HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.05.16 Council Meeting Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. May 16,2011
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 May 2, 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 $799,621.96 ($114,133.35 in the form of
Electronic Fund Transfer Nos. 5823, 5856, 5877, 5878, 5879, 5880, 5889, 5899, 5923 and
5957; and$685,488.61 in the form of Wire Transfer No. 1077 and Claim Warrants numbered
182105 through 182359).
2. 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$151,818.52 and, of that amount, authorize $103,947.99 be
turned over for collection.
(c) Appointments to Historic Preservation Commission: (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON
AGENDA)
To appoint David Dalthorp to Position No. I and reappoint Dan Stafford to Position No. 2 (both
with the expiration date of 8/1/2014)to the Historic Preservation Commission.
*(d) Final Plat(MF#FP2011-004) Northwest Commons PUD Phase 3A(Emerald Properties):
1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated May 10, 2011.
2. Overview Map.
3. Vicinity Map.
4. Final Plat (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning office, the
Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at httl2://www.-)asco-wa.go /citYcoun cilr ).
To approve the Final Plat for Northwest Commons PUD Phase 3A.
(W 'NOTION: I move to approve the Consent Alrenda as read
4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
(a) Presentation of Proclamation for "Public Works Week." Mayor Matt Watkins to present
Proclamation to Rod Merry, Lead Water Reuse Facility Worker.
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 April 2011.
(c)
Regular Meeting 2 May 16,2011
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
RELATING THERETO:
Q*(a) Street Vacation (MF #VAC2011-004) the south five feet of Hillsboro Street east of
Commercial Avenue.
1. Agenda Report from David 1. McDonald,City Planner dated May 9, 2011.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Ordinance.
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING
Ordinance No. an Ordinance vacating the south five feet of Hillsboro Street east of
Commercial Avenue.
MOTION: 1. move to adopt Ordinance,, vacating,tfie A)utli f l VV filet al,Hil l bnro strew east
of Commercial Avenue and, lbrthui-, lu autlin,67,.e publication by summary only.
8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Q*(a) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending the zoning
classification of property located at 624 West Lewis Street from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3
(General Business)with a concomitant agreement.
1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planner dated May 6, 2011.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Ordinance.
4. Planning Commission Report_
5. Planning Commission Minutes: dated 2124/11, 3/17/11 and 4/28/11.
MOTION; 1111x:v( to st+.opl Ordinance Ko. . rezoning, the protwrty ]heated at 624 West
1.L:Wis Str=t fill[n ('-I to C-3 w h a concomitant agreement rots rccommcndcd by the Planning
(.oninti:s,sic n ;lard. liarlhvi-,to authorize (xublication by suniniary only.
Q*(b) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending the zoning
classification of Lot 2, Short Plat 2008-09, from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to R-2 (Medium
Residential) with a concomitant agreement.
1. Agenda Report frotn David I. McDonald, City Planner dated May 9, 2011.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Ordinance.
4. Planning Commission Report.
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/17/11 and 4/28/11.
AIOTION: I move to arlopl Ordinance No. i. granting a rezone fora parcel of land in the
3300 block of Wernett Road from R-1 Iv R-2 with :q concomitant agreeitient z:.v, VL%:LlrnMcnded by
1614: P4111M.1tg Commission and. furher, waudionze p4tblicat on by stalb. ,-ffy only.
Q*(c) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and
approving a Special Permit for a public park at 5520 Salem Drive.
1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner 1 dated May 9, 2011.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Resolution.
4. Report to Planning Commission.
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 4/28/11.
MOTION:: I rtnove to apprnve R,;sola,tlwii No' approving a Special Perrnit for the location of
a p4tblic park at 5520 Salim Drive_
Q*(d) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and
approving a Special Permit for a church at 316 North 11 th Avenue.
1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner 1 dated May 9,201 1.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Resolution.
4. Report to Planning Commission.
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/17/11 slid 4128/11.
Ml'}nON: I move to approve RuLsulu'tion No- approx-Mg o Special Pertnit for the 10C.It1{rn nl`
a clntrch at 316 North 1 1'r' Aventie.
Q*(e) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and
approving a Special Permit for the renewal and expansion of a resource recovery facility at 215
East Ainsworth Avenue.
1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated May 9,2011.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Resolution.
4. Report to Planning Commission.
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/17/11 and 4/28/11.
MOTION. I move its approve K suluiitm No, T approving a Special Permit for the renewal
and expansion c f IL rOSOLtrce recovery faci[•ty at 215 Past Ainsworth Avenue_
Regular Meeting 3 May 16,2011
Q*(f) Resolution No. , a Resolution approving a preliminary plat for Ranger Heights.
1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planner dated May 6,2011.
2. Overview and Vicinity Maps.
3. Proposed Resolution.
4. Preliminary Plat (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning
office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at httlo://www.pgsco-
wa.Gov/citycounci)l!pons).
