go down the road from Wernett from, oh what am I thinking. Argent come down past my house, but I would say and I am there working all the time and I would say that in the six years I probably seen I'll try to be I'll double it 10 or 12 either police cars or sheriff department cars go down that road. And one time I invited them to come sit in my yard to try to catch those people that go speeding down that road. That road was built in the 1950's because the house that I live in the man that that owned that house built that road in the early 50's. So it, I mean there's, it would be interesting, I don't know if you want to take a poll you know because this could kind of hurry this up. How many people here raise your hand if you are in favor of that? I'm just saying is there anybody that lives on that road that's in favor of it. You know and I just feel it wouldn't be wouldn't be right speeding down that road and another thing coming off of Argent when they have church there are a lot of cars. John lives up the street from me I am surprised he... well anyways there are a lot of people that come off Argent and come down 72 and I don't know how many come off of Court street but I would venture guess there are as many that comes off Argent that comes off of Court. The same I would think the same ratio of people that will come to that maze as come to that church they are going to come off of Argent all the way down 72 and they are going to come off of Court and 72 and some of them will come off of Wernett. So anyway it's, I wouldn't support it you know I just wouldn't support it. I think it's in town it just doesn't belong there. That's the way I feel. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Alright very good. Other individuals who wish to either speak for or against this item TAMARA ROY, 7116 W. Wernett Road, Pasco, WA 99301: My name is Tamara Roy and I live at 7116 Wernett which is east of the site. I used to live on the corner 22 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 of 72 and Wernett and I built a new house on Wernett thinking I would get away from the traffic and I did not. They come right off of 68 and they come down Wernett barely stopping at the stop sign at 72 rounding the corner and heading down 72 to the church; Sunday through Sunday. And I feel I need to represent the family that was that was here but left with all the kids they are brand new to the community and I would like you to look at my kids tell them that they cannot ride their bikes I know that the corn maze is going to be running around October. These children need to go to sleep I have to get up at 5 o clock in the morning and see patients. I don't like to go to bed really late I'm kind of crabby and I have someone's life in my hands that's not good. The dog that passed away died in my hands. This is a commercial enterprise this is a residential community. I would wish that the City of Pasco would like to respect their neighbors in the county I am not for this; and very dead against it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Other individuals who wish to speak either for or against this item? I want to give anybody who hasn't had a chance yet to speak and then those who feel the need to speak again will be given a chance. CHARLENE HEYEN, 7421 W. Wernett Road, Pasco, WA 99301: Hi I'm Charla Heyen. I live at 7421 W. Wernett. I'm just north of the property actually northeast of the property. You think 72 is bad, you ought to drive on Wernett that's not paved in fact I was over mowing my neighbor's lawn with the lawnmower headed home and I scooted over as far as I could go just to let the bus by on a lawnmower. So you can imagine two vehicles passing there. Anyway I was kind of surprised because I used to be a member of that church and this was years ago and I was led to believe that the property was given to the church through a will and the man stipulated that the property could be used for church purposes only. And I was wondering if somebody could check on that because Faith Assembly sold a piece of the property to the Nazarene church and because it was being used for church purposes that was allowed. I am worried about traffic, I'm worried about parking, overflow parking, I'm worried about property damage and who is going to take care of it. I also am worried when he said that they are going to turn cattle in there. Well cattle will eat all that corn up. And in April in the spring when we get these good wind storms there is not going to be any cattle there, there's not going to be any corn and he doesn't he said that he plows it in February that's going to be 23 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 nothing but dust in April and May. You know what kind of dust we have. This activity is going to bring may bring in people that do not respect other people's property. As an example I was going on Argent when the corn maze was on Road 100, 1 was concerned because there were cars parked on both sides of the streets children running in between the cars. I mean I was I was down to 10 miles an hour because you didn't know if a child was going to dart out in between because they want to cross that road and get over there. They had parking but it was not enough parking. And also there were cars parked on both sides of Road 100. I know that in October it is going to be dark and another thing that we saw out there at Road 100 was broken beer bottles and the next day when you drove by there was all kinds of garbage there was wrappers of every kind and water bottles and with the wind it was picked up and taken to the neighbors house I just assumed that the neighbors were responsible for picking it up. I have livestock and I am also worried that someone may decide that they might to feed the cows a pumpkin or corn and heap it over the fence over to my animals. I guess that's about all of my concerns. Oh, the other one is the new high school going in on Road 70(84) up on Argent and 76 do you know how many teenagers as soon as school is over is going to barrel down 76 turn on Wernett and go to 72 and then go on down to the church. Because they are going to be flying down that road. We have had in the past one particular teenager I guess it was a race to get home he would turn off of 68 and this is before they repaired and fixed the roads and there was a slight up to Road 72 and down and he would hit that hard enough when he came down the other side his truck was would nose dive into it. We have had them go by our house so fast that they have taken out the chain link fence and taken it with them. So that is my biggest concern. Property damage and traffic control. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Alright good. Thank you very much. Other individuals who wish to speak for this particular item. Second call for anyone individuals who have not spoken so far. Yes ma'am and then you in the red yes. NANCY RIEKE, 7109 W. Wemett Road, Pasco, WA 99301: Hi my name is Nancy Rieke I live at 7109 W Wernett which is the northeast corner of Wernett and 72. I also have children I also have a dog we do ride bikes and walk and the streets are narrow so the traffic is my primary concern but I also am concerned with the after dark it is pitch black in that area so I am concerned with property 24 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 damage with security and safety of my family and pet and just those are the two things that he said he can't control. So those are the things that concern me the most; the safety and the traffic. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Very good. Thank you. You sir in the red; this is very good very much appreciate this. SEAN VAN DINTER, 7815 Wrigley Drive, Pasco, WA 99301: My name is Sean VanDinter I live at 4815 Wrigley Drive. I am speaking for this, a little bit of back ground on me. I was in the military and my profession now is I do security. And after the 2000-2001 incident where the individual got knifed Mr. Schmitt had me come in and since then we haven't had anything that even resembled that. Say its luck say it's because you brought in the right people. But we haven't had any further incidents like that. To say that an incident like that couldn't happen again I think everybody would be fooling themselves because even your best police force your best security team can't cover all the bases and things do happen. The only thing we can do is make sure that we do do the best of our ability to accommodate these individuals here. I understand and I respect every one of their concerns. I do know that the course over the years that we have made big strides in accommodating so that people's property does not get damaged that people do not get injured. But there are things that are really out of our control. I understand that you know that the biggest thing is traffic. It sounds like they have been dealing with traffic down that road for some time. And maybe that is for another council meeting later on or with the county. But something like that could be cured as simply as having some patrols from Pasco Police Department they are out there writing tickets. Everybody knows here that word of mouth that if you drive crazy down this road then you are going to get a ticket. This has some effect and it is a very powerful effect. And as far as property damage to the surrounding houses around there. What we're what we're proposing to do with the security is having people that are on the outside of the maze making sure that we don't have people loitering that we don't have people peeking in window. Again can we control all of that no but we can make an extensive effort to do that. And as far as people hanging out after the maze they're asked to leave, they can't hang out, they can't sit there and drink beer. Any kind of activity that is not the right activity for what we are trying to do we have absolutely no problem having the local police department sheriff's department come in and do what they have to do. Whether it 25 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 is cite somebody or arrest somebody that's something we don't play with. This maze you know I'm a father just like most of you guys here some grandparents and stuff and I can appreciate the safety issues. But one gentleman brought up the fact that it is going to bring crime in. When if you stop and think about it something like this as an attraction is something that gives the kids a fall activity to participate in. Where they're at least you know as best we can they've got people looking out so that they are not doing the wrong thing. It keeps them from doing stuff that everyone of us don't want them to do. You know it's one of those things its catch 22. You know I appreciate the fact that you know people ride their bikes that kids play but I would stress on this and no offense to anybody when you're dog was hit was it out in the street or in was it in your yard? Just a question. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: You need to go ahead just talk to the commission not the audience. SEAN VAN DILATER: OK, but you know last time I checked people don't drive through yards. Kids running out in front of cars, you got the church there do they do it then? It's one of those things we can only control so much and as far as the security and the safety side of it. We try to do the best we can and we don't hesitate to ask questions we will get with the law enforcement what do you think we should do how do you think we should approach this what do you recommend and we will do it the way they want it done so it is better. So I am definitely for it I think it is an activity that occupies the young kids time and it provides families with young kids that they normally don't get to do. Pet some animals, go through a corn maze you know pumpkin patch you got Halloween coming up you know preschool kids that come out there if you could see the look on their face they absolutely enjoy it. They have the greatest time. They get pictures taken it's a very class act so I'm for it with these people's feelings in mind we can do the best we can. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Ok, other individuals who wish to speak for or against this. Only individuals so far that haven't spoke yet I just want to I only want to hear from people who haven't spoke yet and I will give people who wish to speak an opportunity. TRAVIS MATHEWS, 2205 Road 72, Pasco, WA 99301: Hi Travis Mathews, I live on 2205 N Road 72. Are you saying that it's ok if somebody's dog is in the 26 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 road just to run them over? That is what it sounds like you know. As far as the corn maze the people we don't want around and we don't care if it's got security we don't even want the security walking around facility. That's why people move out to the country to get away from people. And everybody's pretty much said what I think I want to say so that's about it. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Ok, very good, other individuals who have not spoken on this yet. Do you affirm to tell the truth in this testimony? GARY GATEWOOD: 1821 Road 72, Pasco, WA 99301: 1 do. My name is Gary Gatewood I live at 1821 Road 72 directly east of the north parking lot of the church. My main concern is everyone else has expressed so far is the traffic issue. With the traffic increase from the church just being there and I am so thankful that the church is there. I have nothing against the church or anything like that I have nothing against the corn maze we have enjoyed the corn maze since we have been in this area. However putting one here at this site in my opinion is just going to be a little bit much adding with that the church traffic and then this traffic on top of that even for that short period of time is too extreme for our families and pets and everybody else involved. So for that reason only I am against this proposal if they were out there in a rural area somewhere that would be great. We have gone to their mazes throughout the years and they have been you know away from the housing areas and you know less populated spots even though we are not that dense there we're still a lot of families around. And so I just wanted to make that comment that traffic is the main issue. Just like everybody says 72 is tight. And when the church is in session they not only fill the parking lot they fill the roads so they park on both sides of the street. And so that makes it even worse for that period of time and I can see that happening as well with the corn maze thing going in so I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Ok, other individuals who wish to speak either for or against this item? Anybody else who wishes to speak on this? Anybody who has ah sir yes anybody who wishes now to speak I will give another opportunity for anybody who wishes to speak who has already spoken that believes that there is something else we need to hear to help us make a decision on this. So I am going to recognize you and then I am going got recognize the applicant. 27 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 JOHN PIETRICWIECZ, 2909 Road 72, Pasco, WA 99301: Phil John Pietricwiecz at 2909 Road 72 and I guess I first clarify something I don't have a problem with the traffic on Sunday because I'm at church myself. I've caused problems with someone else in the neighborhood I guess. But to imply that you know that it's ok to have the traffic if we keep off the street when they are there that's I took a little offense with that. PHIL SCHMITT, APPLICANT: I just want to clarify on some of the things you expressed tonight and I don't know exactly where to start on some of these things. Boy I wish my wife was here. # 1 some of the comments Jesse Rogers made I was kind of list them one of his big concerns he had obviously was traffic; we'll save that to the end. We are not proposing running a feed lot out there. Whatever the density rules for cattle for the City of Pasco is what we would like to do. It's just a great feed item out there right now there is sheet grass. Right now you drop a match in the field it goes boom. It's a big danger right now. We are talking about field corn that is unharvested and there will not be a dust issue. There is not a dust issue present with that kind of feed. When we come in March and we disc the ground for the first time cattle leave. They are done at that point. There is no broken up dirt for them to trample or create cattle paths as you've seen through pasture driving up 395 or whatever else as you've seen driving around. This is tall you know 10 foot corn that the cattle knock down and eat the stalks and there is just not a dust issue. I don't know how to prove that or should I just agriculture is not a dust issue but corn is a cover crop. As soon as we break ground and disc it. We are talking of 10 foot of foliage that a cow already knocked down with a disk and there is not a dust issue on that. About a third of that material for one pass gets flipped under the soil the bacteria and with the moisture that you receive over that late winter or early spring start to break down that process. It is not a dust issue until we break down the ground for the last two times. At that point most likely we will be incorporating a spring crop of like some spring wheat or some peas. Covering any kind of dust problems out there. we have farmed several years and I've never had a problem with dust on our property. We're big into irrigation and doing things right. Quickest way to lose a lease on ground is get the neighbors mad. We understand how that works agriculturally and especially in the sense of very As for owls, believe me I am not trying to be a jerk to say this but animals are not protected like that under agricultural ground. And that is agricultural ground right there. Any type of bird or animals, coyote den, badger dens all that second of all I would love to figure a way to or wherever these owls are to move them. I don't mind calling the people to try and figure out how to do it with the local wildlife department. Those animals are not protected federally under that 28 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 stipulation. Most of the time you see that under housing or with wetlands or urban development but agriculturally that does not apply. But believe me I don't want to be an owl killer. As for noise and lights there we're a couple of people concerned about that and rightly so. We don't have light pollution on the field. We use Christmas lights around our concession stands and around our entrance areas. There's no light pole you know over 5-10 feet tall and the lights are shining down. We have small lights and small generators to power the lights out there. We do not have light pollution. The only light pollution that would possibly be is the existing lights in Faith Assemby's lots and that's already been permitted and allowed to go in several years ago and with their development of that parking lot. As for noise, I can only say we have never ever had a violation or warning with Franklin County, Benton County, the City of Pasco for when we were here for a few years back in the late 90's and early 2000. The City of Spokane, the County of Spokane or the County of Yakima. We have operated mazes and never once had those. And any code noise violations we don't have a visit we know how to control that. People that need their sleep get their sleep. We don't wake people up. Jump to Road 100 the history there, someone was talking about that. You bet there was garbage, people parked there all over the place that was not a good place for a corn maze. We outgrew ourselves just like that and we realized that and Dave McDonald encouraged us to move and boy did we move on and people were parking all over the place people were extremely rude. We didn't have a paved parking lot, maybe an acre and a half of parking. Here we have 210 parking spots in the north parking lot we have over 300 on the west parking lot; all that is accessible to us. We will be running, parking cars in there and doing a good job. We don't have that kind of crowd that would overwhelm that parking lot. This is not a Costco operation but on Road 100 we were easily overwhelmed over there and people were rude parking in peoples driveways leaving garbage around. We learned really quickly from that and as for the waste, we don't deal with that and in the parking lot we will have parking attendants on those busy days. We hire people we do events with Innkeepers Ministry and their wages go to their ministry and those guys run our parking lot for us at night time they are fully lit up and we park cars nice and tight just like we did in Franklin County this last year. It is not an issue. But I understand how the concern could be. Traffic? We are coming back to traffic and it is a problem you know. I have been going to church there for a year and a half and I am traveling down that road and I'm not paying attention to other people. You know driving I'm sitting there like the residents here dealing with the problem, it's a serious problem. And believe me I will be bringing this problem to I will be talking to the pastoral staff and business manager and this is something I encourage all of you I go to church there and I don't want to see an accident ever with your kids or people on bikes or walking. People are driving its fast or idiots and I would 29 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 highly encourage my potential neighbors to go visit with the church and get something figured out. Pasco police really need to be made aware of this. Letters to the Editor whatever this is ridiculous they are driving that fast down the road. Once again I am not aware of it I do not live in that area come down on Sundays but that's ridiculous. And it is a skinny road. I don't know how many feet across it is. It's wide enough for two cars but no there is not a sidewalk on either side of that. The corn maze traditionally does not have pedestrian traffic coming into it. People are driving into it. But there are no sidewalks right there. It is a big concern and I highly everyone involved here tonight to try and get it resolved whether letters have been written or the police department has been contacted. I highly encourage people to really go out for that and make a noise and see if something can be done there. Obviously people if we do or are allowed to have our corn maze here they will be coming down Argent. People in Pasco who know the roads they will be coming that way. And I don't know what to do, I honesty don't. I want to do this here; we have already made a significant investment in the irrigation, the lease, and everything you do for a corn maze. Financially for the money we are putting in for the pump station and everything else. We don't mean to be jumping guns, usually we file for our permit early in the spring, but it took a while to find out we could do it on this ground and find out from Mr. McDonald if it was possible. And we weren't sure if it was even going to work with our farm program this year before we decided to make it happen and so usually this stuff is done in spring before we invest the money. It's getting invested right now so we would really like to do this corn maze here. We understand the traffic is really got people concerned. And the only thing that I can say is I will do everything I can to work with the police, the City police emphasizing the problem that already exists and that I don't want to have a problem there I don't want to be known as the guy with the corn maze and somebody got hit by a car or their car ran through somebody's fence. I don't want to be that guy and so no matter what I will work hard at that. My idea is to do that for several years in a row. And I understand that the audience understands that and hopefully all of you and so I know if I get to do this year if I am allotted to do it it's going to be one heck of a trial I am going to be watched on all fronts. Security, garbage, traffic, everything it's all going to come down to me, it's going to be on me so believe me when in say I will be doing everything I can to control traffic. Besides putting the signs up and working with the local authorities. That's where I am limited at so I am more than open to suggestion or ideas if this goes on to the permit process. One thing I want to emphasize to everyone is you know we are trying to be very honest about security and how much we tighten this up. This is a family operation, I got four boys and just the thought of them hurting themselves out there or anything happening out there just drives me honkers. I mean we are a tight organization. The people who work for me over the past years, you know its 30 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 Christmas money to a lot of the families, but we don't let our kids run around ragged out there because we feel it's so safe. And we do such a good job. When we say security over and over again it leaves the premise in my mind just listening in the back. You know we got roving patrols and humvees with M-60s on top. That's not it. We have 2-way radios, we have constant communication. We have intimate knowledge at every corner. If someone rolls their ankle in that corn maze, we know how to get the paramedics there if we can't get them out ourselves. I mean we know that field like the back of our hand. We have never once had an incident with any of our neighbors and any of our properties that we have done the maze at with property damage to their property. We have had a peeping tom, I didn't like that one, we didn't have peeping toms, we didn't trespass and that's not a problem. People come to our corn maze, they are in the corn maze having a good time then they are out front. We have a lot of activities up front, get them back out front. Business wise, you know we are trying to sell them corn dogs and kettle corn later on. You know we want them up front, we don't want people in the corn maze for very long and actually people kind of get tired of the corn maze after walking around for 20 minutes through corn they are ready to go do something else you know. Come participate in some other activity, so we're very logical how we run our operation. Once again I just want to say traffic is a concern. I am ready to listen to any option on this, but we would really like the opportunity to prove ourselves for this first year on this property and anything we can do to alleviate traffic like I said in all advertisements, tell people to come off Court, don't even have to say Road 72 and essentially come down Court, you know head west on Court after turning off Road 68 and follow our signs. You know hopefully that you know don't even mention Road 72. I'm not sure how that will work. I think it will work fine. I am ready for any possibility to keep the people from driving you know high speed from Argent and down those roads right there, which have obviously been a problem and once again I encourage everyone to talk to the church down there you know. Let's raise a stink about it and before something ever does bad happen from the youth group drivers or whatever else. Come down there and talk and let's get some announcements at church. Let's get this solved as much as we can. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHOUVILLER: My question, what's going to prevent traffic from parking on the shoulders of Road 72 to access your operation? PHILLIP SCHMITT: Our ample parking spots in the field COMMISSIONER SCHOUVILLER: You thing that's going to be? 31 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 PHILLIP SCHMITT: I think that's absolutely plenty. Our parking last year and believe we had 2 1/2 acres of parking at our location on Franklin County last year, and we had everyone contained in that parking lot. They were just fine and we have more parking spots here than we will ever need. OUTBURST FROM AUDIENCE: Wednesday night? COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Nope, nope no. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Other questions or comments? Mr. Cruz? COMMISSIONER CRUZ: You know one of the things that keep popping up and I need to preface my comments with two statements. The first is we need to be concerned with the Planning Commission with what's within our purview. Not what's in the County's purview? And so some of the issues I've heard tonight are very much a county issue, not a city issue. The second thing is I think we need to be concerned, that the church issues are separate from the applicant's issues. And so I don't want to appear insensitive or that I haven't heard your concerns but those are two separate things that aren't something that we can address. My question is more towards Mr. McDonald. When we do like the Fiery Foods Festival? What is the process for possibly street closures or something like that? Is that something that could be made a condition of the permit and say local traffic only on the City's portion of Road 72? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: The Fiery Foods Festival is a community wide event that's been basically sanctioned by the City for 20+ years and the streets are closed for that. This is a operation that's run by a private party and trying to close the streets for private business enterprise probably wouldn't be appropriate. COMMISSIONER CRUZ: There's no precedent for that? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: No, we don't, I don't know of any. Occasionally for like a parade you know the 4th of July parade, the Cinco de Mayo parade, block parties once in a while you know that involve one block. For everyone that lives on the street. But this is one individual, one private business basically. There is no precedent for blocking the streets off. 32 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: If it was for one night, maybe right? For one afternoon, but I mean day after day week after week right? COMMISSIONER CRUZ: You know again, the thought process is kind of simple; the peaks are going to be Fridays and Saturday nights. You know the Wednesdays; you know its bus traffic and stuff. And so I live right near Road 100 and Argent, and so you know the corn maze was a nuisance, to be polite you know. It's something that we are supportive of and I want to find a way to do this that doesn't create additional burden, undue additional burden on the property owners and so you know I, what I am struggling with is, you know the traffic question. The part that belongs to the City, with the County, I don't see where that is any of our business unfortunately. But the part that belongs with the City. I'm very open to suggestions that would mitigate that and drive the traffic away from the gravel because it doesn't belong there. It belongs on Court Street. The other thing I'd kind of like to say since we are talking about it is, you know what would be the... you know on condition 11 where it says operations must cease. I think in my mind when it says operation must cease, there are no more customers on the property, not you quit selling tickets. I think you know because of the nature of the activity, 9 o'clock pm on weekdays is certainly reasonable. I think the noise code standards are 10 pm is that correct? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CRUZ: And so for Fridays and Saturday nights I would say I would expect no more customers on the property by 10 pm. and so if that means you quit selling tickets at nine then that's what the deal is because you know you're starting to... you say 11 pm you're crossing over into the boundary of noise regulations. You know when we've done special conditions for generators that supply cell sites they can't do their set test between, is it 10 and 7? Is that? I wish I could remember, I'm getting old. You know so that's... I think if we talk through this a little bit more we need to keep some of these issues separate. But the one I think that we have a real obligation to find a way to address, is the traffic. And the last thing I would like to say is, much like we did with our friends at Pre-Mix, you know the good neighbor words are nice, but the proof is in the pudding. I think you did a good job recognizing that in your comments, if we were to support the permit, I would say a one year on the first one. And if the community's worst fears come true, then we have a legitimate basis to say no, this is no longer something we are willing to support. That time is, time and proof are kind of the things that are in my support on one of these things. I think your record is pretty good. I think this is a tough location, but it's exasperated by the existing issue with the church 33 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 and roads. And that's really a difficult thing again as a planning commission. The church issue and the county road issue is not something I think we have a burden to address. We have to focus on his application, to do so would be unfair to the applicant. PHILLIP SCHMITT, APPLICANT: Can I comment on one of your...? COMMISSIONER CRUZ: yeah PHILLIP SCHMITT, APPLICANT: Ok as for item 11, operations cease at 9 pm that would financially impact the layout of our business plan. Usually I'll stay on weeknights, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday we don't let too many people in past 8:30. I mean, we don't see that many people then. And we're usually shut down and Sean you could testify that usually by 10 pm we are shut down. Friday and Saturday nights a little different story. And you're concerned about noise, our history of not having noise complaints, warnings, even a warning from any of the departments we've dealt with before, testify it is a quiet atmosphere. They are in the corn, but everyone must remember if they could. You know we got 10 to 11 to 12 sometimes 13 foot corn out there. You don't hear anything. It works phenomenally well. So that's why, in the picture we had earlier, we surrounded the entire property and the corn maze isn't right up next to someone's house. There's 20 rows of corn there and its amazing how quiet, almost spooky how quiet that is at night time. And as for traffic, yeah I don't think there will be too much traffic going down Wernett Road. If there are, if I am allowed to do the proper road signage like I would like to do. You know tastefully done, small in size. I have a hard time imagining it, if they'd get lost down that gravel road right there. COMMISSIONER CRUZ: Again Dave you're going to have to correct me if I am wrong, we would have to grant him a waiver to operate past 10 pm, right? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: The code, you can't grant a waiver to the code. COMMISSIONER CRUZ: I see, it would be a condition. There is a 10 pm cutoff or being noisy, right? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CRUZ: And so you know you're kind of on the boundary of what you already explained anyway, whether that was a conditional permit or not 34 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 you're subject to enforcement through that angle. I think our perspective to help alleviate some of the concerns of the community we would be very clear on that point out of respect for the neighbors. PHILLIP SCHMITT: I understand that. COMMISSIONER CRUZ: And so you know you say it's going to impact your operation anyway. What I'm telling you is you are probably going to be impacted if that's your expectation to run until 10 or 11 pm. And for my personal perspective, if you shut down operations at 10 there's going to be half an hour or so of demobilization of people as they leave and so you're already kind of starting to push the boundaries where you are vulnerable to a noise complaint anyway. If you want to operate until, selling tickets until 10 or whatever you want to go do. You know that's the technicality kind of thing that's asking a lot in the current situation. PHILLIP SCHMITT: It is, but you know we are vulnerable like you said but we have not even had a warning, it's that quiet out there. And our ambient music is that soft. We have not even had a warning until then and if the council decides to do it and whatever the new tentative approval conditions would be, 11 pm would be much more favorable to us, but understand we flush the property and people get out pretty fast. And that time of night they do want to get out but daylight savings time switching over the last week of October. You know it doesn't get dark until 8:30 and we have a lot of people come out when it gets dark and then in the last week of October it drops an hour and its dark at 7:30 It's a big change for us right then but you know having the property clear by 10 pm would financially be detrimental from what we have done for the last 12 years. I don't know what kind of impact it would have, but it would hurt fairly heavy I would think. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Let me say this now, we have been doing this now for about an hour and a half and we've got a lot of testimony, we have heard from everyone in the public. Commissioners, do you have further comments for this applicant that we need to address? So, I guess I want to, if the public thinks there is some input we haven't discussed already, some kind of issue that has been brought up that we really need to hear this, because it's going to help us make a better decision, then by all means please come up. This lady in the purple and this gentleman in the green next, and just keeping in mind we have been hearing you loud and clear and so I hope you'll restrict your comments to not restating what we have already heard, but new information. TAMARA ROY: Tammy Roy, 7116 Wemett, you mentioned something in 35 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 regards to the City concerns. If you think about it, you are going to have a lot of neighbors that will most likely be upset and will probably stick to the rules and if you hear noise, you are going to have a lot of phone calls. You are going to overload your 911 system, you are going to take officers off the road where they need to be maybe in other places and not dealing with traffic or lewders or unwanteds. That's one concern. And the gentlemen over here mentioned earlier this evening that it seems like concerns have to come from the public and not from the Council. When it's light or when it's dark at night I'm pretty sure they will have field lights out there even though they're shining down. That area is dark. Remember you have a small part of city in the middle of county. There's not a lot of lights out there. His light noise is going to be loud, so you will have people calling at 7:30. 8:30, 9:30. In regards to security, I have done security before in my past. Radio noise whether you are walking a perimeter or whatever you have, carries. And just a final comments to the people behind me or the gentlemen in front of me who are members of the church. Your neighbors have contacted your church to talk to with blatant disregard. They've asked to have coffee, to come and see the traffic, no one comes. You can stick a cow out in the middle of that road and they will drive by. In regards to the dog comment, if you are going 25 miles per hour as posted, you can see a dog. Thank you very much from your county neighbor. JOHN PIETRUSIEWICZ: I wish to address comments to Mr. Cruz. I am concerned about the omission of traffic of the church and no one wants you to solve these problems. I think they have all given instances of the ample evidence of the capacity of Road 72 if they had more traffic. And in terms of what happens outside of the city limits of 72, I'm an outsider here, I'm not a city resident, just be a good neighbor. I can't just ignore it. Because it is tied to responsibility, don't aggravate it by getting a little bit more in there then they probably can handle now. COMMISSIONER CRUZ: Again, I just wanted to be clear with the expectation, please you know one of those things I like about Todd's participation as a chairman is Todd is very participative and is really trying to solicit that input, please understand you are being heard, but there are limits to what we should do as a city body versus countywide. And we were asked, I think Todd raised a question, how much traffic comes down Road 72? And I think you got a lot of information, maybe a little too much. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRMAN: Yeah we did. But it is still meaningful information. 36 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRMAN: It's good stuff. Alright, so any other individual who needs to speak on this that input that we haven't already heard. It's going to be some brand new piece of information that's like oh my goodness. State your name and address for the record. SAL BELTRAN: My name is Sal Beltran, I'm from, and I live on 2316 N. Road 72. The applicant mentioned himself that this is not the ideal location for a corn maze. Most folks enjoy the corn maze and with this not being the ideal location. You have heard the issues from the residents whether a commercial enterprise, noise, traffic, lights, whatever. Will this commercial enterprise impact those items that I just mentioned that you do consider? Also consider your city residents that may be impacted by that. I also ask this council not to be myopic, not to take the myopic view. I ask you to please consider your decision and how your decision will impact all of the residents and please don't continue to perpetuate this issue. I just take into my optic view. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Any other individuals who wish to speak on this? One more go at it huh? Ok. Name and address for the record. Its ok this is how it's supposed to work. This is valuable input I know it's getting late and we have been talking about this for sometime but we have got to hear this input so just have to all be patient and hang in there. JESSE ROGERS: It won't take long. As far as talking to the church and having them help control the traffic, I called them about 4 or 5 years ago when they got ready to do their expansion, if they could do some. The minister, if he would do some controlling of the traffic out on that road, and maybe have the traffic come in from different areas. His response was, I cannot control what's beyond my means and that's what he said exactly. If you went to the church now and asked him how to help you, he will tell you the same thing. And the other question is real quick like. Who do I have to call on City? On the code for having cattle running in the city limits? I don't know if you guys can answer that or if I got to go to City Hall and find out who the code agent is because that is an issue. The gentleman just before he was told to get his cattle off of that piece of property. There was a dust problem. So if the gentleman says there won't be a dust problem, well I'm not going to contradict but I am just saying them are the two little objects right there. Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Very good, thank you very much. Alright, last call for any additional input that is critical about this decision. Ma'am? 37 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 CHARLENE HEYEN: I'm Charlotte Heyen, Road 7421 W. Wernett and you were talking about the sign issue and maybe if we had a sign at Argent, one at Wernett that says corn maze this way only. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Very good, thank you. Alright, I'm going to unless there is anybody else; Third and final call now for any additional input on this. Very good, public testimony has now ended. Thank you very much. That was excellent. So Commissioners', comments about this? Mr. Cruz do you have a comment? Your light is on. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Other commissioners, any comments on this? So we've got to give city staff a little bit of guidance on whether these special conditions are ok or the findings of fact that they have that they are going to support our direction we are going. We are not going to decide tonight what we are going to do, but we do need to make sure that we give city staff necessary direction. Mr. McDonald did you have a comment? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commission members typically when we bring these reports to you for a special permit review, as with Charter College and the previous one, there is 3, 4 maybe 7 conditions at the most. On this particular one staff could see that there may be problems with this proposal and with the location as indicated and that's why you see 23 conditions there. We did accept the application from the applicant. Everyone has the right to a public hearing but the process determines on whether or not that application will be approved. City staff does not approve the application. There are a number of things that were mentioned this evening that we were not aware of. The narrowness of the road, the traffic, all of those problems are something that you need to consider. Even though they are in the county, you are required to look at the vicinity this area is within the urban growth boundary and it is a part of Pasco's planning responsibility even though most of the neighbors are in the county. So there are a number of concerns and issues that were brought up this evening that could change the findings of fact and lend perhaps to a different conclusion. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: I totally understand that. In my conversations earlier tonight, I totally understand that there's a lot of secondary effects from this particular item. DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: There is. 38 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: That could change the findings of fact. That is exactly right. Mr. White? Did you have a comment? RICK WHITE, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: I did, Mr. Chairman and that is one of the advantages of having a two meeting process. Is to entertain the testimony, hear the evidence, and you'll notice the staff report contains tentative conditions. It does not contain though, a recommendation at this point. That is for next month and so based on the evidence that we have heard tonight, we will be bringing back of course a staff recommendation that may or may not be in favor of the proposal. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Ok. Very good. Other comments, Mr. Cruz? COMMISSIONER CRUZ: Just a couple of things, I think I got an idea of where this is headed now. Condition #19 is overly restrictive regardless of the other issues. Same with condition # 21 and I would like to see something a little bit more strict relative to item 11. Again, you know, we got other bigger issues to fry but I think a future reference we need to consider those conditions a little bit more. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Ok. Mr. Schouviller did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER SCHOUVILLER: I was just curious that Mr. Cruz mentioned #19 as to why that is restrictive to pumpkins only on the produce stand, Dave? Can you shed some light on that, item #19? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: Well here again it's from the brief experience we had last year with the operation on Road 68. With the signage and so forth it was up and down Road 68 and on Burden Boulevard and again it's in recognition that this area is basically a residential area and having a corn maze is one thing, but having other ancillary activities that are commercial in nature may not be appropriate in that neighborhood. COMMISSIONER SCHOUVILLER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Well very good, just my general comment on this is that I think that there are a number of issues that the public has brought up tonight and believe me it pains me to actually not be in support of this 39 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 because I think the community needs activities like this. I think youth need to have items like this to have to go to. I just don't think this is an appropriate location for this, unfortunately there are too many issues that I think the applicant is going to it's going to be nearly impossible to mitigate the issues, especially the traffic issue on the road. So I am currently in the mode of not being supportive of this. I just don't see how the applicant can; it's just not an appropriate location. So, other comments from Commissioners with regard to this? Obviously we're not going to decide this item tonight, but we are trying to give staff some direction as to which way we are going. Mr. Hay? COMMISSIONER HAY: The applicant also mentioned item 17 about the 30 foot setbacks that he would like that reduced to 20. I mean that's another item that was brought up. COMMISSIONER CRUZ: Actually I am glad you brought that up. I think you know having the maze be set back 30 feet from the property is appropriate and not necessarily the corn. It's ok to have the corn up to the fence line because that's no different than any other corn field but having the maze set back some distance is proven. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Ok. Any other comments or otherwise I would, Mr. Cruz, did you have another comments. COMMISSIONER CRUZ: No COMMISSIONER ROSE: How about the daily litter control program that's provided by the City to be approved by the Inspection Services Manager. Why shouldn't the owner of the business be responsible for his litter control? And that could be a real problem with beer cans all sorts of litter and what constitutes good control of litter? I mean it's kind of a big gray zone in there. So it bothers me a bit. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: So are you just making a statement Mr. Rose? Or are you asking a question that needs to be answered? COMMISSIONER ROSE: That at least. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: City staff? Do you have any comment on Dr. Rose's comment? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: Litter was a major concern with staff 40 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 and if this was going to be approved, we need to be assured that there was some kind of plan in place that would cover that litter problem. And that plan should be reviewed and approved by the code enforcement manager that is involved with this on the daily activity basis. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Commissioners are there any other conditions or special conditions revised or changed to be included when we look at this and make a decision on this at our next planning meeting? COMMISSIONER HAY: Do we need to clarify item # Ilas to event operations may cease by, what time? COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: I think we do at least on the understanding of the applicant and we need to make it clear what that means. I think Mr. Cruz made the comment about that it means... COMMISSIONER HAY: Yes he did, but he didn't quantify it and I think we might need to put some numbers there. COMMISSIONER CRUZ: The noise code is 10; I think we just need to reinforce that. You know, how the applicant elects to comply is a little bit different, but you know we have come across this in the ball games and some of these other things and so you know the discussion and the condition, we are a little bit at odds with one another. For me and so again if you are silent by 10, then I don't really care what they are doing in the corn field, but that needs to be clear. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Staff? Is that perfectly clear? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: No. COMMISSIONER CRUZ: Alright well then let me throw it out this way. Cease operations by 10 o'clock. No customers on the premises. And I think that honors the intent of the noise regulation. There will be a little bit of spill over I think that is a lot better than selling tickets until 10. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Commissioners any issue with having staff change that? COMMISSIONER CRUZ: Is that clear enough Dave, was I too specific? 41 SP 09-007: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 7/16/09 DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: No that's fine, thanks. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Any other special conditions that we need to give some guidance to staff on? Staff do you have any questions about any of the conditions that after what you have heard tonight that hey we need to know what the planning commission thinks about this? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: No, I think we can put something together. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Very good, I would entertain a motion to move forward on this. Mr. Hay? COMMISSIONER HAY: I move to close the hearing on the proposed corn maze and schedule deliberations, adoptions of the finding of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the August 20, 2009 meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHOUVILLER: Second COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: It has been moved by Mr. Hay, seconded by Mr. Schouviller all those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. Any opposed? Alright, so let the record show that we would like to, with the suggestions made, the requests made, the Planning Commission would like to see this on our agenda for a decision at our next Planning Commission meeting. Once again, public, thank you very much for your input, very much appreciate it. 42 SPECIAL PERMIT: SP 09-007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 8/20/09 COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Next item on the agenda, Item 4C is a request for a special permit. This is the location of a corn maze and a farm in a RS-20 zone. The applicant is requesting a permit at 2000 block of Road 76. The applicant is Phillip Schmitt of Haywire Farms; this is Master file # SP 09-007. This is an item that has come to us previously. We had a public hearing on this item, had a lot of public input on this item and we'll start our discussion tonight with any comments from city staff. DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. As discussed this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission last month in a public hearing. Staff provided for your benefit a report with a list of possible findings of fact and a recommendation for you to consider to forward to City Council. In between the staff mailing this report to you and the meeting this evening, the applicant met with staff and was concerned or expressed some about the findings of fact. As far as whether or not they were factual and so what we have done over the last day and a half or so gone through and re-listened to the tape and as a result of that there are a couple of things in the findings of fact that we do need to modify. And I will just go over those real quickly we handed out the modifications on the bench this evening. # 18 in the findings of fact previously mentioned that testimony provided by residents talked about equal portions of the traffic coming down Road 72. Equal portions come from Court Street and Argent. There was one resident that brought to your attention and we had a basically plural there and there was only one. Jumping down to # 23 the corn maze will be opened for business on Wednesday evenings during the time church activities are occurring. In the previous set of findings we mentioned that there would be youth activities occurring. In reviewing the tape, the word youth was not used anywhere. There was references both by the applicant and neighbors that you could go out and see all the traffic coming down the street on Wednesday evenings for church activities and the applicant indicated that traffic would be heaviest on Sundays and Wednesday evenings so that was changed. # 25, that previously read that there would be activities, some activities on Friday and Saturday nights. There was no actual reference to Friday and Saturday nights, but there was reference to the church renting the church building out to weddings and quincenera's that's how you pronounce it those could occur perhaps on Friday or Saturday on the weekends but those words were not specifically used. And then item it was 28 on your old set of findings has been removed and that made reference to the applicants' security gentleman that stated that the traffic was bad on Road 72. He actually did not say that. He acknowledged other people saying there had been a history of traffic 1 SPECIAL PERMIT: SP 09-007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 8/20/09 problems on the road but he did not actually say that so we have removed that. Because of those changes and item # 2, the conclusions on the six criteria that you have to review the words youth activities were again removed from that on Wednesday evenings and now it just says Wednesday evening church activities. And one other small item on the approval conditions. # 7 the farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops and that's where your previous report that we provided stopped. It now says such as pumpkins, tomatoes, watermelons, peppers and etc. The definition of row crops does not include wheat, barley, buckwheat or similar grains. The concern there is that location is not an appropriate or wise place to grow a big field of wheat. As you know, wheat ripens or yeah when it ripens it gets very dry and there is potential for explosive fires. And we have got houses close by so it is just not appropriate to plant wheat there. And it wasn't clear with the previous recommendation whether or not wheat could be considered a row crop because you planted it in straight rows so that should remove any question. So with that, that's the extent of our comments unless you have questions. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Commissioners, any questions or comments about this particular item? Mr. Schouviller? COMMISSIONER SCHOUVILLER: Yeah, I feel the applicant should be given the permit for the corn maze on a one year conditional permit. I think there is ample parking if there are other activities going on. I think the positives outweigh the negatives as far as the negative activities versus noise, traffic and convenience and I think he should be allowed a one year conditional permit and if Mr. Schmitt shows he is a good neighbor then we can extend it, so I would recommend that the corn maze and the pumpkin patch be approved. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Ok. So I think we will need a motion to that effect here in a moment but let's see if there are any commissioners that have any comments or perhaps regard to your comment whether this should be approved or disapproved. COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I got a question, I'm just wondering if this is going to cost the city any extra money to patrol the area, extra officers in the area. DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: There was a reference made to that a couple of times in the hearing that they would work with the police and request extra patrols or the neighborhood could request extra patrols. And of course that removes other officers from other parts in the community and perhaps it could cost 2 SPECIAL PERMIT: SP 09-007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 8/20/09 money for overtime when you have to call in other officers that are off to cover other parts of the community. Businesses typically don't get extra patrols because they are busy. Wal-Mart up on Road 68 at Christmas time doesn't get extra patrols because extra people are going there. It could create some problems for the city as far as budget. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Other comments on this? My comment about it I guess that I think the city needs activities like this. The corn maze is something. I think is a terrific family activity. My concern is the location for it. There are too many homes around this location. Roads are too narrow, the whole business of having lights at night, music at night, is just not, it's just too suburban of an area to have I think this kind of activity going on I feel bad about it because I really, like I said the city of Pasco residents here in the Tri-Cities need these kind of activities and I think it really advances the quality of life but the location is not a good location. So I would not be in favor, but if you want to make the motion to do so we certainly can vote on it. COMMISSIONER HAY: I tend to agree with Commissioner Schouviller. I would think a year's trial period would work. I was not aware unless I wasn't paying attention that there are other events at this church. So I don't see where a corn maze is going to alter things that much. But I think a year's trial period would be in order. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Ok. other comments? Mr. McDonald did you have comments? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: Here again we ran into this question or issue last month on the Planned Parenthood application. If the commission is going to go down the path of recommending this we will need to modify the findings so you can have a supportable recommendation to the City Council. So it would not be advisable to approve it tonight without any findings of fact to back it. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Ok. So what we need to do here this evening is I guess find out whether the Planning Commission is inclined to go with this in the approval direction, which case we would have to do the same thing we did last month with Planned Parenthood and have some findings of fact written up to support it or if we are going to go forward with a more of a no on it. I had the feeling from last month that we were headed towards a no, but perhaps that's not the case. Other Commissioners? Commissioner Little, do you have a comment on 3 SPECIAL PERMIT: SP 09-007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 8/20/09 this with regard to whether your... COMMISSIONER LITTLE: I can't comment on that. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Oh that's right you can't comment on that you're on the... sorry about that... that is unfortunate. Dr. Rose? COMMISSIONER ROSE: I would go along with the one year provisional. That's as far as I could go with it at this point. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Alright. Mr. Perez? Where are you at on this? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I have no more comments. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: No more comments on this. Not leaning yes or no? COMMISSIONER PEREZ: I'm leaning to a no. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Yeah? So Mr. Anderson is not voting on this so that puts us really close. Alright, I'll tell you what we should do. I think we should have staff develop findings of fact on an alternate finding of fact on this. Mr. White, did you have a comment about this? RICK WHITE, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Just that, Mr. Chairman, we will bring back a set of findings for and against and then hopefully Mr. Cruz and Ms. Kempf will be here also. And they were at the hearing so we'll have more commission members. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Alright, so unless we have an objection we are going to table this instructing city staff to put together some findings of fact that would support it looks like the direction of a one year special permit for this particular item. Is that enough direction? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: Yeah that's enough thank you. 4 SPECIAL PERMIT: SP 009-007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9/17/09 COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Item # B, a request for a special permit. This is a location of a corn maze and farm in an RS-20 zone. 2000 block of Road 76. The applicant is Phillip Schmitt of Haywire farms. This is master file # SP 09-007. This is an item that we have had a public hearing on previously. It's an item Planning Commissioners' have had an opportunity to discuss at our last meeting it appeared the Planning Commissioners' were interested in entertaining a path forward that may be a yes on this and staff had prepared findings of fact to support a no but we didn't have findings of fact to support a yes on. So we had to table the item to this week in order to develop findings of fact that both supported a yes and/or a no vote. And that is where we are at tonight. So City staff I'll ask for any comments or further clarification on this item. DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I believe you have presented the history and background very well. As instructed, staff has provided the second set of findings and conclusions. We've also provided for your consideration a list of conditions to go along with that set of findings. And as you'll note from your report there are 32 conditions for approval. That is a rather lengthy set of conditions. We typically don't have a special permit application with that many conditions and that would lead staff to the thinking that perhaps this is not an appropriate place to locate. At least the corn maze of the facility and that is why staff is still recommending alternate 2 be approved which would approve the farming activity with a list of conditions and not approve that maze. We would be open to any comments or questions. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Mr. McDonald? Have you had a conversation with the applicant around these 32 special conditions on a yes and were they willing to... DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: I have not had a conversation with the applicant. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Have no idea whether the applicant would be willing to be able to abide by these or not. DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: No, I do not. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Have you had a conversation with the applicant about the farming activity already occurring out there without a 1 SPECIAL PERMIT: SP 009-007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9/17/09 special permit? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: Yes we have. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: And what's the applicants' response about that? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: Well, the applicant jumped the gun a little bit in anticipation of the special permit being approved. If the farming portion is approved, then the activities that are ongoing of course would be legal and would be able to continue. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Reason I ask that is because you know we have a process here in the City of Pasco and how to get special permits to do activities and so for an applicant, and as much as I really appreciate what this applicant is trying to do, in regard to making the City of Pasco in fact the Tri-Cities more interesting and place to live. We have a process in which you don't move forward on an activity until a special permit has been granted. And that process is to come to the Planning Commission, make a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council approves a special permit. Not launch off and do that without going through the process. That sets I think a pretty bad precedent for an applicant to do that. I'm disappointed about that. Commissioners, do you have any comments or questions regarding this? COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: I would say that I thought the city staff did an excellent job. If there was any way, and I like the idea of trying to figure out a way to say yes to things a lot of times, and I thought the city staff has really bent over backward to try and address citizens concerns regarding having this corn maze out there and having 32 special conditions to actually operate this thing. I once again, really speaks to listening to the citizens concerns about what was going on out there and so a lot of these special conditions that are directly in response to the citizen input we received. So I really appreciate that. And so whether we vote yes or no I appreciate that effort. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Other comments or questions? COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: I entertain a motion one way or the other. 2 SPECIAL PERMIT: SP 009-007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9/17/09 COMMISSIONER SCHOUVILLER: Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the July 16, 2009 staff report identified as Alternate 1. COMMISSIONER HAY: Second. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: It's been moved by Mr. Schouviller, seconded by Mr. Hay. All those in favor say aye. COMMISSIONER SCHOUVILLER: Aye COMMISSIONER HAY: Aye COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Aye COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Aye COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Any opposed? COMMISSIONER KEMPF: Nay COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: So let the record show that Ms. Kempf voted no. Further? Mr. Schouviller? COMMISSIONER SCHOUVILLER: Mr. Chair, also I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions identified in Alternate I the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Phillip Schmitt and Haywire Farms for the location of a farm and corn maze with the following conditions. COMMISSIONER HAY: Second COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: All those in favor say Aye? COMMISSIONER SCHOUVILLER: Aye COMMISSIONER HAY: Aye 3 SPECIAL PERMIT: SP 009-007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 9/17/09 COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Aye COMMISSIONER PEREZ: Aye COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER KEMPF: Nay COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Let the record show that Ms. Kempf voted no. All the other planning commissioners voted yes. Staff what is the path forward now on this particular item? DAVE McDONALD, CITY PLANNER: The path forward like the last item will go to the City Council at their first regular meeting October 5th; we believe the date to be, unless somebody files an appeal. And if an appeal is filed, it will cause a closed record hearing to be held before the City Council and usually the closed record hearing is about a month to a month and a half after the City Council date on October 5th. So if someone appeals they would not be able to take action on it until probably mid November. If anyone has questions about the process, they are welcome to call the office and we can explain it. Thank You. COMMISSIONER SAMUEL, CHAIRPERSON: Alright, thank you very much, appreciate that. 4 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO : SP 09 - 007 APPLICANT: Philipp Schmitt HEARING DATE : 7 / 16 / 09 5604 McKinley Court ACTION DATE : 8 / 20 / 09 Pasco , WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming in an RS-20 Zone (2000 Block of Road 72) 1 , PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal : The southeast and northeast quarters of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 21 , Township 9 North , Range 29 East, WM less the southerly 165 feet and less road right- of-way. General Location : 2000 Block of Road 72 Property Size : Approximately 28 acres 2 . ACCESS: The site has access from Road 72 and Wernett Road . 3 , UTILITIES : The proposed use will not need public utilities . — 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned RS- 20 (Suburban) and consists of two vacant parcels and the Faith _ Assembly of God Church . Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows : — NORTH - R- S-20- County-residential SOUTH - R- S -20- Nazarene Church EAST- R- S - 20- County-residential — WEST- R- S -20- County-residential 50 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this — area for Low- Density Residential use . _ 6 . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) , Chapter 43 . 21 (c) RCW . ANALYSIS The applicant has requested a Special Permit to locate a corn maze and _ associate activities on 18 acres of land directly north of the Faith Assembly of God Church on Road 72 (the church occupies 10 acres) . A corn maze is a combination of an agricultural use and recreational use . _ Both use categories ' are identified as unclassified uses and as such require a Special Permit before locating within the community. The festival component of the corn maze will include hay-rides , a barnyard animal exposition , piglet races and a concession stand . The applicant has developed corn mazes within the Tri- Cities area for the past 11 years . The first corn maze was located on the corner of Road 100 and — Argent Road on property now occupied by the Desert Springs Covenant Church . The proposed corn maze will occupy 11 acres of land directly north of the Faith Assembly Church parking lot. The pumpkin patch portion of the — project will be located on 6 acres just south of Wernett Road . A barn yard area for small petting zoo is proposed for a half acre site at the northwest corner of the church parking lot. The church parking lot, which is — completely paved and fully lighted , will be used for parking. The general area surrounding the proposed site can be characterized as a — suburban very low density area with large pastures , livestock raising and grape vineyards . Truck farming and raspberry production has also occurred in the neighborhood in the past. — The actual use of the corn maze and fall festival activities will occur for _ about a month during the fall . The heaviest use of the corn maze will be on the weekends and near Halloween . Three to six tours of preschool and elementary aged children may occur on weekdays . The site can be accessed from the north or south by Road 72 and from the east by Wernett Road . The area surrounding the proposed corn maze is sparely developed . _ Homes on adjoining properties the west are located approximately 500 feet west of the proposed site . One of the major concerns over the location of past corn mazes (the one at Rd 100) was the issue of parking. In this case the Faith Assembly parking lot is available for use . The parking lot is completely paved and — 2 ASOMMIN SIMOOM fully lit in the evening. The parking lot contains over two hundred parking spaces . MINEVE 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 sections of the staff _ report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1 . The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary . — 2 . The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Low-Density Residential development. 3 . The site has been used in the past for agricultural activities . 40 Pastures and vineyards as-well-as animal husbandry occur on adjoining properties . 5 . The site is zoned RS- 20 . 6 . The site contains 28 acres . 7 . The site includes 3 parcels under the same ownership . 8 . Agriculture is a permitted accessory use in the R- S-20 zone . 9 . The site contains a Church facility with an improved parking lot and two vacant parcels . 10 . The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72 and from the east by way of Wernett Road . — 11 . The proposed crops are corn and pumpkins . CONCLUSIONS Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning — Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P . M . C . 25 . 86 . 060 . The criteria are as follows : 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, and text of the Comprehensive Plan ? 3 The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density residential development. The Plan does not specifically address the proposed use . However, the zoning regulations which implement the -" Plan permit the keeping of farm animals and allows limited agricultural production in R-S- 20 zones . The zoning regulations also permit _ commercial agricultural production by special permit in the R- S - 20 zone . 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure ? ... The proposed farm/ corn maze is not dependent upon City utilities therefore there will be no adverse impact to city utilities . Peak traffic for the corn maze will not be greater than that associated with the Faith Assembly Church . Road 72 and Wernett Road currently accommodate church traffic . 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The existing character is that of a suburban residential neighborhood . The act of growing additional crops in the neighborhood will not alter the existing neighborhood character . The location of other farms within the I - 182 Corridor has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses . The proposed use however will contain public activities for about a month -' that could disrupt the harmony of the existing neighborhood if conditions are not placed on the proposal . Conditions for parking, litter control, noise control and other issues will be needed for the protection of the neighborhood . 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 — There will be no permanent structures erected with this proposal . Development over the last 10 years within the I - 182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development. The proposed _ use is a temporary use that will not materially impact property values . 5) Will the operations in connection urith the proposal be more _ objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, 4 vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? Without conditions the proposed activity could create noise and / or dust that may be objectionable to nearby properties . Conditions related to parking, litter control and noise will need to be placed on the use of the site to safeguard the neighborhood . 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? The existence of numerous farming operations within the I - 182 Corridor demonstrates that the farming portion of the use will not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor will it endanger public health and safety. The use of the corn maze and festival activities could become a nuisance without use conditions . TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS ( 1 ) The special permit is personal to the applicant; (2) The applicant must provide the City with a designated parking and traffic control plan to be approved by the City Engineer to — ensure vehicles use the church parking lot; (3) No on street parking is permitted ; (4) A daily litter control plan must be provided to the City to be approved by the Inspection Services Manager; (5) A site security plan must be submitted to the City for police _ and fire review prior to the issuance of a business license ; (6) Portable toilets and sanitation (hand washing) stations must be provided on site . The Inspection Service Manager will determine the number of toilets and sanitation station needed ; (7) Portable toilets must be located out of direct sight from adjoining homes ; (8) Any night lighting on the site must not spill onto adjacent properties . All lighting must be shielded per PMC 12 . 32 . 020 . (9) Illuminated signs are prohibited ; ( 10) Signage must be limited to the entrance near the church parking lot. No signage of any kind is permitted on Court — Street, Argent Road or other off- site locations ; ( 11 ) Event operations must cease by 9 : 00 pm on weekdays and 9 : 30 on weekends ; 5 ( 12) No amplified music or public announcement systems are permitted ; ( 13) The applicant must at all times comply with City noise — regulations (PMC 9 . 61 ) ; ( 14) The concession stand must be located adjacent to the church _ parking lot; ( 15) The farm activity shall be operated by using best management practices for agricultural production ; -. ( 16) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the adjoining right-of-way; ( 17) The corn maze must be setback 30 feet from the west property line of the site and 25 feet from Road 72 and 30 feet from the two homes on the west side of Road 72 ; ( 18) The corn maze and festival activities will not be permitted until — the applicant obtains a business license and approval of the parking and traffic plan and litter control plan ; _ ( 19 ) The site cannot be used for produce stands selling produce other than pumpkins ; (20) All temporary fencing, structures, portable toilets , concession stands and other items associated with the corn maze and festival activities must be removed from the site within 15 days of the close of the corn maze ; -- (21 ) All fields used for crops (corn and pumpkins) must be tilled and restored to a state similar to that which existed prior to the _ planting of the crops within 15 days of the close of the corn maze ; (22) All fields must be treated (with a cover crop or other means) for _ dust control within 15 days of the close of the corn maze ; (23) The Special Permit shall expire on November 15 , 2009 any subsequent use of the site for a corn maze will require Special Permit review. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move , to close the hearing on the proposed corn maze — and schedule deliberations , adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the August 20 , 2009 meeting . — 6 ._ Y IVY �� I �� ��t i REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO : SP 09-007 APPLICANT: Philipp Schmitt HEARING DATE : 7 / 16 / 09 5604 McKinley Court ACTION DATE : 8 / 20 / 09 Pasco , WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming in an RS -20 Zone (2000 Block of Road 72) 1 , PROPERTY DESCRIPTION : Legal : The southeast and northeast quarters of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 21 , Township 9 North , Range 29 East, WM less the southerly 165 feet and less road right- of-way. — General Location : 2000 Block of Road 72 Property Size : Approximately 28 acres 2 . ACCESS: The site has access from Road 72 and Wernett Road . 30 UTILITIES : The proposed use will not need public utilities . 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned RS-20 (Suburban) and consists of two vacant parcels and the Faith Assembly of God Church. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows : NORTH- R- S- 20- County-residential SOUTH- R-S-20- Nazarene Church EAST- R- S-20- County-residential WEST- R-S-20- County-residential 54 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Low-Density Residential use . 6 . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION : This proposal has been _ issued a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) , Chapter 43 . 21 (c) RCW . ANALYSIS The applicant has requested a Special Permit to locate a corn maze and associate activities on 18 acres of land directly north of the Faith Assembly of God Church on Road 72 (the church occupies 10 acres) . A corn maze is a combination of agricultural and recreational uses . Both use categories ' are identified as unclassified uses and as such require a — Special Permit before locating within the community . The festival component of the corn maze will include hay-rides , a barnyard animal exposition, piglet races and a concession stand . The applicant has developed corn mazes within the Tri-Cities area for the past 11 years . The first corn maze was located on the corner of Road 100 and Argent Road on property now occupied by the Desert Springs Covenant Church . The proposed corn maze will occupy 11 acres of land directly north of the Faith Assembly Church parking lot . The pumpkin patch portion of the project will be located on 6 acres just south of Wernett Road . A barn yard area for small petting zoo is proposed for a half acre site at the northwest corner of the church parking lot . The church parking lot, which is completely paved and fully lighted , will be used for parking. The general area surrounding the proposed site can be characterized as a suburban very low density area with large pastures , livestock raising and grape vineyards . Truck farming and raspberry production has also occurred in the neighborhood in the past . The actual use of the corn maze and fall festival activities will occur for about a month during the fall . The heaviest use of the corn maze will be on the weekends and near Halloween . Three to six tours of preschool and elementary aged children may occur on weekdays . — The site can be accessed from the north or south by Road 72 and from the east by Wernett Road . — The area surrounding the proposed corn maze is sparely developed . Homes on adjoining properties the west are located approximately 500 feet west of the proposed site . One of the major concerns over the location of past corn mazes (the one at Road 100) was the issue of parking. In this case the Faith Assembly parking lot is available for use . The parking lot is completely paved and _ fully lit in the evening. The parking lot contains over two hundred parking spaces . 2 FINDINGS OF FACT — Findings of fact must be entered from the record . The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis sections 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. 10 The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. _ 2 . The site contains approximately 28 acres . 3 . The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Low-Density Residential development . 4 . The site contains the Faith Assembly of God Christian Center . 5 . The Faith Assembly of God Christian Center is the largest church in Pasco . 6 . The site has been used in the past for agricultural activities . 7 . Pastures and vineyards as-well-as animal husbandry occur on adjoining properties . — 86 Surrounding properties are zoned R-S -20 in the County . 90 The site is zoned R-S -20 . 10 . The site contains approximately 28 acres . 11 . Agriculture is a permitted accessory use in the R- S-20 zone . 12 . Large vacant parcels within the general neighborhood have been used in the past for producing watermelons , pumpkins and other row or truck farming crops . 13 . The site contains a Church facility with an improved parking lot and two vacant parcels . 14 . The proposed use includes the development of a corn maze , pumpkin field and fall festival attraction area. 15 . The proposed use is a commercial business enterprise designed to attract customers . 16 . The applicant stated in the hearing customers would come from Franklin County, Benton County and Walla Walla. 17 . The applicant anticipates attracting 7 , 000 to 9 , 000 people to the proposed corn maze . 18 . The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72 and from the east by way of Wernett Road . 3 - 19 . Testimony provided by residents on Road 72 indicated current church traffic on Road 72 comes in about equal portions from both the north and south . 20 . Road 72 is developed to rural standards with no curbs , gutter, sidewalk or street lighting from Argent Road on the north to the north line of the Church parking lot . 21 . Wernett Road is developed to rural standards with no curbs , gutter, _ sidewalks or street lighting. 22 . Road 72 is partially developed to urban standards adjacent to the Faith Assembly Church . 23 . Improvements (paved area) on Road 72 are only 20 feet wide adjacent to the corn maze site . 24 . The corn maze will be open for business on Wednesday evenings during the time when youth and other church activities are occurring. — 25 . During Wednesday night church activities the church parking lot is in use . -. 26 . The church occasionally has functions on Friday nights and on Saturdays . These activities will generate the need for use of the _ parking lots . 27 . The applicant stated he could not control traffic on surrounding streets . 28 . The applicant's security manager stated traffic was a problem in the area. 29 . The applicant's security manager stated they could not control loitering around the site . 30 . The City's noise regulations prohibit excessive noise from emanating from properties and intruding into residential areas between the hours of 10 : 00 pm and 7 : 00 am. — 31 . The applicant stated on the weekends he planned to operate up to 11 : 00 pm . 32 . The applicant proposes to play country music on the site . CONCLUSIONS Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its 4 conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P . M . C . 25 . 86 . 060 . The criteria are as follows : 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, and text of the Comprehensive Plan ? The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density _ residential development. The Plan does not specifically address the proposed use . However, the zoning regulations which implement the Plan permit the keeping of farm animals and allow limited agricultural production in R-S-20 zones . The zoning regulations also permit commercial agricultural production by special permit in the R-S- 20 zone . 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure ? The proposed farm/ corn maze is not dependent upon City utilities but the maze and fall festival will be dependent upon City and County streets for access . Road 72 , the main access road to the site , was constructed to rural standards not urban standards . Likewise , Wernett Road does not meet City standards for a local access street . These roads have no night lighting, no sidewalks and in many places are half the width of standard _ City streets . Wernett Road west of Road 72 along the proposed pumpkin patch area is a gravel road only. The operation of a corn maze to coincide with Wednesday evening church services and youth activities will place a strain on the use of public streets . Little onsite parking will be available on Wednesdays nights thereby increasing the likelihood corn maze customers will park on Road 72 . Use of the property for farming only will created minimal impact on surrounding streets . 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity ? The existing character is that of a suburban residential neighborhood . Small farms , pastures and vineyards are common in the neighborhood . The act of growing additional crops in the neighborhood will not alter the _ existing neighborhood character . The location of other farms within the I- 182 Corridor has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses . The proposed corn maze portion of the application with fall festival activities however, is more of a commercial enterprise that will draw between 7 , 000 and 9 , 000 people to the neighborhood over a few weeks . Much of the increase in traffic generated by the influx of people will occur on the weekends and evenings when surrounding neighbors are home enjoying the peace and comfort of their properties . The additional traffic , noise , litter and commotion associated with a commercial enterprise in a 5 residential area will disrupt the peace and harmony customarily enjoyed in a residential neighborhood . 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 There will be no permanent structures erected with this proposal . _ Development over the last 10 years within the I- 182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development . The operation — of a commercial corn maze , while not a structure , will have a deleterious impact on the use and enjoyment of surrounding residential properties . The impact on long term property values is unknown at this time . 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The addition of 7 , 000 to 9 , 000 people into the neighborhood over a short period of time will create increased levels of noise , traffic , vibrations and — dust currently not experienced by the residents . The late night operation of a commercial enterprise within a residential neighborhood with the problems of noise , litter, additional traffic and young people loitering in — the neighborhood will be become objectionable to neighboring residential properties . The location of a small farm within the neighborhood will have a minimal impact on the neighborhood . 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? The establishment of a commercial corn maze providing recreational — services to 9 , 000 people will become a nuisance in the residential neighborhood due to the increase in traffic , noise , loitering and other — side effects associated with the corn maze and fall festival . Due to the narrow width and poor conditions of adjoining streets traffic safety is also a concern . The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by low _ density residential development interspersed with pastures and hobby farms . A commercial vineyard is located Road 72 directly east of the Faith Assembly Church . The existence of numerous farming operations — within the West Pasco area demonstrates that the farming portion of the use will not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor will it endanger public health and safety. 6 — RECOMMENDATION MOTION : I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the July 16 , 2009 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and _ conclusions , the Planning Commission recommend the City . Council grant a special permit to Phillip Schmitt of Haywire Farms for the location of a farm with the — following conditions : APPROVAL CONDITIONS — 1 ) The special permit is personal to the applicant; 2) The special permit shall be for farming only and does not permit the use of the property for a corn maze , a fall festival , or anything like unto it; 3) The farm shall be operated by using best management practices for _ agricultural production; 4) The applicant must prepare a conservation plan approved by a farm service agency. A copy of the plan must be submitted to the city prior to the operation of the farm; 5) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the adjoining right-of-way; 6) Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates ; 7) The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops ; — 8) No farm equipment is permitted to be stored on the site ; 9) The special permit shall be valid for a period of 3 years and will automatically extend for an additional 3 years if the applicant — adheres to the conditions of special permit approval ; 10) The special permit shall be null and void if farming activity has not begun by April, 2010 . — 7 SOME SOME REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO : SP 09 -007 APPLICANT: Philipp Schmitt HEARING DATE : 7 / 16 / 09 5604 McKinley Court ACTION DATE : 9 / 17 / 09 Pasco , WA 99301 MOSS BACKGROUND REQUEST : SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Corn Maze / Farm in an R- S - 20 Zone (2000 Block of Road 72 ) 1 . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION : ENES Legal : The southeast and northeast quarters of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 21 , Township 9 North , Range 29 East, WM less the southerly 165 feet and less road right-of-way . NEWS General Location : 2000 Block of Road 72 Property Size : Approximately 28 acres 2 . ACCESS : The site has access from Road 72 and Wernett Road . —' 3 . UTILITIES : The proposed use will not need public utilities . 40 LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned RS-20 (Suburban) and consists of two vacant parcels and the Faith Assembly of God Church . Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows : NORTH- R- S-20- County-residential _ SOUTH - R- S -20- Nazarene Church EAST- R- S-20 - County-residential WEST- R- S -20 - County-residential 5 , COMPREHENSIVE PLAN : The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Low-Density Residential use . 60 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION : This proposal has been issued a Determination of Non- Significance (DNS) in accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act ( SEPA) , Chapter 43 . 21 (c) RCW . ANALYSIS The applicant has requested a Special Permit to locate a corn maze and associate activities on 18 acres of land directly north of the Faith _ Assembly of God Church on Road 72 (the church occupies 10 acres) . A corn maze is a combination of agricultural and recreational uses . Both use categories ' are identified as unclassified uses and as such require a — Special Permit before locating within the community . The festival component of the corn maze will include hay-rides , a barnyard animal exposition , piglet races and a concession stand . The applicant has _ developed corn mazes within the Tri-Cities area for the past 11 years . The first corn maze was located on the corner of Road 100 and Argent Road on property now occupied by the Desert Springs Covenant — Church . The proposed corn maze will occupy 11 acres of land directly north of the Faith Assembly Church parking lot . The pumpkin patch portion of the project will be located on 6 acres just south of Wernett Road . A barn yard area for small petting zoo is proposed for a half acre site at the — northwest corner of the church parking lot . The church parking lot , which is completely paved and fully lighted , will be used for parking . r The general area surrounding the proposed site can be characterized as a suburban very low density area with large pastures , livestock raising and grape vineyards . Truck farming and raspberry production has also occurred in the neighborhood in the past . The actual use of the corn maze and fall festival activities will occur for about a month during the fall . The heaviest use of the corn maze will be on the weekends and near Halloween . Three to six tours of preschool _ and elementary aged children may occur on weekdays . The site can be accessed from the north or south by Road 72 and from — the east by Wernett Road . The area surrounding the proposed corn maze is sparely developed . _ Homes on adjoining properties the west are located approximately 500 feet west of the proposed site . One of the major concerns over the location of past corn maze (the one at Road 100) was the issue of parking. In this case the Faith Assembly parking lot is available for use . The parking lot is completely paved and fully lit in the evening. The parking lot contains over two hundred parking spaces adjacent to the corn maze site . 2 As instructed the staff has provided the Planning Commission two sets of findings and conclusions for consideration . These findings and conclusions are attached as Alternate # 1 for approval of the corn maze and "Alternate # 2 " for approval of a farm only . Staff is recommending "Alternate # 2 " be accepted by the Planning Commission . 3 ALTERNATE # 1 Findings & Conclusions to support approval of the Corn Maze Application FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record . The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis sections of the staff report . The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1 . The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. -- 2 . The site contains 28 acres . 3 . The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Low-Density Residential development . 4 . The site contains the Faith Assembly of God Christian Center . 5 . The Faith Assembly of God Christian Center is the largest church in Pasco . 6 . The site has been used in the past for agricultural activities . 7 . Pastures and vineyards as-well-as animal husbandry occur on adjoining properties . 8 . Large vacant parcels within the general neighborhood have been used in the past for producing watermelons , pumpkins and other row or truck farming crops . 9 . The site is zoned R- S - 20 . 10 . Surrounding properties are zoned R- S- 20 in the County 11 . Agriculture is a permitted accessory use in the R- S - 20 zone . 12 . The site contains an improved church parking lot with over 200 '- parking spaces adjacent to the proposed corn maze / farm . Another 310 paved parking spaces are available around the church . 13 . The church parking lot contains night lighting. 14 . The church parking lot has access from both Road 72 and Court Street . 15 . The applicant is proposing to provide agri-entertainment for community residents . 4 - 16 . The applicant has operated and managed corn mazes in the Tri- City area for at least 10 years . — 17 . The corn maze will be 6- 7 acres in size . 18 . Site development will include a pumpkin patch and petting zoo area. 19 . All pathways and emergency lanes will be tilled and compacted to control dust . 20 . Perimeter fencing will be installed to trap blowing corn leaves . 21 . The applicant indicated he has never received a warning from the Benton County Clean Air Authority for dust problems for past corn mazes in Benton County . 22 . The applicant will provide security functions during the operation of the corn maze . 23 . The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72 and from the east by way of Wernett Road . 24 . Existing church traffic uses Road 72 , Wernett Road and Court Street . 25 . Advertising for the corn maze will include maps showing access to the site is by way of Court Street to Road 72 . 26 . Parking lot attendants will be used to direct traffic into the church parking lot . — CONCLUSIONS Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P . M . C . 25 . 86 . 060 . The criteria are as follows : _ 1J Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, — objectives, and text of the Comprehensive Plan ? The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density residential development . The Plan does not specifically address the proposed use . However, the zoning regulations which implement the Plan permit the keeping of farm animals and allow limited agricultural _ production in R- S -20 zones . The zoning regulations also permit commercial agricultural production by special permit in the R- S-20 zone . — 5 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure ? The proposed farm / corn maze is not dependent upon City utilities _ therefore there will be no adverse impact to city utilities . Peak traffic for the corn maze will not be greater than that associated with the Faith Assembly Church . Advertising for the corn maze will show access to the _ site is by way of Court Street to Road 72 and not Argent Road or Wernett Road . Road 72 and Wernett Road currently accommodates church traffic . 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinityP The existing character of the neighborhood is that of a suburban residential neighborhood . The act of growing additional crops in the neighborhood will not alter the existing neighborhood character . The location of other farms within the I- 182 Corridor has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses . The proposed use however will contain public activities for about a month that could disrupt the harmony of the existing neighborhood if conditions are not placed on the proposal . Conditions for parking, litter control, noise control and other issues will be needed for the protection of the neighborhood . 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 thereo,f? _ There will be no permanent structures erected with this proposal . Development over the last 10 years within the I- 182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development . The proposed use is a temporary use that will not materially impact property values . 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 districtP Without conditions the proposed activity could create traffic , noise , litter and dust that may be objectionable to nearby properties . Conditions related to parking, litter control and noise will need to be placed on the use of the site to safeguard the neighborhood . 6 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? The existence of numerous farming operations within the I- 182 Corridor demonstrates that the farming portion of the use will not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor will it endanger public health and safety . The use of the corn maze and festival activities could become a nuisance without use conditions . RECOMMENDATION MOTION : I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the July 16 , 2009 staff report identified as "Alternate # 1 " . MOTION : I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions identified in "Alternate # l " , the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special _ permit to Phillip Schmitt and Haywire Farms for the location of a farm and corn maze with the following conditions : APPROVAL CONDITIONS — 1 ) The special permit is personal to the applicant ; 2 ) The applicant must provide the City with a designated parking and traffic control plan to be approved by the City Engineer to ensure vehicles use the church parking lot ; 3 ) No on street parking is permitted ; 4) A daily litter control plan must be provided to the City to be approved by the Inspection Services Manager; 5) A site security plan must be submitted to the City for police and fire review prior to the issuance of a business license ; 6) Portable toilets and sanitation (hand washing) stations must be provided on site . The Inspection Service Manager will determine the number of toilets and sanitation station needed ; 7) Sanitation stations must meet all applicable laws and _ regulations ; 8) Portable toilets must be located out of direct sight from adjoining homes and be no less than 75 feet from any _ adjoining property lines or street right-of-way; 7 - i 9) Any night lighting on the site must not spill onto adjacent properties . All lighting must be shielded per PMC 12 . 32 . 020 , 10) Illuminated signs are prohibited , 11 ) Signage must be limited to the entrance near the church _ parking lot . One directional sign is permitted on church property at the corner of Road 72 and Court Street ; 12 ) No signage is permitted on Argent Road , Wernett Road or any _ other off- site location ; 13 ) Event operations must cease by 9 : 00 pm on weekdays and 10 : 00 pm on weekends ; 14) No amplified music or public announcement systems are permitted ; 15) The applicant must at all times comply with City noise i regulations (PMC 9 . 61 ) ; 16) The concession stand must be located adjacent to the church parking lot; 17) The corn maze must be setback 30 feet from the west property line of the site and 25 feet from Road 72 and 30 feet from the two homes on the west side of Road 72 ; 18) A two to three foot high fence is required around all areas planted with corn to stop corn leaves from blowing into neighboring properties ; — 19 ) The corn maze and festival activities will not be permitted until the applicant obtains a business license and approval of the parking and traffic plan and litter control plan ; 20) The site cannot be used for produce stands selling produce other than pumpkins ; _ 21 ) All temporary fencing, structures , portable toilets , concession stands and other items associated with the corn maze and festival activities must be removed from the site within 15 days _ of the close of the corn maze ; 22 ) All fields used for crops (corn and pumpkins) must be tilled and restored to a state similar to that which existed prior to the i planting of the crops within 15 days of the close of the corn maze ; 23 ) All fields must be treated (with a cover crop or by other means) i for dust control within 15 days of the close of the corn maze ; 24) Any farming activity under this special permit shall be operated by using best management practices for agricultural — production ; 25 ) The applicant must prepare a conservation plan approved by a farm service agency. A copy of the plan must be submitted to the city prior to the operation of the farm ; 26) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the adjoining right-of-way; — 8 27) Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates ; r 28) The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops such as pumpkins , tomatoes , watermelons , peppers , and etc . The definition of row crops does not include wheat , barley, r buckwheat and similar grains ; 29) No farm equipment is permitted to be stored on the site ; 30) The special permit for the farming portion of the application r shall be valid for a period of 3 years and will automatically extend for an additional 3 years if the applicant adheres to the conditions of special permit approval; — 31 ) The Special Permit for the corn maze portion of the application is valid for a period of one year during either the 2009 or 2010 season . Any subsequent use of the site for a corn maze and associated activities will require Special Permit review . 32 ) The special permit shall be null and void for the farming portion of the application if the farming activity has not begun — by June , 2010 . r 9 ALTERNATE # 2 Findings & Conclusions to support denial of the Corn Maze and approval of a farm only FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record . The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis sections of the staff report . _ The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing . 1 . The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary . 2 . The site contains approximately 28 acres . 3 . The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Low- Density Residential development . 4 . The site contains the Faith Assembly of God Christian Center . 5 , The Faith Assembly of God Christian Center is the largest church in Pasco . 6 . The site has been used in the past for agricultural activities . 7 . Pastures and vineyards as-well-as animal husbandry occur on adjoining properties . 8 . Surrounding properties are zoned R- S -20 in the County. 9 . The site is zoned R- S - 20 . 10 . Agriculture is a permitted accessory use in the R- S - 20 zone . _ 11 . Large vacant parcels within the general neighborhood have been used in the past for producing watermelons , pumpkins and other row or truck farming crops . _ 12 . The site contains a Church facility with an improved parking lot and two vacant parcels . 13 . The proposed use includes the development of a corn maze , pumpkin field and fall festival attraction area. 14 . The proposed use is a commercial business enterprise designed to attract customers . — 150 The applicant stated in the hearing customers would come from Franklin County, Benton County and Walla Walla. 16 . The applicant anticipates attracting 7 , 000 to 9 , 000 people to — the proposed corn maze over the period of time the corn maze is open to the public . 17 . The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72 and from the east by way of Wernett Road . 18 . Testimony provided by a resident on Road 72 indicated current church traffic on Road 72 comes in about equal portions from both the north and south . 10 19 . Road 72 is developed to rural standards with no curbs , gutter, sidewalk or street lighting from Argent Road on the north to the north line of the Church parking lot . 20 . Wernett Road is developed to rural standards with no curbs , gutter, sidewalks or street lighting. — 21 . Road 72 is partially developed to urban standards adjacent to the Faith Assembly Church . 22 . Improvements (paved areas) on Road 72 are only 20 feet wide — adjacent to the corn maze site . 23 . The corn maze will be open for business on Wednesday evenings during the time church activities are occurring . — 24 . During Wednesday night church activities the church parking lot is in use . 25 . The church occasionally is rented for weddings and — quinceaneras . These activities will generate the need for use of the parking lots . 26 . The applicant stated he could not control traffic on surrounding streets . 27 . The applicant's security manager stated they could not control loitering around the site . 28 . The City's noise regulations prohibit excessive noise from emanating from properties and intruding into residential areas _ between the hours of 10 : 00 pm and 7 : 00 am . 29 . The applicant stated on the weekends he plans to operate until 11 : 00 pm . — 30 . The applicant proposes to play country music on the site . CONCLUSIONS — Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P. M . C . 25 . 86 . 060 . The —. criteria are as follows : 1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, and text of the Comprehensive Plan ? The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density residential development . The Plan does not specifically address the proposed use . However, the zoning regulations which implement the Plan permit the keeping of farm animals and allow limited agricultural production in R- S- 20 zones . The zoning regulations also permit commercial agricultural production by special permit in the R- S - 20 _ zone . 11 — 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure ? The proposed farm / corn maze is not dependent upon City utilities but the maze and fall festival will be dependent upon City and County '— streets for access . Road 72 , the main access road to the site , was constructed to rural standards not urban standards . Likewise , Wernett _ Road does not meet City standards for a local access street . These roads have no night lighting, no sidewalks and in many places is half the width of standard City streets . Wernett Road west of Road 72 along the proposed pumpkin patch area is a gravel road only . The operation of a corn maze to coincide with Wednesday evening church activities will place a strain on the use of public streets . Little onsite parking will be available on Wednesday nights thereby increasing the likelihood corn maze customers will park on Road 72 . Use of the property for farming only will create minimal impact on surrounding streets . 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity ? The existing character is that of a suburban residential neighborhood . Small farms , pastures and vineyards are common in the neighborhood . The act of growing additional crops in the neighborhood will not alter the existing neighborhood character. The location of other farms within the I - 182 Corridor has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses . The _ proposed corn maze portion of the application with fall festival activities however, is more of a commercial enterprise that will draw between 7 , 000 and 9 , 000 people to the neighborhood over a few weeks . Much of _ the increase in traffic generated by the influx of people will occur on the weekends and evenings when surrounding neighbors are home enjoying the peace and comfort of their properties . The additional traffic , noise , _ litter and commotion associated with a commercial enterprise in a residential area will disrupt the peace and harmony customarily enjoyed in a residential neighborhood . 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? There will be no permanent structures erected with this proposal . Development over the last 10 years within the I- 182 Corridor attests to the fact that farming operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development . The operation of a commercial corn maze , while not a structure , will have a 12 deleterious impact on the use and enjoyment of surrounding residential properties . The impact on long term property values is unknown at this time . 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The addition of 7 , 000 to 9 , 000 people into the neighborhood over a short period of time will create increased levels of noise , traffic , vibrations and dust currently not experienced by the residents . The late night operation of a commercial enterprise within a residential neighborhood with the problems of noise , litter, additional traffic and young people loitering in the neighborhood will become objectionable to occupants of neighboring residential properties . The location of a small farm within the neighborhood will have a minimal impact on the neighborhood . -' 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 ? The establishment of a commercial corn maze providing recreational services to 9 , 000 people will become a nuisance in the residential neighborhood due to the increase in traffic , noise , loitering and other _ side effects associated with the corn maze and fall festival . Due to the narrow width and poor conditions of adjoining streets traffic safety is also a concern . The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by low _ density residential development interspersed with pastures and hobby farms . A commercial vineyard is located on Road 72 directly east of the Faith Assembly Church . The existence of numerous farming operations ... within the West Pasco area demonstrates that the farming portion of the use will not become a nuisance to permitted uses nor will it endanger public health and safety . RECOMMENDATION — MOTION : I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 17 , 2009 staff report . MOTION : I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions , the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Phillip Schmitt and Haywire Farms for the _ location of a farm on Road 72 with the following conditions . 13 — _ _ I Approval Conditions 1 ) The special permit is personal to the applicant ; 2 ) The special permit shall be for farming only and does not permit the _ use of the property for a corn maze , a fall festival , or anything like unto it ; 3) The farm shall be operated by using best management practices for — agricultural production ; 4) The applicant must prepare a conservation plan approved by a farm service agency . A copy of the plan must be submitted to the city — prior to the operation of the farm ; 5) No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the adjoining right-of-way; — 6) Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates ; 7) The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops such as -� pumpkins , tomatoes , watermelons , peppers , and etc . The definition of row crops does not include wheat, barley, buckwheat and similar grains ; 8) No farm equipment is permitted to be stored on the site ; 9) The special permit shall be valid for a period of 3 years and will automatically extend for an additional 3 years if the applicant adheres to the conditions of special permit approval ; 10) The special permit shall be null and void if farming activity has not begun by April, 2010 . _ 14 ... Y -_ I �� I i FEE: $300.00 1. CITY OF PASCO APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT (FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY) FILE NO: a —d 0-7 DATE: The undersigned hereby apply for a Special Permit: ' Applicant: �����Od SChM� �kkwi,e F�rMS Applicant's Address: :�-�a LI MrK,-A/eW �Lj�a/. �✓A 9930 Applicant's Phone Numbers: /!5v-1) 3S0- 053 -N#�cc (C�x�9� 528-aSga (home/work, cellular, fax) _ _ Property Owner's Name (if different than applicant): Fat-A A53c'mbI4 General location of property (street address or other description): 10` 5 WeS`� -7) e*werl Coa�d I,ferfy . Legal description of property (attach separate sheet if necessary): Lot(s) Block Subdivision THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A COMPLETE APPLICATION TO REVIEW: 1. Present use of the land and structure(s) if any: qq I ...•f/G� h-,r �.�.�lr 1.'•"i'�>A/'c/� �p`rf :Td�J9/1.5 2. If vacant, check here: ❑ 3. Please describe any existing violations of any portion of the zoning ordinance upon the property: Q 4. Give a detailed description of the proposed use that requires a Special Permit (attach separate sheet if more space is necessarvl. Sic c ��ai►1P� �l�Pa'� FEE: $300.00 _ 5. A site map/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, 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. — NOTE: Variance report giving a list and mailing address of owners of all property within 300 feet of the applicant's property, as shown by a local title company OR payment of$80.00 which shall be utilized by the City to purchase an ownership listing from the Franklin County Assessor's _ Office, must be included. Fee for Special Permit - $300.00 — Environmental Checklist $100.00 $400.00 _ Signature of Applicant _ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) _ ss. County of Franklin ) On this _day of 200_, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned an sworn, personally appeared being duly sworn on _ his her oath that he/she has prepared and read the foregoing statements and has acknowledged to me that the recitations contained therein are true, and has signed this instrument as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the _ purposes therein mentioned. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _ day of , 200_. — Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at _ THE MAIZE & PUMPKIN PATCH at HA YWIRE FARMS Who we are. . . We are Phil & Marissa Schmitt and, along with our four young sons, we operate Haywire — Farms Corn Maze, Pumpkin Patch, & Fall Family Festival . Phil grew up on a farm near Cheney, WA where his father farmed & his grandfather before him farmed. Marissa grew up right here in Pasco next to Edwin Markham Elementary on ground her mother' s — family began farming in the 1950 ' s. Our boys attend the same elementary school their mother, & even their grandmother attended ! Family ties to farming & the Mid-Columbia have instilled in us a desire to continue that heritage with our own boys ! .