5. Report to the Planning Commission.
6. Planning;Commission Minutes dated 3/17/11 and 4/2$111.
N1OTION: 1 move to ijppiuve Rc:sohoion No. . approving the Preliminary Plat liar Rmigcr
1-1c.i11-1 w,
*(g) Resolution No. , a Resolution authorizing submittal of a Hanford Area Economic
Investment Fund Grant Application for construction of a sewer pump station and technical
assistance for the Downtown Pasco Development Authority.
1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community &Economic Development Director dated May
11,2011.
2. HAEIFC Grant Program Description.
3. Grant Application for the Sewer Pump Station.
4. Grant Application for Technical Assistance.
5. Proposed Resolution.
?1If'TIOIli: I move to Kippro ve Resolution No. . authorizing thu submittal €f HAl IFC [rrtITit
applioatioi is for partial fuioding of a sewer pump statitnt gild tti Chttic L1 assistance for tlic
Downtcrwn Pawo Development Aulhorily.
*(h) Resolution No. a Resolution confirming appointment of David L. Petersen as Pasco
Municipal Court Judge.
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated May 12,2011.
2. Proposed Resolution.
3. Contractual AGp•eement.
MOTION: l move w approve Resolulioti lib._, confirming, Ilic. Ci(; Naianager's appo'1111ir1cltt.
of David L. Pe,erwii its hluiric:ijxsi1 Co�krl .Iodge,
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
(None)
10. NEW BUSINESS:
(a) Downtown Pasco Development Authority Board Appointments:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated May 11,2011.
2. Applications (5) (Council packet only).
MOTION: 11]3ove to vonfrrm 0n; May°or's appoimment €af
to tlac 1)cnv[11t¢wii Nisco Developinent Authority Board. -
*(b) 3`d Avenue and Pearl Street Improvements:
1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director dated May 3,2011.
2. Bid Summary.
MOTION: 1 move ;o ratify the Cii%, Manager-s award of the 3"A Avenue arid Pead Slrec:t
Improvements project to A&B Asphalt, Inr;_, in the amount of$54,350.61.
11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
13. ADJOURNMENT.
(RC) Roll Call Vote Required
* Item not previously discussed
MF4 "Master File#r<...."
Q Quasi-Judicial Matter
Regular Meeting 4 May 16, 2011
REMINDERS:
1. 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 18, Kennewick Red Lion — TRIDEC Membership Luncheon.
(COL NCILMEMBER MIKE.GARRISON)
2. 7:34 a.m., Friday, May 20, Hanford Communities Tour of the Hanford Site. (COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE GARRISON)
3, 11:30 a.m., Friday, May 20, Sandberg Event Center — Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Board
Meeting, (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; REBFCCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL MAY 2, 201 1
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 Strebei,
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 18, 2011.
(b) Bills and Communications:
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 51,304,190.53 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos,
1061, 1062, 11069 through 1074 and Claim Warrants numbered 181889 through 182104).
To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of$2,024,026.46, Voucher Nos. 42446 through
42529; and EFT Deposit Nos, 30044009 through 30044552.
(c) Senior Services Advisory Committee:
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.
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.
MOTION: Ms, Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Garrison
seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote,
PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
Mayor Watkins presented a Proclamation to Denis Austin, Chief of Police, proclaiming
May 15-21, 2011, "National Police Week"and May, 15, 2011, "Peace Officers"
Memorial Day."
VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr, Ron George, owner of Chief's RV Center; addressed Council regarding trucks
parking and unloading illegally on 28th Ave. Mayor Watkins requested that staff look into
ways to achieve compliance by trucks on 28`h Ave.
l
3(a). 1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL. MAY 2, 2011
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS:
Mr. Garrison attended the Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau Board meeting and
the TRIDEC Board meeting.
Mr. Martinez reported he will be attending Fire Ops 101 at the HAMMER Training
Facility and will report back to Council upon completion.
Mr. Yenney attended on the Benton-Franklin Community Action Committee meeting and
toured their remodeled facility. He also attended the Bishop Topel Haven Housing
Complex Dedication.
Mr. Hoffmann, along with Mr. Crutchfield; attended the BFCG Bridge Study meeting.
Mr. Larsen reported on the Emergency Medical Services Board meeting.
Ms. Francik and Mayor Watkins reported on the Hispanic Academic Achievers
Ceremony.
Mayor Watkins attended the Franklin County Emergency Management Council Board
meeting.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Ordinance No. 4005, 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.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No, 4005, 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 and, further,
authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried 6 — 1. No
— Larsen.
Special Permit (Appeal) (MF#SP2011-002): Location of a Farm in an RS-20 Zone
(2000 block of Road 72) (Five-T Farms):
MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE CLOSED RECORD HEARING OPEN TO CONSMER THE
SPECIAL PERMIT.
Council discussed the record.
MOTION: Mr. Garrison moved to adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the staff
report to the Planning Commission. Mr. Larsen seconded, Motion carried 6 — 1. No —
Yenney.
Resolution No. 3316, a resolution accepting the planning commission's
recommendation and approving a special permit for the location of a farm in the
2000 Block of Road 72.
MOTION: Based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, Mr. Garrison moved to approve
Resolution No. 3316, approving a Special Permit for a farm in the 2000 block of Road
72, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Francik seconded. Motion carried
6— 1. No-- Yenney.
2
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL MAY 2, 201 1
ADJOURNMENT.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Matt Watkins, Mayor Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
PASSED and APPROVED this 16th day of May, 2011.
3
CITY OF PASCO
Council Meeting of: May 16, 2011
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 descr:bed herein and that the claim is a just,due and unpaid
obligation against the city and that we are authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim.
a
Gary Crutchfield, City Manager ele Maso6 Fina ce Services Manager
We,the undersigned City Coun6lrnembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County,Washington,do
hereby certify on this 16th day of May,2011 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received:
Check Numbers and 182105-182359 In The Amount Of: $685,488.61
Electronic Funds Transfers: 1077
In The Amount Of: $114,133.35
Electronic Funds Transfers: 5823,5656,5877,5878
(Joumai Entries) 5879,588Q,5889,5899 Combined total of 799..621.96
5923,5957 -
Councilmember Councilmember
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND:
GENERAL FUND:
Legislative 174.66
Judicial 21,423.41
Executive 5,395,39
Police 24,543.15
Fire 30,095.75
Administration&Community Services 108,874.10
Community Development 2,925.67
Engineering 2,560.03
Non-Departmental 21,074.33
Library 759.99
TOTAL GENERAL FUND: 217,826.48
STREET 464.81
ARTERIAL STREET 0.00
STREET OVERLAY 0.00
C. D. BLOCK GRANT 3,503,02
KING COMMUNITY CENTER 1,305.02
AMBULANCE SERVICE 10,882.09
CEMETERY 4,415.62
ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 3,898.23
GOLF COURSE 59,710.95
SENIOR CENTER OPERATING 4.637,42
MULTI MODAL FACILITY 1 710.18
RIVERSHORE TRAIL&MARINA MAIN 72.00
SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING 13,552.38
LITTER CONTROL 0.00
REVOLVING ABATEMENT 7,556.93
TRAC DEVELOPMENT&OPERATING 0.00
PARKS 0.00
STADIUMICONVENTION CENTER 0.00
GENERAL CAP PROJ CONSTRUCTION 0.00
WATER/SEWER 168,222.17
EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL 33,752.27
EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING BUSINESS 4,201.34
EQUIPMENT RENTAL-REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL 87 091.70
EQUIPMENT RENTAL-REPLACEMENT BUSINESS 0.00
MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE 98,837.17
CENTRAL STORES 0.00
OLD FIRE PENSION 8,211.97
PAYROLL CLEARING 44.927.09
LID CONSTRUCTION 0750
PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST 24,126.34
TRI CITY ANIMAL CONTROL 496.78
SENIOR CENTER ASSOCIATION 0.00
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 799,621.96
3(b).1
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council _ DATE: May 11,2011
TO: Gary Crutcht Id. `i anager REGULAR: May 16,2011
Rick Terway, Ads sinis tive& 'Services Director
FROM: Dunyele Mason,Financial Services N anage"'I
SUBJECT: BAD DEBT WRIT .-OFFS/C0LLEQTION.
I. REUgf-EL S
Write-off and collection lists are on file in the Finance Department.
IL ACTION R)=C)UESTE.D OF COUNCIUSTAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I 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 $151,818.52 and, of that amount,
authorize 5103,947.99 be turned over for collection.
III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
I. UTl ITY BILLING - These are all inactive accounts, 60 days or older. Direct write-offs are under
$10 with no current forwarding address, or are accounts in "occupant"status. Accounts submitted for
collection exceed$10.00.
2. AMBULANCE - These are all delinquent accounts over 90 days past due or statements are returned
with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. Direct write oft~s
including DSHS and Medicare customers; the law requires that the City accept assignment in these
cases.
3. CQURT ACCOUNTS PLC EiVABLF-- These are all delinquent non-criminal and criminal fines,and
parking violations over 30 days past due.
4. CODE ENFORCFMENj_ )ulENS - These are Code Enforcement violation penalties which are
either un-collectable or have been assigned for collections because the property owner has not
complied or paid the fine. There are still liens in place on these amounts which will continue to be in
effect until.the property is brought into compliance and the debt associated with these liens are paid.
5. CEMETERY-These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are
returned with no forwarding address, Those submitted for collection exceed$10.00.
6. GENERA L- These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are
returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed$10.00.
7. MISCBLLANE{�US - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are
returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed$10.00.