-. Where we've been. . . Haywire Farms began as a custom farming operation in 1997. With 2 tractors & 2 bale scoops we ran around the Mid-Columbia, and beyond, stacking hay for other farmers. In the fall of that year, while visiting family in Utah, we went through our first corn maze. — Marissa' s sister was helping out her good friend, Brett Herbst, in his second year with The MAIZE. We had such a good time and saw great potential in bringing agricultural entertainment to those who would otherwise not have a chance to be around farm life. We made the decision to start up our own maze.. In 1998 we brought the first corn maze to the j Tri-Cities. We were located on the corner of Rd. 100 & Argent in Pasco and we just had a maze, tiny concessions trailer, and dirt parking lot that first year! We loved being able to — work in agriculture, have our small son out there with us, and teach families about the industry that has so enriched our community. We were having a great time ! — Where we've come. . . Well, after 12 years & 17 mazes we' ve learned a lot and grown a lot ! After just a couple of years, people were looking for more than just the little maze & tiny concessions trailer. Our first new addition to the maze experience was to add some scares to the experience during the last couple of weeks of October. We don' t do anything gory or Satanic, but instead offer some adrenaline pumping, heart racing features to make people jump ! Kids as young as 8 years old enjoy our Field of Screams. Next, we added our own pumpkin patch to allow people the opportunity to pick their own pumpkin right off the vine. From there, we have added a barnyard full of activities including hayrides, a petting zoo, barrel rides for the kids, a straw bale maze, and our world famous corn cannons ! Our _ concession trailer offering just candy bars & cans of pop has grown into a concession stand that offers hot dogs, hamburgers, corn on the cob, kettle corn, hot cider, chili, pie, funnel cakes, & the list goes on ! To better reach the young people in our community & offer them more focused education we host field trips throughout the maze season. We have seen thousands of Mid- Columbia kids over the years and welcome the opportunity to show them the benefits of the farming way of life. Where we' re heading. . . The 2009 season will find us operating on ground leased from Faith Assembly Christian Center on Rd. 72 in Pasco . We are excited about the opportunities this will provide, and are especially excited to have a paved parking lot to utilize ! Every year we try to grow and expand to offer families a new chance to make life long memories, while retaining the good farmin' fun they have come to know & love ! We look forward to growing our kids play area to include a tunnel slide, PVC slide, and a new-fangled contraption known as the Jumping Pillow. We are excited about the prospect of offering corporate outings & family reunions once we are able to expand our party & picnic areas. And, in the more distant future, we hope to grow to include a farm store, u- pick vegetables & fruit, and year-round opportunities for the public to experience the farm in a hands-on way. We hope to someday offer summer camps for kids where they -' are able to actually help with planting & caring for the farm & animals. Our vision is great & our desire is huge ! "- What drives our vision. . . Over the years we have always maintained our goal of educating people about agriculture & giving them a glimpse of that life. We respect the history of farming in our own families & in our community, and we cherish the values associated with that way of life. _ We want to raise our own boys to know the value of hard work and see the benefit in continuing the legacy that helped build our area. Marissa' s grandfather helped pioneer the Columbia Basin in the early 1950' s, starting a 100 acre family farm north of Pasco . Our hearts are tied to the life he built. In 2008 we were introduced to the Innkeeper' s program through our employee & friend, _ John Bucko. Pastor Lee Moses began coming out to the farm on a regular basis and brought us some full time & part time employees. We firmly believe it was more than mere coincidence that Pastor Lee came out to our farm. Our life & our business needed new direction. We know God is calling us to refocus ourselves. We know that our business can serve a higher purpose & can change the lives of far more people than just our little family. We are excited about the possibilities for our family, for Innkeepers, and for whatever else God brings our way as we continue into the future. God has blessed us with health, happiness, and good friends to stand alongside us, and we want to keep our eyes open for ways to serve Him in return. Agritainment Activities : Farm tours and fieldtrips: During the fall harvest festival we typically have three to six tours per day of the farm . Preschool, early elementary and senior citizen tours typically last 2-3 hours _ and include most of the activities that we have to offer. In the evenings and on weekends we host youth group and scout visits to the farm . Maze : The corn maze will be about 11 acres in size. The corn will be watered up until opening so it will retain its moisture through the season . Visitors will pay admission to walk through the maze . There will be a smaller portion of the maze — which will open later and be utilized as our haunted section . There will be clearance around the maze for emergency vehicles and maze staff will be familiar with the maze paths in order to assist in quick access for emergency personnel if needed . All corn maze staff carries two way radios. Pumpkin Patch : The pumpkin patch will be about 6 acres in size . Hayrides will be taken to the pumpkin patch where people can choose their pumpkin . There will be a road around and through the pumpkin patch for hayrides. This road can _ also be used by emergency personnel if needed . Hayrides : We will operate two hayride wagons this year. Both will be equipped _ with steps to get up to the bed . Each wagon can carry up to 20 adult or 30 children . Drivers are trained to be observant of riders at all times. Customers are directed to remain seated and parents are instructed to keep children seated . — Barnyard Animals: Pygmy goats, baby calves, a donkey, and turkeys are the typical animals that we bring barnyard . Small in size and easy to manage, these — animals are spoiled with care. Piglet Races: We will have piglet races on site this year. Pigs are maintained and housed safely and hand washing is available and encouraged for visitors and employees. All animals on our site are treated humanely and fed and watered _ adequately. We check with appropriate agencies regarding requirements. Concessions : We serve concessions at the farm . All items are applied for and _ approved by the Health Dept. The proper permits are obtained and food handlers are required to have a food handler's card . Food is stored and prepared properly. We have separate handlers for taking money and preparing food . Although we were in compliance last year, we have plans for improvements to increase food safety and cleanliness. Haunted Cornfield : For the last ten years we have haunted a certain portion of the corn field . Although we our goal is to scare our clients we refuse to incorporate gore, murder scenes, or anything satanic. We are a destination for families and wholesome memories, those extreme themes will never be used at our festival . Crowd Control : We employ security personnel at the maze . The number of employees is proportionate to the amount of visitors and proper training will be employed to prepare employees to deal with problems and maintain a wholesome atmosphere at the maze. Garbage/ Sanitation : We check with the proper agencies to determine the number of portable toilets and hand washing facilities to have on site . These are maintained, emptied, and refilled as needed . Garbage is deposited into trash cans and taken to the dump . Dust Control : We will control dust with a 500 gallon water trailer and irrigation hand lines. We have two wells on site to provide water. We have worked with the Clean Air Authority regarding this matter in the past and have always fully complied . We have never had a problem, complaint, or been given a citation . Parking /Traffic: We plan to keep our parking area watered and employ parking attendants in the parking area as well as at the entrance/exit area . Our parking area will be about 3 acres in size. The entrance and exit will be well defined this year and adequately lighted at night. Signage will more clearly identify our entrance and direct traffic to obey the rules of the road upon exit. Community Communication : We value the relationship we share with our neighbors and respect their desire for a peaceful community. We plan to communicate more and increase their contributions to the efficient and acceptable operation and maintenance of our event. Noise : We have always been mindful of the need for a peaceful operation . We understand that the visitors to our harvest festival and the nature of the event do increase the noise level for the few weeks we operate . It is not our intention to bother the community and we will work to make sure the noise is not bothersome . We typically play country music softly in the background during _ business hours. We do not have bands or loud music at our event. We have never had a complaint lodged with the authorities or a citation . Courtyard Activities: Wholesome family fun with a country fair feel is goal in this area . Beside the piglet races we have plastic duck races, a kid's Corral play area, a big bale mountain of straw, a straw bale maze, pedal tykes, pedal cars, calf roping, and a farm animal display. Many other games and activities that have an agriculture based theme may be added to this area . Cornmaze Activities : Typically our clients just try to solve the maze puzzle, but we also allow our guests to play teambuilding exercises in the field . Scavenger hunts and relay races usually take place with private parties only. — i r Haywire Farms Harvest Festival Summary What is Haywire Farms? Haywire Farms is owned and operated by Phil Schmitt, along with help from his wife, Marissa , and their 4 children . Haywire Farms began as a custom farming operation , with machinery running _ almost all summer cutting hay and stacking bales. In 1997, while visiting family, we went through our very first corn maze. The concept seemed like a good fit for our family. We opened our first maze in Pasco in the fall of 1998. We have since grown to include a pumpkin patch , barnyard full of activities, hayrides, and a petting zoo. We have a true fondness for the farming life and the character and hard work associated with that life. It is our desire to expose our children to that life, while also giving other families the chance to enjoy it as well ! What is a corn maze? " A gold and green amusement park ride that stands still" writes People magazine. And that's only part of the story. Just ask one of the thousands of people who have played in field's across the country. The maze is much more than just a labyrinth , its a cornfield that is carved into the shape of something tangible. Past designs here in the Tri-Cities have included a hydroplane, the Tri-Cities Americans logo, a locomotive, and a giant outline of our wonderful state, just to name a few! _ The journey through our immense cornfield includes twists and turns, bridges, riddles and trivia , and various levels of difficulty. Corporate executives down to high school guidance counselors can use this opportunity to develop team building and problem solving skills while having a great time. When you visit the maze you'll find acres of corn , miles of pathways, lots of confusion , and, at the end of it all , accomplishment! Event Objective At Haywire Farms, our objective is to keep the dream of the American farm alive, sustain its rich heritage, while employing a creative approach to benefit financially from agriculture. Our goals are to provide entertainment to the general public, to promote awareness of agriculture, and to create an environment in which one can have fun while accepting the various challenges the maze and our other activities have to offer. We have cross planted agriculture and entertainment, the result: agri-tainment, a high-concept, low-tech means of melding two worlds in order to get families off the couch and into the corn . This recurring seasonal event triggers expectation , which will foster return visits year after year. Each visit unveils new and exciting challenges that will enthrall children , bond families, and boost employees' moral while delivering the message of the American farm . Haywire Farm's maze reaches across generations, children and youth attack the — challenge like a video game, adults stroll enjoying time together, and the senior will reconnect to his or her own memories of growing up on the farm. Our Vision for the Future The 2009 operating season will mark our 12th year of corn mazes! In that time, we have operated 16 mazes in four different cities. We have seen many successes and learned a lot of good lessons _ along the way. We have seen what works, and what does not work! In 2008 , we had the privilege of working with Pastor Lee Moses and his Innkeepers program . Through that relationship, we learned that we want our business to serve as more than a vehicle for our own financial benefit. We want what we do to serve a higher purpose and be of benefit to more than just the 6 people in our family. How that will look exactly is still a work in progress. We look forward to continuing our relationship with Pastor Lee and the Innkeepers board to find out! Like any business, we aspire to be successful, expand ourselves, and flourish . It is our sincere desire to see how our work can benefit God's work as well ! RECEIVED SEP 2 3 2009 September 23, 2009 CDMMUNffY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT David McDonald, City Planner City of Pasco 525 North Third Street Pasco, Washington 99301 Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER MF#SP09-007 Dear Mr. McDonald: This is in follow-up to the Planning Commission's action of September 17, 2009 regarding the above captioned matter. Please consider this an appeal in accordance with Pasco Municipal Code Section 25.86.080. This appeal is made on behalf of the Thirty-nine (391 names below and the signatories to Attachment 1. If additional information is required please contact the undersigned immediately. In accordance with Municipal Code Section 25.86.080 (2) and Title 25, Appendix A, enclosed is the appeal fee of$100.00(see Attachment 2). Please include this letter and all attached documents as a part of City Council's background materials. Also please provide a copy of this package to the City of Pasco Code Enforcement Board as they are considering an outstanding matter concerning the associated 12ropeM. Also, Appellants herein request written updates from the City as to the continuing status of all matters associated with this case, code violations, and notice of the required public hearing(s). If necessary, please consider this a continuing"Request for Public Records". As noted by the Planning Commission, both Haywire Farms, and Faith Assembly Christian Center have a vested interest in the approval of this Special Permit (see "New Information For Council's Consideration" below, especially Attachment 8). As a result, Planning Commission recusals related to both entities. Similarly, Appellants request that Pasco City Council members recuse themselves from considering this matter should they: 1) have ties to Faith Assembly Christian Center or Haywire Farms; 2) have talked to parties associated with Faith Assembly Christian Center or Haywire Farms concerning this or other associated zoning matters; 3)have received political contributions or assistance from members of Faith Assembly Christian Center or Haywire Farms or; 4) have talked to anyone about the"Corn Maze"or issues associated with these code violations. Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT — CASE NUMBER MF# SP09-007 Page: 2 As a matter of law, Appellants believe that Council Members should err on the side of recusal in order to ensure the "appearance of fairness" in this land use issue. HARM TO BE EXPERIENCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PMC 25.86AW W Should the Special Permit be approved, Appellants will be subjected to harm including but not limited to excessive noise; excessive traffic; unsafe traffic speeds; increased likely hood of property damage or injury from vehicles and patrons; trespassing by patrons; vandalizing; litter; dust; and other unenumerated nuisances. In addition, Appellants will be harmed by damage to the unimproved, substandard, and unmaintained road infrastructure on Wernett and Road 72 (and collateral damage to vehicles, etc.) caused by heavy traffic associated with the "Corn Maze". NEW INFORMATION FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION In September 16, 2002, an issue arose regarding the introduction of new information relating to Closed Public Hearings. Councilwoman Crawford asked the City attorney "what Council' s position should be regarding the additional documentation presented?" (see Attachment 3 , Council Minutes of September 16, 2002). City Attorney Kerr explained as follows: " the nature of the additional information is that it is the result of meetings held between the applicant and the appellants so, to a certain degree, neither are in a position to object to the introduction of that evidence. The regulatory reform ordinance, put together several years ago, allows the Council to open the public hearing on a limited basis to receive additional information or evidence in regards to very specific aspects. Since new information comes from both the applicant and the appellants Council could allow its introduction to those very specific issues". The exact same set of circumstances have occurred with this case. As in that case, Applicant communicated to a group of Appellants (in the form of a September 18, 2009 correspondence, see Attachment 5). As a result, on September 20, 2009, a group of Appellants met with the Applicant to discuss and address issues and concerns between the parties. As such, new information concerning this matter must be introduced and considered by the Pasco City Council. Below you will fmd the aforementioned information. The following issues were brought forward and discussed at that September 20, 2009 meeting: • The first item of new information is the fact that illegal farming activities have been, and continue to take place at the subject site. No activities took place as the Planning Commission's took testimony at its July 16, 2009 Public Hearing. The day after the Public Hearing was closed, farming activities commenced on the subject site. These illegal farming activities included installation of electrical service, installation and laying Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT — CASE NUMBER MF# SPW007 Page: 3 of irrigation lines, storage of farm equipment and implements, as well as the planting of various crops. This activity began dpi p no approval% and no permits being issued, and constituted violations of the Oil's codes and ordinances. Attachment 5 is a copy of the violation notice provided to the City. Attachment 6 is a copy of a September 8, 2009 article from the Tri-City Herald. • The second item of new information is the fact that the Applicant obtained public utilities in the form of irrigation water and electricity. These public utilities were obtained by providing false information related to planned site activities, as well as the status of permits obtained from the City. Collateral agencies were not aware of the illegitimate and un-permitted status of the Applicant's farming activities. • The third item of new information relates to websites maintained by Applicant and Faith Assembly Christian Center which serve to promote the "Com Maze" in advance of obtaining requisite permits and approvals. Applicant's website promotes "Corn Maze" activities which directly conflict with the City's conditions (see Attachment 7). For example, the website indicates that the weekend closing time is 10 : 00 pm. , with a notation that "* Last person enters at closing time". In addition, noise intensive activities ("Corn Cannon") and prohibited activities ("Camp Fires" ) are planned. In addition, Attachment 8 is a September 19, 2009 screen shot from the Faith Assembly Christian Center Website advertising the "Corn Maze" as a part of its forthcoming activities. • Additional mitigation measures were discussed. Unfortunately, no mitigation measures could resolve the core concerns brought forward at the Planning Commission's July 16, 2009 Public Hearing. In hearing this appeal the Pasco City Council must allow for the introduction of all new facts contained herein and consider them in taking its decision on this Special Permit. PLANNING COMMISSION ERRORS AND INCORRECT INFORMATION RELIED UPON In its July 16, August 20, and September 17, 2009 hearings and meetings, the Planning Commission made several errors and relied upon information which was materially incorrect in its consideration of this matter as enumerated below. 1 . Based upon the testimony provided at the July 16, 2009 Public Hearing, the Planning Commission initially developed facts which served to denX the application. 2. At its August 20, 2009 meeting, and absent public limelight, the Planning Commission reversed its findings of fact in order to justify and approve the Special Permit. 3 . At its September 17, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted "Findings of Fact" which in no way reflected the true content of the information gathered at its July 16, 2009 Public Hearing, nor the minutes published as a result of said Public Hearing. Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT — CASE NUMBER MF# SP09-007 Page: 4 4. The Planning Commission did not fully or adequately consider the negative impacts on neighbors including heavy traffic on unimproved, substandard and unmaintamed roads; infrastructure damage thereto and collateral damage to vehicles and property, excessive noise and lighting levels; crowd control of those visiting the "Corn Maze"; litter; sanitation; dust control on site, and on unimproved/substandard roads; trespassing; vandalizing; hours of operation; and the high potential for property damage and injuries in the surrounding neighborhoods. 5 . The Planning Commission did not fully or adequately consider the fact that the negative impacts on the neighborhood can not be mitigated, regardless of how many conditions are imposed upon the Applicant. 6. The Planning Commission did not fully or adequately consider that the site and requisite parking for the "Special Permit" is completely owned by Faith Assembly Christian Center. The applicant only leases a portion of the subject site. As such, a separate Special Permit must be obtained by Faith Assembly for the commercial use of their parking lot (subject "Special Permit" is personal to the Applicant, not applicable to Faith Assembly). 7. The report and findings of fact adopted by the Planning Commission indicate that "The proposed use will not need public utilities" (see Attachment 9). As noted above, Applicant required and fraudulently obtained public electricity and public irrigation water. As such, members of the public. press. and Planning Commission relied and acted upon information which was materiaft incorrect. 8. In its approval of the Special Permit, the Planning Commission disregarded the need to abate continuing code violations related to the site. As such, the Planning Commission's approval serves to condone, sanctify and encourage activities which are in violation of the Pasco Municipal Code. 9. The Planning Commission erred in considering the Special Permit as Farming activity with an "agritainment" component. Instead, the Planning Commission should have considered the Special Permit as a Entertainment activity inclusive of a minor farming component 10. The Planning Commission erred in its application of Pasco Municipal Code section 25 . 22. 010. This section provides that Special Permits be issued for the R-S-20 Suburban District, only if "their nature and location are not detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment" (emphasis added). Since the enumerated impacts of the "Corn Maze" will be very detrimental to the intended suburban residential_ environment it does not meet the CiW's criteria for ap rn oval. SUMMARY As detailed above, Appellants, local neighbors from both the City and County, as well as residents of the Tri-Cities, will be significantly harmed if the "Corn Maze" activity is approved by the Pasco City Council. In addition, new information has come forward since the Planning Commission's July 16, 2009 Public Hearing which further documents the incompatibility of the planned use for the "Special Permit", and must be introduced and considered by the Pasco City Council in its deliberations on this matter. Moreover, the Pasco City Planning Commission Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT — CASE NUMBER MF# SP09d107 Page: 5 made several significant errors and relied upon information which was materially incorrect in its consideration of the matter as well as developing its Findings of Fact and recommendation. As the Pasco City Council reviews the "Closed Record Hearing". it can only conclude that the "Corn Maze" entertainment activity is "detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment" for the R-S-20 Suburban District. Council will also find that the impacts of this activity are inconsistent with PMC 25 22 010. and therefore does not meet the City's criteria for approval. In addition the Pasco City Council should be cognizant that granting this "Special Permit" will subvert its public permitting process, and encourage others who may wish to engage in unpgrmited activities. Appellants hereby request that the Pasco City Council take the following actions. • By way of the Pasco Code Enforcement Board, seek abatement and correction of all applicable code violations by Applicant and Faith Assembly Christian Center. As these vacant fields have been newly tilled seeded, heavily irrigated and generously fertilized after decades having_ lain fallow, conditions related to treatment for aggressive weed and dust control must be included in this correction plan. • Approve a modified Special Permit for traditional "farming only" activities contingent upon satisfactory completion of the above. Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT — CASE NUMBER MF# SP09-007 Page: 6 The Appellants herein thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Tamara and Curtis Roy Patrick and Janice Grady Jesse and Beverly Rodgers 7116 W. Wernett Road 2703 Road 72 7309 W. Wernett Road Pasco, Washington 99301 Pasco, Washington 99301 Pasco, Washington 99301 Nancy B . and Philip L. Rieke Lori and David Peterson Mary and Sal Beltran 7109 W. Wernett Road 7031 W. Wernett Road 2316 Road 72 Pasco, Washington 99301 Pasco, Washington 99341 Pasco, Washington 99301 Mile Schmitt Billie J. Ross Travis Matthews 6921 W. Wernett Road 1605 Road 72 2205 Road 72 Pasco, Washington 99301 Pasco, Washington 99301 Pasco, Washington 99301 Matt Macduff Richard Manke Roger E. Lenk and Lisa C. 7016 W. Wernett Road 7519 W. Court Douglas Pasco, Washington 99301 Pasco, Washington 99301 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301 Gary B. Gatewood Azure Buckenberger 1821 Road 72 7414 Ter Ray Court Matt and Julie Dawes Pasco, Washington 99301 Pasco, Washington 99301 13 Jasmine Lane Pasco, Washington 99301 Joshua D. Painter Mario Dispio 2420 Road 72 7415 Ter Ray Court Joseph and Korin Crowther Pasco, Washington 99301 Pasco, Washington 99301 5 Hollyhock Court Pasco, Washington 99301 John and Sandy Pietrusiewicz Christina Anasasi 2909 Road 72 2205 N. Road 72 Pasco, Washington 99301 Pasco, Washington 99301 Lynda and Bruce Clatterbuck Raul and Taffy Almeida 3001 Road 72 406 Rossell Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 Richland Washington 99352 Mary Ann and Edward W. Bass Frank Bolsen 2830 Road 72 7317 W. Wernett Road Pasco, Washington 99301 Pasco, Washington 99301 Marion Boyles Doug Rodgers 7120 W. Wemett Road 7309 W. Wernett Road Pasco, Washington 99301 Pasco, Washington 99301 Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT — CASE NUMBER MFff SP09-007 Page: 7 Attachment 1 — Appellant Signatures Attachment 2 - $ 100. 00 Appeal Fee Attachment 3 - September 16, 2002 Pasco City Council Minutes Attachment 4 — September 18, 2009 Correspondence From Applicant to Appellants Attachment 5 — August 22, 2009 Correspondence to City of Pasco Attachment 6 - September 8, 2009 Article from the Tri-City Herald Attachment 7 — September 18, 2009 Screen Shot of "Corn Maze" Website Attachment 8 — September 19, 2009 Screen Shot of Faith Assembly Website Attachment 9 — July 16, 2009 Planning Commission Report, Page 1 Hand Delivered cc: Tri-City Herald Franklin PUD Franklin County Irrigation District #1 ATTACHMENT 1 ■ i f it E win ta Imam © "jl^191 MAWA 0 A*AWJA 11 ex. x ' - - wommilm in 0 Iwo,��;OlIA"M %AJ - - - - 3 ��Mjjjlllll; III W-MATIMINA"hS �w4wNswilffivA Ad me OFElitfIfflolff filzMSOA IlLF49 MAW W fflWAMt AM! =k=� 4 to 1%= LN's RIM MAIAL } r � Signed Name Printed Name Address 29 30 TL "23 (5) 2 3 WWW 33 MAU ELL19ft .161 &P `ICI 30 33 1 t r v 34 C. ass a ?4 1 35 36 - - - - - -- -- — — - ----- - 37 7 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 " r. 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 September 21 , 2009 To Whom It May Concern . My family and I moved here many years ago to enjoyed the semi-rural, quiet country living. As the years went by, we have seen the expected and positive growth of new homes and growing families enjoying the same quiet and safety that we once had. Now we are seeing heavy traffic, loitering, and invading commercial growth of businesses that choose not to keep up their property. Unfortunately, this "Corn Maze" will only bring more unexpected and unwanted forms of growth. A short term commercial endeavor like this will bring with it a bad reputation, more unwanted traffic, loitering, noise and vandalism that will surely take its toll on the patience of its neighbors and leave nothing but empty fields and litter. My wife and I have recently been awakened from our naive trust of our sleepy neighborhood with a home robbery, another product of unwanted growth. We now are on guard and careful to watch for and protest any proposed activity like this that will certainly bring nothing but trouble. Sincerely, Ed and Mary Ann Bass 2830 N. Rd 72 ATTACHMENT 5 CHAPTER 25.22 R-S-20 SUBURBAN DISTRICT Sections: 25.22.010 PURPOSE................................................................................... 29 25.22.020 PERMITTED USES ...................................................................... 29 25.22.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES.................................................... 29 25.22.040 CONDITIONAL USES................................................................... 30 25.22.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ....................................................... 30 25.22.010 PURPOSE. The R-S-20 suburban district is established to provide a low density residential environment permitting two dwelling units per acre. Lands within this district shall, unless specifically allowed herein contain suburban residential development with large lots and expansive yards. Structures in this district are limited to single-family dwellings and customary accessory structures. Certain public facilities and institutions may also be permitted, provided their nature and location are not detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.22.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the R-S- 20 suburban district: (1) Single-family dwellings; and (2) New factory assembled homes. (3) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the use of vacant property for gardening or fruit raising. (Ord. 3731 Sec. 3, 2005; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.22.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory to a permitted use in the R-S-20 suburban district: (1) Detached residential garages as defined in Section 25.12.200, provided they do not exceed the height of 18 feet and are no larger than 1,200 square feet in area; (2) Home occupations as defined in Section 25.12.220; (3) Storage buildings not exceeding 480 square feet of gross floor area and fifteen feet in height; provided no container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430, shall be permitted. For each additional 20,000 square feet of lot area, the gross floor area of storage sheds can be increased by 400 square feet; (4) Agricultural uses (limited), as defined in Section 25.12.040, except that the keeping of animals shall be permitted on parcels consisting of ten thousand (10,000) square feet over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the parcel; (5) One animal unit (as defined in Section 25.12.065) shall be allowed for each full ten thousand square foot increment of land over and above an area equal in size to 12,000 square feet set aside for the dwelling on the same parcel; provided that PMC Title 25 9/15/2008 29 all barns, barnyards, chicken houses, or corrals shall be located not less than twenty- five feet from a public roadway and not less than ten feet from any adjoining or abutting property held under separate ownership; and provided said number of chickens, fowl or rabbits does not exceed 2 animal units; (6) The keeping of dogs and cats, provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats; (7) Family day care home in conformance with WAC 388-73 as now existing and as amended and PMC Chapter 25.66; and (8) Accessory dwellings. (Ord. 3688 Sec. 1, 2004; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.22.040 CONDITIONAL USES. In addition to the unclassified uses listed in Chapter 25.86, the following uses may be permitted by special permit as provided in Chapter 25.86: (1) Churches and similar places of worship; (2) Public libraries, and municipal office buildings; (3) Public and private schools, public parks and playgrounds; (4) Fire department station houses; (5) Private nursery school, preschool, child mini day care, and child day care center; (6) Agricultural use (commercial); and, (7) Buildings in conjunction with an agricultural use (limited), provided the parcel contains at least 5 acres and the building will not be used for the conduct or support of any business activity. (Ord. 3667 Sec. 1, 2004; Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) 25.22.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (1) Minimum lot area: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; (2) Density: One dwelling unit per lot, except as provide in 25.22.030 (8); (3) Maximum Lot Coverage: Forty (40) percent; (4) Minimum Yard Setbacks; (a) Front: Twenty-five (25) feet. (b) Side: Ten (10) feet. (c) Rear: Principal Building: Twenty-five (25) feet. 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 setback from the alley twenty (20) feet. Where there is no alley, the set back shall be five (5) feet. (5) Maximum building height; (a) Principal building. Thirty-five (35) feet, except a greater height may be approved by special permit. (b) Accessory buildings: Fifteen (15) feet. (6) Fences and hedges: See Chapter 25.75; (7) Parking: See Chapter 25.78; (8) Landscaping: See Chapter 25.75; and PMC Title 25 9/15/2008 30 ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. 3 Za`i-- A RESOLUTION DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CORN MAZE IN THE 2000 BLOCK OF ROAD 72. WHEREAS, on June 26, 2009 Haywire Farms submitted an application for a Special Permit to locate and operate a Corn Maze in the 2000 Block of Road 72; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an open record hearing on July 16, 2009 to review the proposed Corn Maze application for a Special Permit; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on August 20 and September 17, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the Corn Maze; and, WHEREAS, the recommendation for approval was appealed by adjoining property owners; and, WHEREAS, The City Council set a closed record appeal hearing for November 2, 2009 to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation; and, WHEREAS, the City Council was provided the record of the application, staff reports, transcripts and correspondence from the open record hearing and subsequent deliberations conducted by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, City Council conducted deliberations on the appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation for the Corn Maze application at the closed record appeal hearing of November 2, 2009; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, that a Special Permit is hereby denied to Haywire Farms for a corn maze and farm in the 2000 block of Road 72 under Master File # SP09-007 subject to the findings and conclusions contained in attached Exhibit 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7`" day of December,2009 Joy Ol n, Mayor ATT ST: APPR AS TO FORM: ebra Clark, City er Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney 1 EXHIBIT#1 Finding of Fact SP09-007 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2. The site contains approximately 28 acres. 3. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Low-Density Residential development. 4. The site contains the Faith Assembly of God Christian Center. 5. The Faith Assembly of God Christian Center is the largest church in Pasco. 6. Surrounding properties are zoned R-S-20 in the County. 7. The site is zoned R-S-20 in the County. 8. Single family residential dwellings are located directly to the north, east, west and northeast of the site. 9. The site contains a Church facility with an improved parking lot and two vacant parcels. 10. The proposed use includes the development of a corn maze, pumpkin field and fall festival attraction area. 11. The proposed use is a commercial business enterprise designed to attract customers. 12. The applicant stated that customers would come from Franklin County, .Benton County and Walla Walla. 13. The applicant anticipates attracting 7,000 to 9,000 people to the proposed corn maze over the period of time the corn maze is open for business. 14. The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72 and from the east by way of Wernett Road. 15. Testimony provided by residents on Road 72 indicated current church traffic on Road 72 comes in about equal portions from both the north and south. 16. Road 72 is developed to rural standards with no curbs, gutter, sidewalk or street lighting from Argent Road on the north to the north line of the Church parking lot. 17. Wernett Road is developed to rural standards with no curbs, gutter, sidewalks or street lighting. 18. Road 72 is partially developed to urban standards adjacent to the Faith Assembly Church. 19. Improvements (paved area) on Road 72 are only 20 feet wide adjacent to the corn maze site. EXHIBIT#1 Finding of Fact SP09-007 20. The corn maze will be open for business on Wednesday evenings during the time church activities are occurring. 21. During Wednesday night church activities the church parking lot is in use. 22. The church occasionally is rented for weddings and quinceaneras. These activities will generate the need for use of the parking lots. 23. The proposed use will generate commercial traffic on surrounding streets. 24. The applicant stated he could not control traffic on surrounding streets. 25. The applicant's security manager stated they could not control loitering around the site. 26. The City's noise regulations prohibit excessive noise from emanating from properties and intruding into residential areas between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. 27. The applicant stated he plans to operate up to 11:00 pm. on the weekends. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON PMC 25.86.060 1) The proposed use may be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, and text of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density residential development. The intended use of the site is single family residential. The Plan does not specifically address the proposed use. However, the zoning regulations which implement the Plan identify some uses such as farming and certain commercial recreation uses as unclassified uses. Unclassified uses require extraordinary review through a public hearing process (special permit process). Applying for a special permit does not guarantee the application will be approved. 2) The proposed use will adversely affect public infrastructure. The proposed farm/corn maze is not dependent upon City utilities but the proposed use will be dependent upon City and County streets for access. Road 72, the main access road to the site, was constructed to rural standards not urban standards. Likewise, Wernett Road does not meet City standards for a local access street. These roads have no night lighting, no sidewalks and in many places are half the width of standard City streets. Wernett Road west of Road 72 along the proposed pumpkin patch area is a gravel road only. The operation of a corn maze to coincide with Wednesday evening church activities could place a strain on the use of public streets. Little onsite parking will be EXHIBIT#1 Finding of Fact SP09-007 available on Wednesdays nights thereby increasing the likelihood corn maze customers will park on Road 72. s) The proposed use will not be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The existing character of the area is that of a suburban residential neighborhood. The proposed corn maze and fall festival is a commercial enterprise that will draw between 7,000 and 9,000 people to the neighborhood over a few weeks. Much of the increase in traffic generated by the influx of people will occur on the weekends and evenings when surrounding neighbors are home. The additional traffic, noise, litter and commotion associated with a commercial enterprise in a residential area will disrupt the peace and harmony customarily enjoyed in a residential neighborhood. 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. The location and operation of a commercial corn maze, while not a structure, will have a deleterious impact on the use and enjoyment of surrounding residential properties. The impact on long term property values is unknown at this time. The additional traffic, noise, commotion, lights, vibration, dust, and equipment usage associated with the corn maze will not encourage the development of permitted uses in the general vicinity. 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. The addition of 7,000 to 9,000 people into the neighborhood over a short period of time will create increased levels of noise, traffic, vibrations and dust currently not experienced by the residents. The late night operation of a commercial enterprise within a residential neighborhood with the problems of noise, litter, additional traffic and loitering in the neighborhood will become objectionable to occupants of neighboring residential properties. The use of farm equipment to plow and plant fields in the neighborhood will also create noise, dust, vibrations and diesel exhaust that is typically not present in suburban neighborhoods. 6) The proposed use will endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, and will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district. EXHIBIT#I Finding of Fact SP09-007 The establishment of a commercial corn maze providing recreational services to 7,000 to 9,000 people will become a nuisance in the residential neighborhood due to the increase in traffic, noise, loitering, littering, and other side effects associated with the corn maze and fall festival. Due to the narrow width and poor conditions of adjoining streets, traffic safety is also a concern. The commercial nature of the corn maze, and associated farming activities have a very high probability to become a nuisance to current and future residents of the neighborhood. ATTACHMENT 7 MITIGATING CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SHOULD MF# SP2011-002 BE PREDISPOSED TO RECOMMENDATION • Consistent with the provisions of PMC 26.08.160 and PMC 25.86.35, require consolidation of parcels # 118-481-019 and# 118-481-037 prior to considering this Application; • Subject to completion of the above requirement, comply with the provisions of PMC 25.86.050 (as deemed necessary by staff and City Council via MF# SP09-007) and conduct a public hearing after mailing a written Notice of Public Hearing to property owners within a 1,000 foot radius of the subject site; • In consideration of neighboring farms utilizing organic methods, prior to issuance of the Special Permit, Applicant shall file with the City, a copy of his certification as a Organic Farm in accordance with "The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990" as administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, and adhere to these requirements as it relates to all farming under MF# SP2011-002; • Applicant shall prepare an "organic only" conservation plan approved by a farm service agency and adjacent neighbors. A copy of the plan shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the Special Permit; • The Special permit is for valid for Farming Only purposes; no sales, sales stands, visitors, amusement, entertainment, agri-tainment, or any fee related activities shall be permitted on-site or on adjacent properties; • No parking shall be permitted on-street or on adjacent lots; • Prior to issuance of the Special Permit, Applicant shall provide a report to the City prepared by a certified Apiarist advising that all crops to be cultivated are "bee beneficial"; • Applicant shall at all times, provide and maintain at least 6 active individual bee hives for pollination purposes; • Applicant shall not store any equipment, machinery, supplies, irrigation pipe or other materials on-site or at any adjacent property; • Farming activities shall be limited to between 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am through 7:00 pm Saturday and Sunday; • The Special Permit shall be valid for one year only; • The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa, or row crops such as tomatoes, peppers, etc. The definition of row crops does not include pumpkins, melons, wheat, barley, buckwheat, corn and similar grains, or other crops which drift onto adjacent properties, rot in fields or attract nuisance birds; • In order to avoid issues with fugitive dust, toxic effluent, and other squalid conditions, no pasturing of livestock, or animals shall be permitted; • The entire site shall be planted with a successful cover crop to control fugitive dust at least 15 days prior to shut off of the irrigation system; • No irrigation water or sprays shall be permitted to drift or drain on adjacent properties or onto the public right of way. Exhibit 2 - Pictures presented during Public Hearing by ., Roger. Llenk Page 1 of 11 1 it ; =it:�' � - A •'. � i; ,� „� 11: r II LO 4b 111 , 4 1 BLS , c • a}. 1 -� r-. i -7� .♦ T i It"J �. - _ 4^ „��'.�. t�;� �t..ti� � �, � � • - ",ill i ° O,1 � f�rte. `rl�S' � t •1 �'-. 41. � '1 Exhibit 2 - Pictures presentee: during Public Hearing by r Roger Lenk Page 2 of 1 "I -AN, /� ,x T T ♦ �i y� - r .f Z I N .: ' ` 1� (�•� ,t x -'�' �" � ,y ,r `fie r- �: 1� 'i.-- S�;• " �. �� � y��. ifs jr ''� • •�: 7 � - ~ � i�.w - ►_ �•_ 'fir �•.. _ �1Pe.'R j_. r S r v\ - - - 0 -�. i-: -'• a-may• . # � I EXhibit 2 - Pictures presented during Public Hearing by Roger Lenk Page 3of11 YL rs o f� w 4 G 10 4 fir► mss' � Exhibit ;Z - Pictures presented during Public Hearing by Roger ]Lenk ! ` �`� Page 4 of 11 r R. ,rte-i K �. ter•; All dr to r 1 dim . IN,^149401-10 �• _ t�� -•' •`r + - �- +', ice' � ,� '• - ••• a' -''•"' "'..r, �::.?"..`' ,rte' • At- ^ rlr l r .. 1 t Exhibit 2 - Pictures presented during Public Hearing by Roger Lenk Page: f of 11 r • r 1 j„ s d' ti Al oI f i .. r; + F r: i T f 1 � t It , 1 i -- ;" Exhibit 2 - Pictures presented A", during Public Hearing by Roger Lenk _ Page 8 of 11 r 1 j 1 •1 1 L t i Y, 1.. Ar Y - , �• / . .A 6 '\-�� 'ant• -~� 41 �' - r, z� t. , _ I r Exhibit 2 - Pictures presented during Public Hearing by Roger Lenk Page 10 of 11 ' • r' 49 - IL >-.�•.. ter . 7f: r r . R <� -; I -- F 1 • S. ,1 1 � rs K. - REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2011-002 APPLICANT: Philipp Schmitt HEARING DATE: 2/24/2011 5604 McKinley Court ACTION DATE: 3/17/2011 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Farming in an RS-20 Zone (2000 Block of Road 72) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The southeast and northeast quarters of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM less the southerly 165 feet and less road right-of-way. General Location: 2000 Block of Road 72 Property Size: Approximately 18 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Road 72 and Wernett Road. 3. UTILITIES: The proposed use will not need public utilities. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject property is currently zoned RS-20 (Suburban) and consists of two vacant parcels. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: North R-S-20- County-residential South R-S-20- Faith Assembly Church of God Church East R-S-20- County-residential West R-S-20- County-residential 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Low-Density Residential uses. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting Special Permit approval to conduct farming activities in an RS-20 (Suburban Residential) zone on Road 72 north of Court Street. The proposed farm will involve the planting and harvesting of row crops, legumes, cereal grains and the winter pasturing of cattle. Commercial farming on sites larger than 10 acres and within 1,000 feet of a house, subdivision or residentially zone property may be permitted through the Special Permit review process. Even though the Municipal Code contains provisions for commercial farming, the City's Comprehensive Plan has designated the site for future residential use. Therefore farming on the site must be considered only an interim use. As an interim use, farming activities can easily be converted to intended uses when utilities become available. Recent growth in Pasco is a good example of how the conversion process takes place. Most of the development in the I-182 corridor over the last ten years has occurred on lands that were formally developed with farms. The farms have not restricted the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, nor has the development of housing restricted, to any great extent, continued farming activities. The general area surrounding the proposed site can be characterized as a low-density suburban area with large pastures, livestock raising and grape vineyards. Truck farming and raspberry production has also occurred in the neighborhood in the past. In reviewing this proposal staff has identified four issues for consideration by the Planning Commission: 1) dust control; 2) noise; 3) the planting of cereal grains; and 4) the winter pasturing of livestock. During plowing and planting and prior to seed germination fugitive dust could potentially impact adjacent properties if not properly monitored. This impact will be minimized once a crop is established. Staff would suggest the applicant be required to maintain a viable water source on site during the initial grading and leveling to manage fugitive dust during wind events, and submit a dust control plan for approval by City staff. Commercial agricultural activities often occur at odd hours, which could potentially impact adjacent residential uses. Staff suggests the applicant be required to submit a complaint monitoring plan to help alleviate these impacts. The plan should minimally include potential hours of operation, 2 a contact person to whom complaints may be submitted and a process outlining how noise complaints will be addressed. The planting of wheat (cereal grain) within a suburban neighborhood brings with it a concern for fire safety. Wheat fields become very dry prior to harvesting and burn rapidly if set on fire. With two homes immediately adjacent to the site and other homes nearby, planting wheat in a partially built neighborhood is a concern. The simplest way to address the fire safety concerns is to not permit the planting of grains. However grains can sometimes be effective as a cover crop to prevent dust from blowing. If grains are to be used for a cover crop restrictions should be placed on their usage to address fire safety concerns presented by ripe wheat. The last issue is one of using the site for grazing of livestock. The definition of commercial agriculture excludes feeds lots, stockyards, and similar animal husbandry activities. Large concentrations of animals can cause severe odor, dust and fly problems. The pasturing of animals can also create these concerns. The Planning Commission may want to consider limiting the number of cattle to be pastured on the site. 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 sections of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Low-Density Residential development. 3. The site has been used in the past for agricultural activities. 4. Pastures and vineyards as-well-as animal husbandry occur on adjoining properties. 5. A vineyard was planted at 1917 Road 76 approximately 4 years ago. 6. 1917 Road 76 is located directly west of the site in question. 7. The site is zoned R-S-20. 8. The site contains 18 acres. 9. The site is large enough for about thirty 20,000 square foot lots. 3 10. Gardening and fruit raising on vacant land are permitted uses in the R-S-20 zone. 11. Non-commercial agriculture uses are a permitted accessory use in the R-S-20 zone. 12. The site is vacant. 13. The site has been used for farming in the past. 14. Large vacant parcels within the general vicinity have been used in the past for producing watermelons, pumpkins and other row crops. 15. Much of the new residential development in the I-182 corridor has been developed on or adjacent to farms. 16. The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72 and from the east by way of Wernett Road. 17. The process of tilling and planting the ground exposes unprotected soil to the wind and can cause blowing dust. 18. The applicant is proposing to plant vegetables, legumes and cereal grains. 19. Wheat is a cereal grain. 20. Ripe wheat is very dry and presents a fire hazard. 21. Locating large numbers of cattle and other farm animals in a single area can create odor, dust and fly nuisances. 22. The R-S-20 District permits one animal unit per 10,000 square feet of lot area. 23. Commercial farming requires the use of heavy equipment and machinery. 24. The City's noise regulations prohibit excessive noise from emanating from properties and intruding into residential areas between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. CONCLUSIONS Before recommending approval or denial of a Special Permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, and text of the Comprehensive Plan? 4 The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density residential development. The Plan does not specifically address the proposed use. However, the zoning regulations which implement the Plan permit the keeping of farm animals and allow limited agricultural production in R-S-20 zones. The zoning regulations also permit commercial agricultural production by Special Permit in the R-S-20 zone. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed farm does not depend upon City utilities therefore there will be no adverse impact to city utilities. The current zoning permits the site to be developed with about 30 homes which would generate about 300 vehicle trips per day. An 18 acre farm will generate minor traffic in comparison. Farm traffic can be mitigated by allowing on-site storage of farm equipment to lessen the need to bring equipment to and from the site. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The existing character is that of a suburban residential neighborhood. The act of growing additional crops in the neighborhood will not alter the existing neighborhood character. The location of farms in West Pasco and within the I-182 Corridor has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of dwellings can be operated harmoniously with intended uses. Farms have operated simultaneously with development of Island Estates, Sunny Meadows, Wilson Meadows, The Village at Pasco Heights and other subdivisions in the community. The proposed use will not make intensive use of the land or lead to disorderly growth of the community. 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? There will be no permanent structures erected with this proposal. Development within the community over the last 10 years attests to the fact that farming operations do not discourage the development of permitted uses or impair the value of nearby development. The proposed use is a temporary use that will not materially impact property values. 5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, 5 vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? Without conditions the proposed activity could create noise, dust and odor and fire hazards that may be objectionable to nearby properties. 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? The existence of numerous farming operations within the community, particularly in the I-182 corridor, demonstrates that farming near residential uses does not necessarily become a nuisance to permitted uses nor do the farms endanger public health and safety. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel 118481037 and 118481019; 2. The farm shall be operated by using best management practices for agricultural production; 3. No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed or otherwise drain onto the adjoining right-of-way; 4. The adjoining roadways shall not be used for turning around farm equipment during plowing, planting, harvesting, weeding and related functions; S. Farm equipment stored on site must be located in neat rows on the north side of the Faith Assembly parking lot west of the church owned house at 1800 Road 72. No more than seven pieces of equipment shall be permitted to be stored on site. The storage area and equipment must be kept clean of tumble weeds, weeds litter and debris; 6. No irrigation water is permitted to be sprayed onto the adjoining residential fences or properties; 7. Irrigation water and farm chemicals must be applied at agronomic rates; 8. The farm crops shall be limited to alfalfa or row crops such as pumpkins, tomatoes, corn, watermelons, peppers, etc. The definition of row crops does not include wheat and other cereal grains. Cereal grains may be used as a winter cover crop or for green manure purposes; 9. Eighteen head of cattle are permitted on the site only from November 1St to March 31St. 6 10. Cattle must be secured on the site using best management practices for animal husbandry fencing. Said fencing must contain the cattle on site at all times; 11. The property shall be posted to indicate no motorcycling or four-wheeling is permitted; 12. A Conservation Plan approved by the Farm Service shall be submitted to the City prior to site grading; 13. A dust control plan must be approved by City staff prior to site grading; 14. A complaint monitoring plan that identifies how the applicant will respond to neighborhood complaints must be submitted and approved by City staff prior to site grading; 15. At least one portable toilet shall be placed on the site during times when picking crews are on site. Said portable toilet shall be serviced in accord with industry standards and located in the equipment storage area north of the Faith Assembly parking lot. 16. The Special Permit shall be valid for a period of three years and will automatically extend for two additional years if the applicant adheres to the conditions of Special Permit approval. Extensions beyond the first five years may be permitted, but will require the submittal of a new Special Permit application. In reviewing a new Special Permit application for this farm the Planning Commission will consider the criteria of PMC 25.86.060 along with changes in surrounding development, the pace at which surrounding development is occurring, improvements to utilities services within the area and any nuisance complaints about the operations of the farm over the past five years; 17. The Special Permit shall be null and void if farming activity has not begun by June 30, 2012. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, 2011 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Philipp Schmitt for the location of a farm in the 2000 Block of Road 72 with conditions as listed in the March 17, 2011 staff report. 7 Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2011 A. Special Permit Agricultural uses in a RS-20 (Residential Formatted:Font:lz pt Suburban) Zone (the 2000 block of Road 72) Formatted:Font:lz pt (Phillip W. Schmitt) (MF# SP 2011-0021 Formatted:Font:1z pt Vice-Chairwoman Kempf`read the master file number and asked for comments Formatted:Font:iz pt from staff. David I. McDonald, City Planner, stated this item was discussed at the last meeting and as a result of that discussion there were some concerned raised relative to some of the proposed activities under the farming of the special permit application. Staff has included the six concerns in the special conditions. Number four discussed prohibiting equipment from turning on the roadway during plowing or harvesting. Number five relates to the storage of farm equipment, the recommendation is that the equipment is stored directly north of the Faith Assembly parking lot and directly west of the Associate Pastor's house and would be shielded from Road 72 and some of the surrounding properties. A concern under number eight regarding the types of crops that could be grown and discussion was centered on corn. The Planning Commission's consensus was that corn should be permitted and therefore it has been included in number eight. Number nine relates to the number of cattle allowed and the Planning Commission considered. Number ten relates to the fencing, the cattle must be secured on the site using best management practices for animal husbandry for fencing. The concern for sanitation is addressed in number fifteen where a port-a-potty would be required when picking crews and employees would be on site. Those were the items that staff received direction from and have included those in the recommended approval. No further discussion, Formatted:Font:lz pt Commissioner Gemig moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt Formatted:Font:iz pt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, Formatted:Font:iz pt 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Formatted:Font:iz pt Commissioner Gemig Further moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway Formatted:Font:iz pt based on the Findings of Fact therefrom the Planning Commission recommend Formatted:Font:lz pt the City Council grant a Special Permit to Philipp Schmitt for the location of a farm in the 2000 block of Road 72 with conditions listed in the March 17, 2011 staff report. The motion_passed unanimously _ _ _ _ _ _ Formatted:Font:iz pt 1 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 CITY OF PASCO 3 4 Special Permit: ) 5 ) MF# No . SP 2011-002 6 Agricultural uses in a ) RS-20 (Residential ) 7 Suburban) ) Zone (the 2000 block of ) 8 Road 72) ) (Phillip W. Schmitt) ) 9 ) 10 11 12 13 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 14 15 16 TIME: 7 p.m. , Thursday, March 17, 2011 17 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall 18 Pasco, Washington 19 CALLED BY: City of Pasco 20 REPORTED BY: ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR License No . 2408 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 3 4 MS . JANA KEMPF - CHAIRWOMAN 5 MR. JAMES HAY 6 MS . ALECIA GREENAWAY 7 MR. KURT LUKINS 8 MS . LISA GEMIG 9 10 ALSO PRESENT: 11 12 MR. DAVE MCDONALD 13 MR. RICK WHITE 14 MR. SHANE O'NEIL 15 MS . SOPHIA AQUARIUS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 3 1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, March 17, 2011 at 2 7 p.m. , at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, Pasco 3 Planning Commission Meeting was taken before ChaRae Kent, 4 Certified Court Reporter and Registered Professional 5 Reporter. The following took place : 6 7 P R O C E E D I N G S 8 9 MS . KEMPF: Old business . The next item on the 10 agenda is Item 4, old business . We have a number of items 11 that have previously come before the Planning Commission 12 and they are here before us on the agenda tonight to 13 obtain further clarification from the city staff and for 14 us to discuss amongst ourselves and to come to conclusions 15 on a recommendation for City Council . 16 The first -- I 'm getting feedback. I 'm sorry. 17 The first item is : Special permit : Agricultural 18 uses in an RS-20 Residential Suburban zone in the 2000 19 Block of Road 72, Phillip W. Schmitt, the applicant, 20 Master File SP2011-002 . 21 MR. MCDONALD: Ms . Chairman, Commission Members, as 22 you recall, there was a lengthy discussion on this item 23 last month. And as a result of that discussion, there was 24 some concerns raised relative to some of the activities 25 that were proposed under this farming special permit ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 4 1 application, and staff has tried to include those concerns 2 in the approval conditions . 3 There are six new conditions that have been added 4 since the last time we met and those are contained in 5 number 4 . It discusses prohibiting equipment from turning 6 on the roadways as the fields are being plowed or 7 harvested. 8 Number 5 relates to the storage of farm equipment . 9 And the recommendation is that the equipment be stored 10 directly north of the Faith Assembly parking lot west of 11 the assistant associate pastor' s house . So it would 12 basically be shielded from Road 72 and some of the 13 surrounding properties . 14 And there was a concern under Number 8 of the types 15 of crops that could be grown and there was a lot of 16 discussion about whether or not to permit corn. And the 17 consensus was, from the Planning Commission, that corn 18 should be permitted, so it' s been included in Number 8 . 19 Number 9 relates to the number of cattle . And the 20 Planning Commission indicated 18 would be all that you 21 would consider. 22 And then number 10 relates to fencing. Cattle must 23 be secured on the site using best management practices for 24 animal husbandry for fencing. 25 And then there was a concern about sanitation. And ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 5 1 that is included in number 15 where a port-a-potty would 2 be required when there are picking crews and employees on 3 site . 4 So those are the items that staff received direction 5 from the planning commission on. As I said, we 've 6 included those in the recommended conditions of approval 7 and we 'd be open to any questions you might have . 8 MS . KEMPF: Commissioners, any questions? 