Amount
Direct Referred to Total
Write-offs Collection Write-offs
Utility Billing $ .00 1,422.54 1,422.54
Ambulance $ 46,153.03 10,209.19 56,362.22
Court AIR $ .00 88,010.00 88,010.00
Code Enforcement $ 1,290.00 3,733.20 5,023.20
Cemetery S AO .00 .00
General S 427.50 173.06 600.56
Miscellaneous S .00 400.00 400.00
TOTAL: S 47,870.53 103,947.99 151,818.52
IV. ADMIN1STRATIVE.RQUI H- :
cc: Dot French, Municipal Court Clerk
3(b).2
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council �`� May 10, 2011
e
TO: Gary Crutchfiel anager Regular Mtg.: 5116/11
Rick White, �f -4
Community& economic Development DirectortQ�
FROM: David 1, McDonald, City Planner
l�
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT (MF# FP2011-004) Northwest Commons PUD Phase 3A (Emerald
Properties)
L REFERENCE(S):
1. Overview Map
2. Vicinity Map
3. Final Plat (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning
Office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at httw//www•Pasco-
wa.gov/citycouncill-epOrtS
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COL N-CIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/16: MOTION: I move to approve the Final Plat for Northwest Commons PUD
Phase 3A.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The City Council previously approved a Preliminary Plat for the Northwest
Commons subdivision. The developer is now seeking Final Plat approval for Phase
3A.
B. The Northwest Commons subdivision is a single-family residential development
located east of Road 52 and north of Sandifur Parkway.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Prior to approval of a Final Plat, the developer is to either install all infrastructure or
post a bond or other instrument that secures the financing for the infrastructure
improvements. In this case, the developer has completed the infrastructure
improvements.
B. The Final Plat shows and contains information on primary control points, tract
boundaries, dimensions, bearings, lot numbers and other necessary engineering data.
In addition, the Plat contains the required descriptions, dedication and
acknowledgment, and approval sections.
3(d)
\ _ '\
''.•' . s a ,t j
r �` •'' 1111 . t' � •a °� •s � i n
1'!s' + 1 r a ' Do 11 A r ir�e's.i
AMIN
:' ,mot �. 7 l >► L
• IVI Y6V !
n j)1 7 b
SA
IIIIII f • r � Y
to.
qr-
IN
T ^ t y-��a•i f i t
� � 1e "{ � 'i''u _ '. •e t r.'■�: ,t'.,. � ►. i"� � Eiiis
■ _ g
ei 1. ...• a-=. ,•` s• � iisn � unMa
� , ♦ �►�• �~` �F'.;, Tom'� �: �+f , . �'y �� tir.�1! .,�, y •�,� �
�J � .���'''� .•r�r `; r. y r pry 11�q'* s r' •��;. .,
y . y r , v ♦. : �• a'• 111
�1 r c 17 4
s
�T
/�.../ • • 1 +� i
Al
IP 41
- 4
r
i F ~•
1
♦ T• a
� ' p
IN
a
I � y
GENERAL FUND OPERATING STATEMENT
THROUGH APRIL 2011
YTD 2011 % OF YTD TOTAL % OF
2011 ORIGINAL ANNUAL 2010 2010 TOTAL
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL
REVENUE SOURCES,
TAXES'
PROPERTY 1,049,824 6,000,000 17.5% 809,021 5,850,000 13,8%
SALES 2,640,434 8,225,000 321% 2,549,526 7,700,000 33.1%
UTILITY 2.8C2,141 7,560,000 37.1% 2,815,181 7,615,000 37.0%
OTHER 455,152 1,015,000 44.8% 435,163 1,015,000 43.0%
LICENSES & PERMITS 800,750 1,052,650 76.11/16 919,777 1,020,200 90.2%
INTERGOV'T REVENUE 467,629 1,632,200 28.7% 352,265 1,710.017 20.6%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 831,139 3,007,750 27.6% 820,482 2,807.220 29.2%
FINES & FORFEITS 317,627 971,600 32.7% 226,844 927,700 24.5%
MISC. REVENUE 169,649 634,200 26.8% 208,881 734,700 28.4%
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 33,413 100,000 33.4% 10,000 472,790 2.1%
TOTAL REVENUES 9,567,758 30,198,400 31.7% 9,149,140 29,852,627 30,6%
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 9,414,299 6,000,118 9,860,107 6,000,000
TOTAL SOURCES 18,982,057 36,198,518 52.4% 19,009,247 35,852,627 53.0%
EXPENDITURES:
CITY COUNCIL 32,592 118,040 27.6% 41,430 116,525 35.6%
MUNICIPAL COURT 371,113 1,275,150 29,1% 402,295 1,257,353 313%
CITY MANAGER 263,368 915,410 28,8% 269,519 889,415 30.3%
POLICE 3,382,304 11,284,368 30.0% 3,399,578 10,827,443 31.4%
FIRE 1,310,267 4,193,418 31.2% 1,292.274 4,369,024 29,6%
ADMIN &COMMUNITY SVCS 1,631,514 5,595,700 29.2% 1,530,511 5,409,423 28.3%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 318,513 1,101,400 28.9% 352,476 1,035,931 34.0%
ENGINEERING 403,405 1,193,280 33.8% 335,206 1,135,332 29.6%
MISC. NON-DEPARTMENT 1,320,858 3,545,360' 37.3% 1,565,983 4,330,406 36,2%
LIBRARY 429,902 1,148,880 37.4% 404,676 1,300,875 31.19/0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 9,463,936 30,371,006 31.2% 9,594,948 30,682,727 31 3%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 9,518,121 5,827,512 9,414,299 6,000,300
TOTAL EXPEND & END FUND BAL 16,982,057 36,198,518 19,009,247 36,682,727
AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE 8,057,164 7,176,756
PERCENTAGE OF BUDGET ALLOCATED FOR 4 MONTHS 33%
These statements are intended for Management use only,
6(b)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council j �' May 9, 2011
TO: Cary Crutchfi y Manager Regular Mtg.: 5/16/11
Rick White,
Community & Economic Development Director�V�
FROM: David 1. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: STREET VACATION (MF# VAC 2011-004) The south five feet of Hillsboro
Street east of Commercial Avenue
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Ordinance
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Conduct Public Hearing:
5/16: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance vacating
the south five feet of Hillsboro Street east of Commercial
Avenue and; further, to authorize publication by summary
only.
Ili. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. Staff recently processed an application for site work and fencing on a property at the
southwest corner of Hillsboro Street and King Avenue. During the review process it
was discovered that the street improvements in Hillsboro were not centered in the
right-of-way. In a typical 80-foot right-of-way the road improvements occupy about
40 feet. The remaining unimproved areas are divided equally with 20 feet on either
side of the roadway. In the Hillsboro case it appears only 3 feet of excess right-of-
way exists on the north side of the street and 37 feet on the south side of the street.
Adjoining property owners are responsible for landscaping and maintaining the
undeveloped portion of the right-of-way. To lessen the burden on the property owners
along the south side of Hillsboro, staff is recommending Council vacate some of the
excess right-of-way. Due to the concerns over existing and future fencing in
proximity to a major water line, only the southern five feet of Hillsboro can be
vacated.
B. The City Council set May 16, 2011 as the date to consider the vacation.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The proposed vacation has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and utility
providers. Qwest Telephone Service indicated they have cable in various locations
within the southern 37 feet of the Hillsboro right-of-way and have requested an
easement be reserved if the right-of-way in question is vacated.
7(a)
Reference 1 - Vscinit. Map
04 hi
Ct
0
o
o
V
Z3
• oho � s� �
Q ,
r 4
J , ,_•,, - 1 Ob
4.) + 3Ab -
V r All
0 Poo
Poo
Reference 2 - Proposed Ordinance
WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO:
CiTy of Pasco
Attn: City Planner
525 North 3`d
Pasco, WA 99301
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE SOUTH FIVE FEET OF HILLSBORO
STREET FAST OF COMMERCIAL AVENUE.
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 right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, all steps and procedures required by law to vacate said right-of-way have
been duly taken and performed; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, '4'4'ASHINGTON-, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the south five feet of Hillsboro Street lying easterly of the of the east
right-of-way line of Commercial Avenue, as depicted in Exhibit "I" be and the same is hereby
vacated subject to the easement retained in Section 2 below.
Section 2. That the City shall retain an easement and the right to exercise or grant
easements with respect to the right-of-way vacated in Section 1 above for the construction, repair
and maintenance of public utilities and services.
Section 3. That a certified copy of this ordinance be recorded by the City Clerk of the
City of Pasco in and with the office of the Auditor of Franklin County, Washington.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this 16th day of May 2011.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
A'FTEST: APPROVRD AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
1
Exhibit Item• Street Vacation - Portion of Hillsbo 0
#1 Applicant: City of Pasco x
File #: VAC 2011 -004
KARTCHNER ST 7
Areas
Vacated
HILLSBORO ST
5'
LU t
iL
,S
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Counci May 6, 2011
TO: Gary Crutch , i %tanager Regular Mtg.: 5/16/11
Rick White,
Community & �conomie Development Director
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams 14
SUBJECT: REZONE: C-1 to C-3 to allow for auto sales for property located at 624 West
Lewis Street (Shane Fast) (MF# Z 2011-00 1)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Ordinance
3. Planning Commission Report
4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 2/24/11, 3/17/11 & 4/28/11
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/16: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance
rezoning the property located at 624 West Lewis Street from
C-1 to C-3 with a Concomitant Agreement as recommended
by the Planning Commission, and further, to authorize
publication by summary only.
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On February 24, 2011 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing that was
continued to March 17, 2011 and again to April 28, 2011 to determine whether or not
to recommend a Rezone with a Concomitant Agreement from C-1 (Retail Business
District) to C-3 (General Business District) for the property located at 624 West
Lewis Street.
B. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it
would be appropriate to recommend a change in zoning for the property in question
with a Concomitant Agreement.