9 MS . GREENAWAY: No. 10 MS . KEMPF: I would entertain a motion. 11 MS . GEMIG: I move to adopt the Findings of Fact and 12 Conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 17, 2011 13 staff report. 14 MS . GREENAWAY: Second. 15 MS . KEMPF: It' s been moved by Commissioner Gemig and 16 seconded by Commissioner Greenaway. All those in favor 17 say aye. 18 COMMISSION MEMBERS (in unison) : Aye. 19 MS KEMPF: All opposed say nay. 20 MS . GEMIG: I move based on the Findings of Fact and 21 the Conclusions therefrom that the Planning Commission 22 recommend that the City Council grant special permit to 23 Phillip Schmitt for the location of a farm in the 2000 24 block of Road 72 with conditions as listed in the 25 March 17, 2011 staff report. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 6 1 MS . GREENAWAY: Second. 2 MS . KEMPF: All right. It was moved by Commissioner 3 Gemig and seconded by Commissioner Greenaway. All in 4 favor say aye . 5 COMMISSION MEMBERS (in unison) : Aye. 6 MS . KEMPF: All opposed say nay. 7 Let the record show that it was passed unanimously. 8 All right . 9 MR. MCDONALD: Just for the record, Madam Chairman, 10 this item will go to the City Council at their next 11 regular meeting in April unless an appeal is filed. If an 12 appeal is filed, then that will cause a closed record 13 hearing be held before the City Council . 14 And anyone that has questions about that process, you 15 are welcome to call the office . 16 17 (Item concluded. ) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss . 3 COUNTY OF BENTON ) 4 This is to certify that I, ChaRae Kent, Certified 5 Court Reporter in and for the State of Washington, 6 residing at Richland, reported the within and foregoing 7 planning commission meeting; that said planning commission 8 meeting was taken by me in shorthand and thereafter 9 transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of 10 the testimony. 11 I further certify that I am not a relative or 12 employee or attorney or counsel of any the parties, nor am 13 I financially interested in the outcome of the cause . 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 15 affixed my official seal this day of , 16 2011 . 17 18 CHARAE KENT, RPR, CCR 19 CCR NO. 2408 Notary Public in and for the State 20 of Washington, residing at Richland 21 22 My commission expires January 17, 2012 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 Adjoining Property Owners c/o Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 March 24, 2011 VIA EMAIL David McDonald, City Planner City of Pasco 525 North Third Street Pasco, Washington 99301 Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Dear Dave: This is in follow-up to the Planning Cormnission's action of March 17, 2011. Please consider this an appeal in accordance with Pasco Municipal Code Section 25.86.080. Please include this letter and all attached documen Da rt of Cily Council's background materials. Also, please provide Council with a copy of Adjoining Property Owner's February 15, 2011 correspondence incorporated into the February 24, 2011 Open Record Public Hearing, along with the photos provided for inclusion at the February 24, 2011 Open Record Hearing. HARM TO BE EXPERIENCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PMC 25.86.080 b Should the Special Permit be approved, Appellants will be subjected to harm including but not limited to the following: A) "The existing character of the area is that of a suburban residential neighborhood. The additional vibration, dust and equipment usage associated with the (farming activity) will not encourage the development of permitted uses in the general vicinity" (Per City Council Resolution 3205 —see Attachment 1); B) "The use of farm equipment to plow and plant fields in the neighborhood will also create noise, dust, vibrations and diesel exhaust that is typically not present in suburban neighborhoods" (Per City Council Resolution 3205, again see Attachment 1); Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Page: 2 C) "Farming activities have a very high probability to become a nuisance to current and future residents of the neighborhood" (Per City Council Resolution 3205, again see Attachment 1); D) Applicant has a dismal history of farming practices, and abandoned the site in 2009 resulting in blowing corn leaves, dried vegetation and weeds, fugitive dust; storage of unsightly fanning equipment; storage of unsightly amusement ride and ancillary equipment; storage of two (2) commercial tractor trailers; storage of irrigation pipe and other non-farming equipment; E) The three (3) hours of public testimony over MF# PP09-003 Loviisa Division where residents complained endlessly about noise, vibrations, fugitive dust, tumble weeds, etc. resulting from the neighboring farming activities shows that the location of farms in West Pasco and within the 1-182 Corridor has demonstrated that farms within close proximity of dwellings cannot be operated harmoniously with intended uses. F) Applicant is requesting to pasture animals. However, Applicant is actually requesting that Carl Wisse of 7408 W. Wernett Road, Pasco, Washington 99301 be allowed to pasture animals. Mr. Wisse currently pastures beef and provides animal husbandry in a a squalid, foul smelling, offensive, fly ridden, unsecured, unmaintained and unhealthful pen at his property. This operation is offensive to everyone in the neighborhood, especially the resultant fecal infested effluent which impacts all adjoining properties. Applicant intends to assist Mr. Wisse in the expansion of his squalid operation onto the vacant property. PLANNING COMMISSION ERRORS AND INCORRECT INFORMATION RELIED UPON In its February 24, 2011, and March 17, 2011 hearings and meetings, the Planning Commission made several errors and relied upon information which was materially incorrect in its consideration of this matter as enumerated below: A) HEARING NOTICES AND POSTPONEMENT CONFUSED LOCAL NEIGHBORS. The initial undated Notice of Public Hearing indicated that "property owners withing 300 feet of this site were mailed this notice" (see Attachment 1). However, the requirement for farming activities under PMC 25.86.050 is that notices be sent out to a 1.000 foot radius. In addition, the initial Open Record Public Hearing was postponed the same day of the hearing to the following week, Put together, and you have a situation where the majority of neighboring property owners were confused, frustrated, dismayed and did not have an opportunity to testify at the Open Record Public Hearing. Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Page: 3 B) PARCEL SIZES ARE SUBSTANDARD FOR FARMING USES. As noted in the February 15, 2011 letter from Adjoining Property Owners, PMC 25.86.35 AGRICULTURAL USES provides that Special Permits for agricultural uses (commercial) may be granted for tracts of land over ten acres in size. Applicant's site plan is comprised of two (2) separate tracts (parcel # 118-481-019 - 9.00 acres and parcel # 118- 481-037 - 9.13 acres, neither of which meet the (10) acre minimum zoning requirement. In fact, the first Approval Condition recommended by the Planning Commission is "The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel 118481037 and 118481019". C) APPLICANT'S ESTABLISHED FARMING PRACTICES HAVE BEEN DETRIMENTAL TO THE INTENDED SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT. As noted in the February 15, 2011 letter from Adjoining Property Owners, numerous code violations by Applicant were not resolved until nearly a year later after denial of the Farming/Corn Maize Special Permit application from 2009. Other code violations remain unabated (see Attachment 3). Neighbors were, and remain outraged at Applicant's total disregard for the intended suburban residential environment. D) THE PLANNING COMMISSION RELIED ON THE FACT THAT A WINERY BEGAN OPERATION AT 1917 N ROAD 76 FOUR (4) YEARS AGO. What the Planning Commission did not consider is that similar to other local farms, the Organic winery recently established at 1917 N. Road 76, is not a commercial venture, does not entail tilling, equipment usage, spraying, irrigation pesticides, fertilizer. multiple harvests or itinerant labor. In addition, other local small local gardens do not entail the creation of fugitive dust, vibrations, exhaust fumes, itinerant labor, multiple harvests, and many other deleterious impacts on the local suburban environment. MF# SP2011-002 is a wholly different type of farming operation. E) THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER THE MULTIPLE OUTSTANDING CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS CURRENTLY IN PROCESS BY THE CITY AGAINST THE APPLICANT. As noted in Attachment 3, Applicant has multiple code enforcement actions pending against it by the City and other regulatory agencies. The Planning Commission did not require resolution of these actions prior to issuance of the Special Permit. Neighbors are still awaiting abatement of this and other outstanding issues. Formal City actions and sanctions remain pending. Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Page: 4 F) AT ITS MARCH 17 2011 MEETING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT HAVE AN APPROPRIATE QUORUM TO APPROVE MF# SP2011 002. Planning Commissioner Kurt Lukins Voted "YES" to approve MF# SP2011-002 at the March 17, 2011 Meeting. Unfortunately, Commissioner Lukins was not present for the February 24, 2011 Open Record Public Hearing, and did not have the benefit of hearing or reading the testimony provided on the issue. The remaining four (4) Commissioners voting "YES" (Hay, Greenaway, Chairman Kempf, and Geming), did not constitute a voting quorum from the February 24, 2011 Open Record Public Hearing. Commissioner Cruz was present for the February 24, 2011 Open Record Hearing, but did not attend the March 17, 2011 meeting. Attachment 4 is a copy of the February 24, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes. G) THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER THE CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 7 2009 FOR A FARMING ONLY USE AT THE SAME SITE AND BY SAME APPLICANT VIA RESOLUTION 3205 (AGAIN SEE ATTACHMENT 11. Those verbatim findings of fact and conclusions taken with the information herein are as follows: 1. The proposed use may be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive plan. THE ANSWER IS NO. According to the "conclusions" taken from Resolution 3205 (again, see Attachment 1), farming uses are unclassified uses. Resolution 3205 further states that "Unclassified uses require extraordinary review (emphasis added) through a public hearing process (special permit process). "Applying for a special permit does not guarantee the application will be approved." • 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained, and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? THE ANSWER IS NO. According to the "Conclusions" taken from Resolution 3205 (again, see Attachment 1), "The existing character of the area is that of a suburban residential neighborhood. The additional vibration dust and equipment usage associated with the (fanning activity) will not encourage the development of permitted uses in the general vicini ". In addition, Applicant's demonstrated aggressive tilling, unfettered irrigation and a disproportionally high utilization of fertilizer, resulting in over-spraying, and drainage onto adjacent properties, some of which exercise organic fanning methods, will not be in harmony with the local environment. Applicant's demonstrated disregard for adjoining properties via improper storage of farm equipment and irrigation lines will similarly distract from the harmony. Further, Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Page: 5 Applicant's demonstrated disregard for local neighbors after completion of farming activities by abandoning the site resulting in blowing corn leaves, dried vegetation and weeds, fugitive dust; storage of unsightly farming equipment; storage of unsightly amusement ride and ancillary equipment; storage of two (2) commercial tractor trailers; storage of irrigation pipe and other non-farming equipment requiring intervention by Code Enforcement Officials adds to this dis-harmony. Finally, Applicant's choice of field corn crop resulting in "colony collapse disorder" in bee hives on two local farms clearly added to the injury of local neighbors. Furthermore, the squalid conditions created by the proposed pasturing activity will negatively impact all neighbors and is not in harmony with the residential suburban environment. • 5. Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? THE ANSWER IS YES. According to the "Conclusions" taken from Resolution 3205 (again, see Attachment 1), "The use of farm equipment to plow and plant fields in the neighborhood will also create noise dust vibrations and diesel exhaust that is typically not present in suburban neighborhoods". The squalid environment created by pasturing of animals on an unsecured site will also be very objectionable. • 6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? THE ANSWER IS YES. According to the "Conclusions" taken from Resolution 3205 (again, see Attachment 1), the "farming activities have a ver�high probability to become a nuisance to current and future residents of the nei hborhood". The pasturing activity will endanger public health given the squalid practices endorsed by Mr. Wisse, and certainly become a nuisance to the permuted uses of the district, especially since the proposed site is unsecured. H) AS REQUIRED BY PMC 25.86 60 THE PLANNING COMMISSION FAILED TO CONSIDER ANY OF THE MITIGATING MEASURES SUBMITTED BY ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS. In their February 15, 2011 letter to the Planning Commission, Adjoining Property Owners, by Attachment, provided a list of conditions to mitigate issues relative to MF# SP2011-002 (see Attachment 5). As revealed by a reading of the February 24, 2011 Open Record Hearing as well as the record from the March 17, 2011 meeting, not a single one of these mitigating conditions was considered nor incoraorated into the final approval requirements by the Planning Commission. Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER MF# SP2011-002 Page: 6 I) Given City's/School District's stance on Mitigation Fees relative to new developments as well as the "under water" financial situation on the entirety of properties via lien against FACC, the farming activity under MF# SP2011-002 will not be a temporary/interim use as concluded by the Planning Commission. Testimony at the March 17, 2011 Public Hearing, relative to MF# PP 2011-001, the same evening of the Planning Commission's recommended, indicated that City Manager Crutchfield "would not budge on the Approval Condition of the School District Impact Fees". SUMMARY Utilizing information herein, as well as City Council's own conclusions taken directly from Resolution 3205, the City Council cannot make a favorable finding and must deny MF#_ SP2011-002. Adjoining Property Owners thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Best Regards, Qw%� Roger E. Lenk Attachment 1 —Resolution 3205 Denying MF# SP09-007 Attachment 2—Undated Notice of Public Hearing Attachment 3 —Record of Unabated Code Enforcement Violations on Subject Parcels Attachment 4—February 24, 2011 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 5 —Mitigating Conditions Requested By Adjoining Property Owners cc: Tri-City Herald ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 32 A RESOLUTION DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CORN MAZE IN THE 2000 BLOCK OF ROAD 72. WHEREAS, on June 26, 2009 Haywire Farms submitted an application for a Special Permit to locate and operate a Corn Maze in the 2000 Block of Road 72; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an open record hearing on July 16, 2009 to review the proposed Corn Maze application for a Special Permit; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on August 20 and September 17, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the Corn Maze; and, WHEREAS, the recommendation for approval was appealed by adjoining property owners; and, WHEREAS, The City Council set a closed record appeal hearing for November 2, 2009 to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation; and, WHEREAS, the City Council was provided the record of the application, staff reports, transcripts and correspondence from the open record hearing and subsequent deliberations conducted by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, City Council conducted deliberations on the appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation for the Corn Maze application at the closed record appeal hearing of November 2, 2009; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, that a Special Permit is hereby denied to Haywire Farms for a corn maze and farm in the 2000 block of Road 72 under Master File # SP09-007 subject to the findings and conclusions contained in attached Exhibit 1. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7ih day of December,2009 Joy Ol n, Mayor ATT ST: APPR AS TO FORM: Aebra Clark, City er Leland B. Kerr,City Attorney 1 EXHIBIT#1 Finding of Fact SP09-007 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2. The site contains approximately 28 acres. 3. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for future Low-Density Residential development. 4. The site contains the Faith Assembly of God Christian Center. 5. The Faith Assembly of God Christian Center is the largest church in Pasco. 6. Surrounding properties are zoned R-S-20 in the County. 7. The site is zoned R-S-20 in the County. 8. Single family residential dwellings are located directly to the north, east, west and .northeast of the site. 9. The site contains a Church facility with an improved parking lot and two vacant parcels. 10. The proposed use includes the development of a corn maze, pumpkin field and fall festival attraction area. 11. The proposed use is a commercial business enterprise designed to attract customers. 12. The applicant stated that customers would come from Franklin County, .Benton County and Walla Walla. 13. The applicant anticipates attracting 7,000 to 9,000 people to the proposed corn maze over the period of time the corn maze is open for business. 14. The site is accessible from the north and south by way of Road 72 and from the east by way of Wernett Road. 15. Testimony provided by residents on Road 72 indicated current church traffic on Road 72 comes in about equal portions from both the north and south. 16. Road 72 is developed to rural standards with no curbs, gutter, sidewalk or street lighting from Argent Road on the north to the north line of the Church parking lot. 17. Wernett Road is developed to rural standards with no curbs, gutter, sidewalks or street lighting. 18. Road 72 is partially developed to urban standards adjacent to the Faith Assembly Church. 19. Improvements (paved area) on Road 72 are only 20 feet wide adjacent to the corn maze site. EXHIBIT#1 Finding of Fact SP09-007 20. The corn maze will be open for business on Wednesday evenings during the time church activities are occurring. 21. During Wednesday night church activities the church parking lot is in use. 22. The church occasionally is rented for weddings and quinceaneras. These activities will generate the need for use of the parking lots. 23. The proposed use will generate commercial traffic on surrounding streets. 24. The applicant stated he could not control traffic on surrounding streets. 25. The applicant's security manager stated they could not control loitering around the site. 26. The City's noise regulations prohibit excessive noise from emanating from properties and intruding into residential areas between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am. 27. The applicant stated he plans to operate up to 11:00 pm. on the weekends. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON PMC 25.86.060 Y) The proposed use may be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, and text of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed site for low density residential development. The intended use of the site is single family residential. The Plan does not specifically address the proposed use. However, the zoning regulations which implement the Plan identify some uses such as farming and certain commercial recreation uses as unclassified uses. Unclassified uses require extraordinary review through a public hearing process (special permit process). Applying for a special permit does not guarantee the application will be approved. 2) The proposed use will adversely affect public infrastructure. The proposed farm/corn maze is not dependent upon City utilities but the proposed use will be dependent upon City and County streets for access. Road 72, the main access road to the site, was constructed to rural standards not urban standards. Likewise, Wernett Road does not meet City standards for a local access street. These roads have no night lighting, no sidewalks and in many places are half the width of standard City streets. Wernett Road west of Road 72 along the proposed pumpkin patch area is a gravel road only. The operation of a corn maze to coincide with Wednesday evening church activities could place a strain on the use of public streets. Little onsite parking will be EXHIBIT#I Finding of Fact SP09-007 available on Wednesdays nights thereby increasing the likelihood corn maze customers will park on Road 72. 3) The proposed use will not be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. The existing character of the area is that of a suburban residential neighborhood. The proposed corn maze and fall festival is a commercial enterprise that will draw between 7,000 and 9,000 people to the neighborhood over a few weeks. Much of the increase in traffic generated by the influx of people will occur on the weekends and evenings when surrounding neighbors are home. The additional traffic, noise, litter and commotion associated with a commercial enterprise in a residential area will disrupt the peace and harmony customarily enjoyed in a residential neighborhood. 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. The location and operation of a commercial corn maze, while not a structure, will have a deleterious impact on the use and enjoyment of surrounding residential properties. The impact on long term property values is unknown at this time. The additional traffic, noise, commotion, lights, vibration, dust, and equipment usage associated with the corn maze will not encourage the development of permitted uses in the general vicinity. 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. The addition of 7,000 to 9,000 people into the neighborhood over a short period of time will create increased levels of noise, traffic, vibrations and dust currently not experienced by the residents. The late night operation of a commercial enterprise within a residential neighborhood with the problems of noise, litter, additional traffic and loitering in the neighborhood will become objectionable to occupants of neighboring residential properties. The use of farm equipment to plow and plant fields in the neighborhood will also create noise, dust, vibrations and diesel exhaust that is typically not present in suburban neighborhoods. 6) The proposed use will endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, and will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district. EXHIBIT#I Finding of Fact SP09-007 The establishment of a commercial corn maze providing recreational services to 7,000 to 9,000 people will become a nuisance in the residential neighborhood due to the increase in traffic, noise, loitering, littering, and other side effects associated with the corn maze and fall festival. Due to the narrow width and poor conditions of adjoining streets, traffic safety is also a concern. The commercial nature of the corn maze, and associated farming activities have a very high probability to become a nuisance to current and future residents of the neighborhood. F17 co f .• i It'�, �'• ' _ •�! �'�� ` �— •.;y�is � . YM ter. .w� • A � � iiii .pd, �, �• a ,, � _, ". :'�:;.:• i i i' r _ l ,+�•�: �■ X71 - � f ATTACHMENT 2 �Ipmf-�- 111 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (509)545-3441 / Fax(509)545-3499 ' f F P.O. Box 293,525 North Third Avenue,Pasco,Washington 99301 .- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Philipp W. Schmitt has filed a petition (MF# SP 2011-002) requesting a special permit for Agricultural uses on the following described property: Legal: The East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21 Township 9 Range 29; Less Tax Parcel #118481028. Location: The 2000 Block of Road 72 THEREFORE, LET ALL CONCERNED TAKE NOTICE that a Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Commission of the City of Pasco, Washington, in the City Council Chambers, Pasco City Hall, 525 N. Third Avenue at the hour of 7:00 p.m., Thursday, February 17, 2011, so that all concerned may appear and present any objections or support for the proposed special permit. State law permits Daly one open record public hearing on this matter. This will be the only opportunity to provide input on this issue. For additional information, please contact the Pasco City Planner at (509) 545-3441. David I. McDonald Planning Commission Secretary SITE Pasco, Washington N NOTE: Property Owners within 300 feet of this site were mailed this notice. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 1 of 2 Roger E. Lenk From: Mitch Nickolds[NICKOLDSM @pasco-wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:46 AM To: Roger E. Lenk Subject: RE: Update Mr. Lenk, Thank you for the offer. Following the meeting and inspection I would like to call you and discuss my finding lay out the proposed correction action plan. At that time, your insight as to the issues concerning the neighboring property owners will be most helpful. I look forward to speaking with you then. Mitch Nickolds, CBO Inspection Services Manager (509)545-3441 Ext. 6311 nickoldsm(a)pasco-wa.gov From: Roger E. Lenk [mailto:lenk.roger @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:00 AM To: Mitch Nickolds Subject: RE: Update Thank you very much. If you would like me to walk along on behalf of concerned neighbors, let me know. Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 ` Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 Phone: (509) 542-0489 Email: Lenk.ro ger@gmail.com From: Mitch Nickolds [mailto:NICKOLDSM @pasco-wa.gov] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 20118:58 AM To: Roger E. Lenk Subject: RE: Update Roger, As you know I met recently with Mr. Swenson and verified the location of the old irrigation piping was stored on the property , but as I understand there are more potential nuisance conditions to address than just the piping, I am inspecting the entire site Monday with Faith Assembly staff to ensure we address all the nuisance that might exist on that property. I'll advise as to hw we will proceed after that meeting. Thanks for your patience. Mitch Nickolds, CBO Inspection Services Manager 3/20/2011 Page 1 of 1 Roger E. Lenk From: Alexander, Kim (ECY) [KALE461 @ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 8:53 AM To: Roger E. Lenk Cc: Stephens, Mark A. (ECY); McCain, Michael W. (ECY) Subject: RE: Stored Chemicals at 1800 N. Road 72 Pasco TI)co)k you Roger, I'm going to pass on your email along arid)fbe initial report From February to our Spills Coordinator. if you have any questions please feel free to email me or call me at 509 820-3510. Sincerely, Kimberley Alexander Secretary Senior 509 329-3510 From: Roger E. Lenk[mailto:lenk.roger @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 03, 20118:33 AM To: Alexander, Kim (ECY) Subject: Stored Chemicals at 1800 N. Road 72 Pasco Good morning. This is in follow-up to our telephone conversation. Here is a photo of the abandoned chemicals which have been stored at the vacant property north of 1800 N. Road 72. The property owner is Faith Assembly Christian Center 1800 N. Road 72 Pasco, Washington 99301. The contact is Darrel Johnsen at (509) 547-5773. These chemical totes have been at this location for 2 years along with the 55 gallon drum. They are adjacent to the road. They are an attractive nuisance to children. Recent gang activity concerns the neighbors that the chemicals could be used for something nefarious, or spilled on to local properties. Please keep me appraised of your progress. Thank you. Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 Phone: (509) 542-0489 Email: lenk.roger @gmail.com 3/20/2011 Pagel of 3 Roger E. Lenk From: Roger E. Lenk[lenk.roger @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:05 AM To: 'Mitch Nickolds' Cc: 'Dave McDonald'; 'Darrel Johnsen' Subject: RE:Attractive Nuisance Good morning. Thank you for your quick response and actions. However, most of the debris is a result of Mr. Schmitt, an authorized representative of FACC, in his clearing of the property for the Corn Maize. Many in the neighborhood have "underdeveloped" properties, and are sufficiently responsible to maintain them to appropriate standards. They are also diligent enough to avoid issues with dumping. FACC should be able to do the same, especially since they have an Assistant Pastor living onsite, adjacent to where the activity has been taking place. If my neighbors and I can see it from our back yards, the Assistant Pastor should be able to see it from his much closer and fiduciary perspective. In this case, by definition, watching over the flock must include watching over the holdings of the flock. I think the City said it best in a 2009 code violation letter to FACC when it indicated that "Property owners in Pasco are responsible for maintaining their properties in conformance with all provisions of the municipal code. Failure to do so could subject a property owner such as the church to penalties (fines) assessed by the Code Enforcement Board." The "underdevelopment" of a property does not excuse, or negate this responsibility. I think that an onsite visit will reverse your thoughts about the need for an emergent abatement. There are bike jumps, canyons dug, and a host of other significant hazards, such as a well used fire pit. I did mention a head injury. I would also be concerned about the trenching and excavation taking place by youth without appropriate shoring, sloping nor protective systems in place. Again, thank you. Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 Phone: (509) 542-0489 Email: lenk.rogerC�gmail.com 3/20/2011 Page 2 of 3 From: Mitch Nickolds [mailto:NICKOLDSM @pasco-wa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 20118:00 AM To: Roger E. Lenk Cc: Dave McDonald; Darrel Johnsen Subject: RE: Attractive Nuisance Mr. Lenk, Good Morning. Thank you for the photographs illustrating the use of the undeveloped Faith Assembly property as an unauthorized dumping area. My office will ask that they remove and properly discard all trash, debris and material dumped or deposited on the property and t discontinue all such activity immediately. As far as use of the lot by youth for gathering or recreation, there is no condition I've observed on the property or in your photos that rise to the level of an abatable emergent threat to public safety or health that would result in an action by the City to post and vacate property. Thus, I will leave posting the property owner posts the lot with signs and enforcing "No Trespassing" -which is a police matter in Pasco- up to the discretion of the property owner. I issue a correction notice to get the property cleaned up today . Thank you, Mitch Nickolds, CBO Inspection Services Manager (509) 545-3441 Ext. 6311 nickoldsm[a).pasco-wa.gov From: Roger E. Lenk [mailto:lenk.roger @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 5:39 PM To: Mitch Nickolds Cc: Dave McDonald; 'Darrel Johnsen' Subject: Attractive Nuisance Good afternoon. The Southwest Corner of the vacant lot at Faith Assembly has become a BMX track and gathering spot for local youth. I have advised the youth that I am acquainted with that their actions are inappropriate. I have instructed my sons to stay away from that location as it has gotten out of hand. One of the young men believes that he has received authorization to use the subject property. This area has long been a dumping site for rubbish. Mr. Schmitt left a lot of tree trunks, branches, farm fencing, concrete pipe and other debris there when he cleared the land for his illegal corn maize. Upon inspection, it is clear that overnighters have been having campfires. There are charred stones arranged in a campfire pit next to the trees. My neighbor recently had his garage graffitied. The Faith Assembly Fence has been torn down at this location also. Other boys are now bringing in other items to create their BMX track. It has become a dan erous attractive nuisance. I am concerned that this will get further out of hand. One of the boys received a serious gash to his head requiring emergency room attendance and 10 resultant staples. It looked absolutely ghastly. I_am sure that Faith Assembly wishes to avoid any potential liability which will arise from an on-sight injury, fire or related mayhem now that it has knowledge the issue. It would be appropriate to require Faith Assembly clean up the mess in that area, and post it 3/20/2011 Page 3 of 3 with No Trespassing signs. It may also be appropriate to increase police patrols of the area Other areas on the vacant property are also in need of attention. For example, it would also be appropriate to have them attend to the weeds that adorn the property. Also, someone put up an archery range right next to our houses. Perhaps this was a part of the "Duck Commander" revival meeting on February 19th. I understand that lining heathens up in front of a group of Archers will result in a great number of conversions. However, I am sure that archery ranges are not permitted, permitted accessory or conditional uses in the R-S-20 Residential District, even for ecumenical purposes. I understand that a notice to abate was recently required to resolve a concrete pipe dumping issue. I believe that these other issues with the property are in violation of PMC 6.24.010, 9.56, and 9.60. Attached you will find 3 photos of the subject area. I have separate photos of the Archery Ranges. Thank you. Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 Phone: (509) 542-0489 Email: lenk.roger @gmail.com 3/20/2011 Page 1 of 2 Roger E. Lenk From: Mitch Nickolds[NICKOLDSM @Pasco-wa.gov) Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 8:00 AM To: Roger E. Lenk Cc: Dave McDonald; Darrel Johnsen Subject: RE:Attractive Nuisance Mr. Lenk, Good Morning. Thank you for the photographs illustrating the use of the undeveloped Faith Assembly property as an unauthorized dumping area. My office will ask that they remove and properly discard all trash, debris and material dumped or deposited on the property and t discontinue all such activity immediately. As far as use of the lot by youth for gathering or recreation, there is no condition I've observed on the property or in your photos that rise to the level of an abatable emergent threat to public safety or health that would result in an action by the City to post and vacate property. Thus, I will leave posting the property owner posts the lot with signs and enforcing "No Trespassing" -which is a police matter in Pasco- up to the discretion of the property owner. I issue a correction notice to get the property cleaned up today . Thank you, Mitch Nickolds, CBO Inspection Services Manager (509) 545-3441 Ext. 6311 nickoldsm(cDpasco-waxic, From: Roger E. Lenk [mailto:lenk.roger @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 5:39 PM To: Mitch Nickolds Cc: Dave McDonald; 'Darrel Johnsen' Subject: Attractive Nuisance Good afternoon. The Southwest Corner of the vacant lot at Faith Assembly has become a BMX track and gathering spot for local youth. I have advised the youth that I am acquainted with that their actions are inappropriate. I have instructed my sons to stay away from that location as it has gotten out of hand. One of the young men believes that he has received authorization to use the subject property. This area has long been a dumping site for rubbish. Mr. Schmitt left a lot of tree trunks, branches, farm fencing, concrete pipe and other debris there when he cleared the land for his illegal corn maize. Upon inspection, it is clear that overnighters have been having campfires. There are charred stones arranged in a campfire pit next to the trees. My neighbor recently had his garage graffitied. The Faith Assembly Fence has been torn down at this location also. Other boys are now bringing in other items to create their BMX track. It has become a 3/20/2011 Page 2 of 2 dangerous attractive nuisance. I am concerned that this will get further out of hand. One of the boys received a serious gash to his head requiring emergency room attendance and 10 resultant staples. It looked absolutely ghastly. I am sure that Faith Assembly wishes to avoid any potential liability which will arise from an on-sight injury fire or related mayhem now that it has knowledge the issue. It would be appropriate to require Faith Assembly clean up the mess in that area and post it with No Trespassing suns. It may also be appropriate to increase police patrols of the area Other areas on the vacant property are also in need of attention. For example, it would also be appropriate to have them attend to the weeds that adorn the property. Also, someone put up an archery range right next to our houses. Perhaps this was a part of the "Duck Commander" revival meeting on February 19th. I understand that lining heathens up in front of a group of Archers will result in a great number of conversions. However, I am sure that archery ranges are not permitted, permitted accessory or conditional uses in the R-S-20 Residential District, even for ecumenical purposes. I understand that a notice to abate was recently required to resolve a concrete pipe dumping issue. I believe that these other issues with the property are in violation of PMC 6.24.010, 9.56, and 9.60. Attached you will find 3 photos of the subject area. I have separate photos of the Archery Ranges. Thank you. Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 Phone: (509) 542-0489 Email: lenk.ro ge r@gmail.c om 3/20/2011 Page 1 of 2 Roger E. Lenk From: Roger E. Lenk [lenk.roger @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 5:39 PM To: 'Mitch Nickolds' Cc: 'Dave McDonald'; 'Darrel Johnsen' Subject: Attractive Nuisance Attachments: IMG_5324.JPG; IMG_5323.JPG; IMG 5320.JPG Good afternoon. The Southwest Corner of the vacant lot at Faith Assembly has become a BMX track and gathering spot for local youth. I have advised the youth that I am acquainted with that their actions are inappropriate. I have instructed my sons to stay away from that location as it has gotten out of hand. One of the young men believes that he has received authorization to use the subject property. This area has long been a dumping site for rubbish. Mr. Schmitt left a lot of tree trunks, branches, farm fencing, concrete pipe and other debris there when he cleared the land for his illegal corn maize. Upon inspection, it is clear that overnighters have been having campfires. There are charred stones arranged in a campfire pit next to the trees. My neighbor recently had his garage graffitied. The Faith Assembly Fence has been torn down at this location also. Other boys are now bringing in other items to create their BMX track. It has become a dangerous attractive nuisance. I am concerned that this will get further out of hand. One of the boys received a serious gash to his head requiring emergency room attendance and 10 resultant staples. It looked absolutely ghastly. I am sure that Faith Assembly wishes to avoid any potential liability which will arise from an on-sight injury, fire or related mayhem now that it has knowledge the issue. It would be appropriate to require Faith Assembly clean up the mess in that area, and post it with No Trespassing signs. It may also be appropriate to increase police patrols of the area. Other areas on the vacant property are also in need of attention. For example, it would also be appropriate to have them attend to the weeds that adorn the property. Also, someone put up an archery range right next to our houses. Perhaps this was a part of the "Duck Commander" revival meeting on February 19th. I understand that lining heathens up in front of a group of Archers will result in a great number of conversions. However, I am sure that archery ranges are not permitted, permitted accessory or conditional uses in the R-S-20 Residential District, even for ecumenical purposes. I understand that a notice to abate was recently required to resolve a concrete pipe dumping issue. I believe that these other issues with the property are in violation of PMC 6.24.010, 9.56, and 9.60. Attached you will find 3 photos of the subject area. I have separate 3/20/2011 Page 2 of 2 photos of the Archery Ranges. Thank you. Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 Phone: (509) 542-0489 Email: lenk.ro er @gmail.com 3/20/2011 � r 1 r i, Atp L� or wM ffr r r �t Ice r t , • �� °: ,k ,c- � 4 r r . ' " •ire •,�.. y. -a •t r. •-i . f ..•�„ ...,,�,' IFS � - ,K. s . - r 4 vp Rk lit r Y IL Y1YSY�.Cl�bld SMVICZ3 DIV=ON (504)543.5743 I Fax(509)345.3499 I mMW Wuc 9 gnv P.O.Box 293,525 Notch Thad Avww,Pasco,Wad66tgton 99301 COURTESY CORRECTION NOTICE Dcccmbea 16,2009 Reference:CODE09-120109 Faith Assembly Chu rd Center 1800 Road 72 Pasco,WA 99301 You — receiving this courtesy correction notice because A eomplamt received indicates probable violations) of the Pasco]v)mapal Coda (pM) exist upon the prOpearties you own (vacant parcels located tomb Of the Faith Assembly Church facility. The parcels are legally descxlbed as: S134NW4SB4, LESS S 165' OF E 21-9-29 230' THEREOF and, NE4NW4SE4, LESS E 208,71' OF 219-29 OF S 208.711,LESS N 30'FOR WERNETT RD (265275). The con"On(A)reported on the properties (see checked boxes that will M(tmt your attention to cwt are: V , Li Jrnoperable vehicles stored in frost yurla, Lj Dead or dying rest tation or landscaping patC alleys or public view:FMC 9.82.060(A),25,70.t30(2&-d) .9,60-00(15) ❑ vehicles,boats,tmile s,and RV9 paw on an ❑urged and/or dilapidated signs,buildings unapproved surface,me 25,78,030(4),25,7g,140, Or WUGtMW,PMC MUM(11) ® Unpermitted container storage 25.22.!30?MzM 1nm AcczswaY unS(3) Obrtrudluns: ®WeeSt in aem of 12"in heipbt&ordow ❑ Shrubs,trees or vegetation obstructing weeWdried AKdwhumble Weeds creating a fire sidewalks,streets,signs or vision at intasxtions_ hazard.rmc gA m(16),12.1t.eso(b) FMC 9.60.030(r6)L 1212.090(.) lConstxuct–W ❑ Accamulated garbago,litter and/or trash,FMC Building without a City of Basco buildmg 9,60mo(6) pellmt. FMC 16,04.M Animals: ❑ Accumulated junk,scrap metal,machinery, ❑ Farm animal a(Lt.chickens,r'ooetM,goats, veliek parts or disassembled vehicles_PW qAo me cows,etc-)being]cent;m City!units.FMC 9.60mo(z) M ❑ Unlicensed clogs over seven(7)months of age ❑ Lack of mgtraed garbage service,rl+te 6,oa,Oo bdq kept,in City 1ffits.1'MC 6.02.rso Operating a business without a City of Pasco U Wor vohick repair,vehicle dismantling or business license.Puc s Km salvage activities in public view or Right of Way. PMC 25.7@.030 M. The Corrective Action(s)Required is: L Remove the box semi-trxiler and all stored farming equipment entlreay from the premises; 2. Cut all dried vegetation(corn and weeds)to maximum 6"height; 3. Leave rnot systems of e340"S corn W place to prevent loll erosion(blowing dust) The above describer!corrective action(s)must be completed within 10 (trill) days from date of this letter at 5:00 pm. After duet date the prope(ty will be inspected by the undersigned Pasco Code Enforcement Officer. U the wired corrective action is complete,thank you in advance for your effort. If the subject conditions stih exist after the required completion date, formal nuisance abatement action will be initiated to gait compliance. Glyn Mi Niriwlds,CBO hlspution Services Manager Xc..D"c McAooaald,City Planner ATTACHMENT 4 REGULAR MEE'T`ING February 24, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Cruz. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Vacant No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Burt Lukins No. 7 Vacant No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Lisa Gemig APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS: Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. No were no declarations. Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding any of the items to be discussed this evening. There were no objections. ADMINISTERING THE OATH: Chairman Cruz explained that State law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hay moved to adopt the January 20, 2011 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gemig. The motion passed unanimously. -1 - OLD BUSINESS: A. Rezone Rezone four parcels from R'T (Residential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business) Zone (Northeast corner of t°A" Street and Heritage Boulevard) (Howard Rowell) (MF# Z 10-004) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, had no further comments. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 17, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway further moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the Findings of Fact therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the site from RT (Residential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business). The motion passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. A. Special Permit Expand and continue resource recovery _operation in a I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone (215 E. Ainsworth Avenue) May Poland & Sons, Inc.) (MF# SP 2011-001) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O Neill, Planner I, stated upon researching this item it appears the original special permit for the concrete crushing facility expired last ,year. The application also needs to include the renewal of the existing permit as well as the addition of the hog fuel operation. Staff asked for the item to be continued to the March meeting. Chairman Cruz opened the public hearing. After three calls for public comment, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to continue the public hearing to March 17, 2011. The motion passed unanimously. -2 - B. Special Permit Agricultural uses in a RS-20 (Residential Suburban) Zone (the 2000 block of Road 72) (Philipp W. Schmitt) (MF* SP 2011-002) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained that the applicant in this case was seeking a Special Permit to farm 18 acres of vacant land directly north of the Faith Assembly Church on Road 72. The proposal involves the planting and growing of row crops, certain cereal grains and the winter pasturing of cattle. Mr. McDonald reviewed the written report and discussed the fact that farming does occur in the city in and near residential neighborhoods. The existence of these farms has not negatively impact the value of residential properties. Concerns over dust, noise, cereal grains and the winter pasturing of livestock were also discussed. Mr. McDonald responded to a packet of information submitted to the Planning Commission by Roger Lenk, a property owner who lives on Road 76. Chairman Cruz opened the hearing and asked for comments from the public. Philipp Schmitt, 1523 "A" Fowler Street, Richland stated he has applied to farm an 18.5 acre parcel at the corner of Wernett Road and Road 72. Mr. Schmitt explained that he planned to grow short season produce and sell the produce at local farmers' markets or area grocery stores. His plan for winter wheat was to use it only as a cover crop. Mr. Schmitt asked to have corn included in the list of permitted crops and to have the approval date in condition number 12 be modified in the event the approval process does not occur in time to plant this year. Larry Gomez, 2105 Road 72, was concerned about dust control, noise and the smell of fertilizer. Mr. Gomez also expressed concern over the traffic generated by the Faith Assembly Church. Jessie Roger, 7309 Wernett, stated he lives directly north of the proposed farm field. Mr. Roger explained the problems the neighborhood has had with traffic on Road 76 and the cattle that one of the neighbors brings in from Oregon on a regular basis. Roger Lenk, 1817 Road 76, stated he would explain why the application was not permitted under the code, how the application would be detrimental to the suburban environment then he would summarize the position of the neighbors regarding the proposal. Mr. Lenk explained that he felt the Code required each individual parcel to be over ten acres and that two nine acre parcels did not qualify for an application. Mr. Lenk explained that development of the property for housing was not practical for economic reasons, the applicants farming -3 - practices have been detrimental to the neighborhood and the Council findings from the corn maze hearing concluded farming activities have a high probability to become a nuisance to the neighborhood. Mr. Lenk also discussed the problems associated with the cattle at the southeast corner of Road 76 and Wernett Road. Based on the information he submitted, Mr. Lenk stated the Planning commission should not recommend approval of a farm under Master file # SP2011-002. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. McDonald if he had any other comments. Mr. McDonald stated that Resolution 3205 (referred to by Mr. Lenk) related mostly to the corn maze and the references to a farm where added by Mr. Lenk. Item number three in the resolution mentions a corn maze, fall festival and commercial operation. Chairman Cruz agreed with Mr. McDonald's comments that the characterization is based on the corn maze and traffic and to a lesser extent the farm. A lot of the focus at the last hearing was on the noise, traffic and party atmosphere associated with the corn maze. John Scheline, 1908 Road 72 was sworn in. Mr. Scheline stated he was the Executive Pastor of Faith Assembly and the closest neighbor to the proposed farm. Mr. Scheline pointed out that Mr. Lenk has a pile of brush and garbage on his property that is about six feet tall. Last year the lead pastor for the church spoke to Mr. Lenk and that Mr. Lenk was not opposed to farming he was opposed to the corn maze. Mr. Scheline provided some history about the Faith Assembly Church and stated they wanted to be a good neighbor. Mr. Scheline has lived on Road 72 for eight years and supports the farming operation. He also felt the recommended conditions were acceptable. Janet Johnson, 2104 Road 68, was sworn in. Ms. Johnson was opposed to the farm. Jesse Rogers, 7309 Wernett, was concerned about what would be required for sanitation. Roger Lenk, 1817 Road, stated his property is the finest on the street and there is not trash on the lot. Phil Schmitt, 1523 'A" Fowler Street, Richland, stated when he applied for the corn maze last year he had no idea farming was not permitted on the property -4 - until he received notices form the City. Mr. Schmitt Provided some historical background on last year's activities to obtain a special Permit for a corn maze and addressed some of Mr. Leak's comments. He stated there has never been an investigation into any of his farm activities by the State. Mr. Schmitt cautioned the Planning Commission to take the time to determine what is true and what is not with respect to Mr. Leak's packet. Mr. Schmitt then provided some background on bee colony collapse. Following three calls for testimony the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Gemig stated she thought Mr. Schmitt's request for modification of the recommended approval conditions were acceptable. Specifically the allowance of field corn, the cattle limit of one per acre and an adjustment of the approval time frame in number 12. Commission Hay stated he sees four different areas on the overhead that looks like areas that are being farmed on Road 68 and several areas on Road 72. Mr. Hay wanted to know what kind of farming was occurring hi these areas. To him it looks like farming is already occurring in the area. Commissioner Cruz stated we have anything from small hobby farm of a couple acres to whole circles within the city being farmed. Mr. McDonald stated there are a number of small farms throughout all of West Pasco. The rows Mr. Hay was referring are commercial vineyards. The property directly north of Mr. Lenk's house contains a new vineyard that was not there a few years ago. Commissioner Gemig stated that the conditions should also allow the storage of six small farm implements on the property. Commissioner Kempf was not in favor of including corn in condition number 6. Chairman Cruz stated the Commission needed to be careful to separate the farming proposal from the church activities. The Chairman stated he felt they had enough information to recommend a permit for the farm with appropriate conditions. The Chairman was in favor of adding corn to the list of crops and limiting the number of cattle per acre and months of the year. Fencing also needs to be addressed. Commission Greenaway was in favor of permitting the farm for three ,years with a two year extension. Commissioner Gemig was also in favor of allowing the permit for three years with a two year extension. -5 - Commissioner Hay also supported the three year permit with a two year extension. Chairman Cruz agreed the initial capital outlay may warrant a three year initial permit with the two year extension. Mr. McDonald then recapped the discussion by stating the initial permit was to be for three _years with a two year extension for a total of 5 years. After 5 years the applicant would be required to submit a new application. Cattle are to be limited to one per acre from November to march only. Substantial fencing is required. Following additional discussion, corn was added to the list of allowable crops. Commissioner Gemig stated farm equipment should be permitted on site because it will lessen traffic on the roads due to the fact the equipment will not have to be ferried back and forth to the site. The Chairman stated he would be in favor of allowing seven small implements to be parked on the property and the implements should be prohibited from turning on the road when in use. The general consensus of the Commission was that sanitation facilities need to be on site when workers were present. Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the proposed farm and schedule deliberations, adoption of fhldings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the March 17, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. C. Special Permit Location of a church in a C-3 (General Business) Zone (3330 W. Court Street) (Troy Jeff Woods) (MF* SP 11-0011 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, explained that the application involved the location of a church in a tenant space in a C-3 zone at 3330 W Court Street. Mr. O'Neill reviewed the written report and discussed the site layout, location of the tenant space and parking. Chairman Cruz opened the hearing and asked for comments from the public. Jeff Woods, 3109 S. Everett Place, Kennewick stated he was a licensed minister for the United Pentecostal Church and would like to build a church at the proposed location. He felt his church would be a blessing to the area. -6 - Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Woods if he had any concerns with the recommended approval conditions. Mr. Woods stated he did not. Following three calls for testimony the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Gemig moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to close the hearing on the proposed church and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the March 17, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. D. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business) to allow for auto sales 1624 W. Lewis Street) (Shane Fast) (MF* Z 2011-0011 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director explained that the proposal involved the rezone of a parcel a 624 West Lewis Street from C-1 to C-3. The intended use for the site is that of auto sales. Late last year the applicant applied for a Special Permit to allow auto sales on the property. The Special Permit was not an option available due to the fact a car lots exists on the adjoining parcel. The applicant then applied for a rezone. Mr. White reviewed the written report for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Chairman Cruz opened the hearing and asked for comments from the public. Shane Fast, 3109 W 46th, Kennewick, was present to speak in favor of the rezone. Mr. Fast explained the surrounding zoning and pointed out there was a car lot to the east of his lot. Mr. Fast also indicated the previous owner of his building had a dealer's license to sell car. Mr. Fast felt the strict application of the zoning code was depriving him of his rights that are enjoyed by adjacent property owners. Teresa Orosco Day, 915 S. Dawes Ct., Kennewick stated she was the former owner of the property and that she had received licenses to sell cars on the property. When she sold the property to Mr. Fast she encouraged him to get a dealer's license and also sell cars. Following three calls for testimony the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Gemig asked if the property was zoned correctly how did cars sales occur in the past and if the owners did have cars sales in the past how can they not be allow to now? -7 - Mr. White stated he did not know how car sales occurred on the property in the past but sales are not permitted now because the zoning does not allow it. Chairman Cruz stated he was struggling with the application and he would e inclined to not agree with staff's interpretation. Mr. White indicated the information was new to staff and at this point it may be best to allow staff to research the matter and comeback to the Commission with a better explanation of what has happened in the past. Commission Gemig moved seconded by Commissioner Greenaway that the matter be continued to the March 17, 2011 meeting to allow time for additional research to be brought back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gemig moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the March 17, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. E. Rezone _Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to C-1 (Retail Business) (Southeast corner of Wrigley Drive and Clemente Lane) (Lee Eickmever) (MF# Z 2011-0021 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director, identified the location of the proposed rezone and reviewed the written report of the benefit of the Planning Commission. Mr. White explained that considerable investment has been made in surrounding infrastructure to allow for additional commercial and retail development in the area. The proposed zoning would permit development that is identical other commercial development in the area. Chairman Cruz opened the hearing and asked for comments from the public. Randy Mullen, 220 Carr Road, was present to support the rezone request. He stated there has been some interest in development of the land and when he and the other owners discovered the site was not zoned as the remainder of their land to the south they applied for the rezone. Following three calls for testimony the Chairman closed the hearing. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the March 17, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. -8 - OTHER BUSINESS: With no further business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:44 p.m. David McDonald, Secretary -9 - ATTACHMENT 5 MITIGATING CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SHOULD MF#SP2011-002 BE PREDISPOSED TO RECOMMENDATION • Consistent with the provisions of PMC 26.08.160 and PMC 25.86.35, require consolidation of parcels # 118-481-019 and # 118-481-037 prior to considering this Application; • Subject to completion of the above requirement, comply with the provisions of PMC 25.86.050 (as deemed necessary by staff and City Council via MF# SP09-007) and conduct a public hearing after mailing a written Notice of Public Hearing to property owners within a 1,000 foot radius of the subject site; • In consideration of neighboring farms utilizing organic methods, prior to issuance of the Special Permit, Applicant shall file with the City, a copy of his certification as a Organic Farm in accordance with "The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990" as administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, and adhere to these requirements as it relates to all farming under MF# SP2011-002; • Applicant shall prepare an "organic only" conservation plan approved by a farm service agency and adjacent neighbors. A copy of the plan shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of the Special Permit; • The Special permit is for valid for Farming Only purposes; no sales, sales stands, visitors, amusement, entertainment, agri-tainment, or any fee related activities shall be permitted on-site or on adjacent properties; • No parking shall be permitted on-street or on adjacent lots; • Prior to issuance of the Special Permit, Applicant shall provide a report to the City prepared by a certified Apiarist advising that all crops to be cultivated are "bee beneficial"; • Applicant shall at all times, provide and maintain at least 6 active individual bee hives for pollination purposes; • Applicant shall not store any equipment, machinery, supplies, irrigation pipe or other materials on-site or at any adjacent property; • Farming activities shall be limited to between 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am through 7:00 pm Saturday and Sunday; • The Special Permit shall be valid for one year only; • The farm crop shall be limited to alfalfa, or row crops such as tomatoes, peppers, etc. The definition of row crops does not include pumpkins, melons, wheat, barley, buckwheat, corn and similar grains, or other crops which drift onto adjacent properties, rot in fields or attract nuisance birds; • In order to avoid issues with fugitive dust, toxic effluent, and other squalid conditions, no pasturing of livestock, or animals shall be permitted; • The entire site shall be planted with a successful cover crop to control fugitive dust at least 15 days prior to shut off of the irrigation system; • No irrigation water or sprays shall be permitted to drift or drain on adjacent properties or onto the public right of way.