C. The recommended Concomitant Agreement includes conditions limiting use to those
allowed in the C-1 Zone and auto sales, restricting signage, establishing minimum
parking requirement and landscaping improvements.
D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received,
8(a)
r
■ i•
a
L♦���
1
1
s l
ti�pp
N • �I f � S
.r
Reference 2 - Proposed Ordinance
WHEN RECORDED, PLEASE RETURN TO:
City of Pasco
Attn: City Planner
525 N. Third Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 624 WEST LEWIS STREET FROM C-1 (RETAIL BUSINESS) TO C-3
(GENERAL BUSINESS) WITH A CONCOMITANT AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been received and
an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such petition; and,
WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be materially
detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and,
WHEREAS,based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that: (A) the requested
change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in
zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the
general public interest in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs
or circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section I. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map,
accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from C-I (Retail Business District) to
C-3 (General Business District) for the real property as shown in the Exhibit "I" attached hereto and described as
follows:
Lots 9 through 12 &East %. of Lot 13, Block 16, Gerry's Addition.
Section 2. That the change of a zoning classification as provided in Section I is contingent and conditioned
upon execution and compliance with a Concomitant Agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the City
which will attach to and run with the real property described in Section 1 above. Said Concomitant Agreement is
attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit No. "2".
Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and
publication as required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 15'h day of May,2011.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Exhibit Item: Rezone C- 1 to C-3
Applicant: Shane Fast N
#1 File #: Z 2011 -001
s
SITE
S
9L
/ GOB JMg�P
"Exhibit # 2"
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non-charter code city,
under the laws of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and
Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution) has authority to
enact laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and development of
property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a Rezone
of such property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State
Environmental Policy Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might
result because of the proposed Rezone; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in
compliance with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use
and development of property situated in the City of Pasco, described as
follows:
Lots 9 through 12 & East IY2of Lot 13, Block 16, Gerry's Addition
(624 West Lewis Street, including parcels # 112043191 & 1120431 74)
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with
the City of Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning department to
ensure compliance with the Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state
and federal laws relating to the use and development of the above described
property; and
WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions
available by law, desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by
this concomitant agreement, NOW, THEREFORE,
In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of
Pasco to C-3 (General Business District) and in consideration of that event
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT PAGE 1 OF 3
"Exhibit # 2"
should it occur, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated,
the applicant does hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the
agreement in the event the City, as full consideration herein grants a Rezone
on the above-described property.
2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of
this agreement.
3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees
or successors in interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described.
4. Conditions:
a) Uses shall be limited to those allowed in the C-1 zone, with the
addition of auto sales.
b) Only one freestanding sign shall be allowed on the property and
shall be limited to a maximum of 30 feet in height. No roof signs
shall be allowed.
c) A minimum of eight parking spaces shall be reserved for
customer parking;
d) The property shall be landscaped to meet the provisions of PMC
Chapter 25.75 Landscaping and Screening, including a 10-foot
landscape buffer along the northern property line (Lewis Street).
This landscaping buffer shall be separated from the parking
area by perimeter curbing, improved with 100% live vegetation
including a predominant amount of grass and underground
irrigation systems;
e) All required improvements and modifications shall be completed
prior to the issuance of a City of Pasco Business License for the
car sales activity.
The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify
that they are the sole holders of fee simple interest in the above-described
property:
Owner:
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
County of FranklinV*_ )
On this day of 6 2011, before me, the
under igned, duly, commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
to me known to be the
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 OF 3
"Exhibit # 2"
individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me
that he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act
and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated
that he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument.
GI EN under by hand and official seal this day of
2011.
FL. A G U AR I U S Not Public in and for the State
TARY PUBLIC of Washington, residing at
TE OF WASHINGTON MMISSION EXPIRES
JANUARY 28, 2014
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT PAGE 3 OF 3
Reference 3 - Planning Commission
Report
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2011-001 APPLICANT: Shane Fast
HEARING DATE: 2/24/2011 624 West Lewis Street
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from C-1 to C-3 to allow for Auto Sales Use
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Lots 9 through 12 & East 1/2 of Lot 13, Block 16,
Gerry's Addition
General Location: 624 West Lewis Street
Property Size: Approximately .36 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from West Lewis Street and from an
east-west alley along the south property line.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available at the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail
Business). The site is occupied by a building. Surrounding properties
are zoned and developed as follows:
North: C-1 (Retail Business District—Sea Mar Motel)
South: C-1 (Retail Business District—Auto service; residential
unit; vacant lots)
East: C-3 (General Business District—Car lot)
West: C-1 (Retail Business District—auto shop)
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for commercial uses.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco has been the
lead agency in issuing a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) in
accordance with review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
Chapter 43.21(c) RCW.
ANALYSIS
The property in question consists of two tax parcels lc,cated on the south side
of West Lewis Street, one parcel east of 6th Avenue in the Gerry's Addition
Subdivision, which was platted in 1906. Block 16 of Gerry's Addition, which
contains the subject property, lies just west of an area of C-2 zoning and is
part of the current Central Business District. The subject property is zoned C-1
and is surrounded by C-1 zoning except for the tax parcel directly to the east,
1
which is zoned C-3. A building on the west parcel has been used as a print
shop, a clothing store, and a retail plumbing supply store.
The tax parcel to the east was rezoned from C-1 to C-3 in 1973 presumably to
accommodate auto sales (City of Pasco Ordinance 1594). It is one of two C-3
spots in the western downtown area. While this type of "spot" zoning may have
been typical of the era, it is not recommended under current zoning practices.
Since the 1973 rezone, the City has tightened regulations in the downtown
area, including the implementation of a Central Business District (CBD) overlay
zone. The subject property is within that overlay zone. According to PMC
25.45.010, "The purpose of the Central Business Overlay District is to provide
regulations that reinforce a positive public image and confidence in commercial
activities within the geographical area of the city . . . ." The district does not
specifically target C-3 type uses, but it does target undesirable conditions,
including "nuisance." C-1 zones generally have fewer potential nuisances than
C-3 zones.
The applicant wishes to sell cars on the lot, a use which is not allowed in the
C-1 zone except with a Special Permit, and only if the property is adjacent the
intersection of two arterial streets (Option #1); or adjacent a single arterial
street (provided it is not adjacent to or across a public street right-of-way from
a residential district, and would not be located closer than 300 feet to any
existing car lot—Option #2).
This property does not qualify for the Special Permit provisions; it is neither on
a corner nor adjacent two arterial streets (Option #1 above); and although the
subject property is located on an arterial (West Lewis Street.) it is nevertheless
within 300 feet of an existing car lot (Option #2 above), thus excluding it from
this Special Permit option.
Furthermore, a rezone to C-3 would run contrary to the spirit of the CBD
overlay zone, as it would allow such land uses as wholesale businesses, heavy
machinery sales and service, warehouses, landscape gardening and storage
area for equipment and materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service,
and lumber sales business. Veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor
treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight holding of animals), and
auto body shops could be allowed in a C-3 zone with a Special °ermit.
On March 17, 2011 the Planning Commission continued the 24 February- 2011
hearing for this issue in order to respond to two concerns; first, a claim that
the property in question was previously licensed and used as an auio sales lot,
and second, that the eastern part of the property was already zoned C-3.
Planning staff produced evidence, included in the last staff report, to disprove
both these claims (See EXHIBIT #2) and the applicant claimed to have
paperwork to support the claims. Because of this disagreement the Planning
Commission continued the hearing to the April 28, 2011 Planning Commission
meeting in order to give the applicant time to gather evidence for presentation
to the Commission. In addition, staff sent a letter (See EXHIBIT #3) inviting the
2
applicant to bring any and all exhibits in to the Planning Office for inclusion in
the Planning Commission packet for the April 28, 2011 Planning Commission
meeting. On April 19, 2011 the Planning department has received a FAX copy
of a State of Washington Master Business License for Fast Pipe and Supply Co,,
Inc and Fast Cars (See Exhibit #4), issued 2/3/2010. While Fast Pipe and
Supply was licensed October of 2005 for a location on "A" Street, and renewed
with the new 624 W Lewis Street address in February of. 2008, no
corresponding City of Pasco Business License Application was received, filed or
approved for an auto sales lot.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88,030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
Since the 1973 rezone the City has tightened regulations for the downtown
area, including the introduction of the CBD overlay zone. The subject property
is within that overlay zone. However none of the subsequent changes have
warranted the inclusion of many of the uses allowed by the C-3 zoning,
including wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service,
warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and
materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service, and. lumber sales
business, as well as veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor
treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight holding of animals), and
auto body shops with a Special Permit.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare:
A rezone from C-1 to C-3 has the potential of being detrirnen,:al to "public
health, safety and general welfare" by allowing more intense land uses closer to
retail commercial customers.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan:
There is no evidence that auto sales in particular would inhibit new business
growth, contribute to business loss and decline of property values, and/or
perpetuate a public image which is undesirable or unattractive and detrimental
to public and private investment in business property within the CBD; however
the C-3 zone allows for uses not compatible with the intent of the CBD overlay
zone, such as wholesale businesses, heavy machinery- sales and service,
warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and
materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales
business, and, with a Special Permit, veterinarian clinics for livestock,
including outdoor treatment facilities, (.including boarding or overnight holding
of animals), and auto body shops.
3
Furthermore, a Rezone to C-3 with a Concomitant Agreement prohibiting all C-
3 uses except auto sales would not be appropriate because it defeats the
purpose of the C-3 zone creating an exception to the rule which is as large as
the rule itself.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted:
The property owners would still be able to enjoy all uses currently available in
the C-1 district and CBD Overlay zone, which was the zoning at the time of
property acquisition.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses.
2. The site is developed with a commercial building.
3. The site is zoned C-1 (Central Business District).
4. The site was zoned C-1 in 2007 when the applicant acquired the
property.
5. The purpose of the C-1 zone, among other things, is to promote
commercial activities outside the Central Business District that meet the
retail shopping and service needs of the community.
6. The site is in the Central Business Overlay District.
7. The applicant is proposing a Rezone to allow- vehicle sales on the
property.
8. Special Permits for such vehicle sales is inappropriate because the
property does not qualify for either of the Special Permit provisions;
being on a corner adjacent two arterial streets; or located on an arterial
at least 300 feet from an existing car lot.
9. The Central Business Overlay District was not intended to include uses
such as wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service,
warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and
materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales
business, and (with a Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for livestock,
including outdoor treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight
holding of animals), and auto body shops. It is primarily zoned C-1 and
C-2, with a retail commercial focus.
4
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M,C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
There are no Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies which directly address this
type of request.
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
Expanding the C-3 District into the established central core of the city would
allow uses incompatible with the retail intent of the CBD. Allowed uses would
include wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service, warehouses,
landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials, mobile
home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales business, and (with a
Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor treatment
facilities (including boarding or overnight holding of animals), and auto body
shops.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Uses allowed in a C-3 Zone, such as wholesale businesses, heavy machinery
sales and service, warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for
equipment and materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service, and
lumber sales business, and (with a Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for
livestock, including outdoor treatment facilities, (including boarding or
overnight holding of animals), and auto body shops, are generally incompatible
with retail business uses found in the CBD.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
Conditions necessary to mitigate adverse impacts would essentially cause the
rezone to mirror the permitted uses within the C-1 Zone, with the addition of
auto sales, rather than reflect the intent of the C-3 Zone.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A Concomitant Agreement is not necessary because the Rezone is not
warranted.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the March 17, 2011 staff report.
5
MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny the
rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business).
NOTE: A second set of Findings of Fact, Conclusions based on Findings of
Fact, and Recommendations has been assembled below (Option "B") if the
Commission is of the opinion that this project should be approved:
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT (OPTION "B")
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open, record hearing.
1. The applicant is proposing a Rezone to allow vehicle sales on the
property.
2. The site is developed with a commercial building.
3. The site is in the Central Business Overlay District.
4. The Central Business Overlay District was designed to "provide
regulations that reinforce a positive public image and confidence in
commercial activities within the geographical area of the city
described in Section 25.45.020."
5. The site is zoned C-1 (Central Business District).
6. The purpose of the C-1 Zone is to "provide for the location of
commercial activities outside the central business district that meet
the retail shopping and service needs of the community."
7. The site was zoned C-1 in 2007 when the applicant acquired the
property.
8. The property does not qualify for either of the Special Permit
provisions for auto sales in a C-1 Zone; being on a corner adjacent
two arterial streets; or located on an arterial at least 300 feet from an
existing car lot.
9. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses. The
Plan also encourages commercial development to locate along major
arterials and encourages the concentration of activities that
functionally benefit each other.
10. The proposed rezone area is just west of an existing auto sales lot and
east of a business which received a Special Permit for auto sales at
the corner of 6t11 Avenue and West Lewis Street in October of 2001.
6
11. Other automotive-related uses are available in the vicinity to the
south of the site.
12. The proposed auto sales use would be located along a major arterial
and would place minimal demands on the established infrastructure
systems. Other permitted uses such as restaurants and taverns would
place a greater demand on the public infrastructure than this
proposed use.
13. The proposed auto sales use will not create more traffic, flashing
lights, fumes or vibrations than many of the permitted uses, such as
convenience stores or fast food restaurants.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
There are no Comprehensive Plan Goals or Policies which directly address this
type of request. However the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for
commercial development. Policy LU-I-D encourages the clustering commercial
development at major intersections. Policy LU-4-A also encourages to location
of commercial activities at major intersections. Policy LU-4-B encourage the
concentration of activities which are functionally and economically beneficial to
each other
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
Expanding the C-3 District into the established central core of the city would
allow uses incompatible with the retail intent of the CBD. Allowed uses would
include wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales and service, warehouses,
landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials, mobile
home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales business, and (with a
Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor treatment
facilities (including boarding or overnight holding of animals), and auto body
shops. In order to prevent the above uses from being allowed in the downtown
area a concomitant agreement should be entered into limiting allowable uses to
auto sales, in addition to all uses allowed in the C-1 Zone.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
Auto sales exist to the immediate east of the subject properties. However, uses
allowed in a C-3 Zone, such as wholesale businesses, heavy machinery sales
and service, warehouses, landscape gardening and storage area for equipment
and materials, mobile home and trailer sales and service, and lumber sales
7
business, and (with a Special Permit), veterinarian clinics for livestock,
including outdoor treatment facilities, (including boarding or overnight holding
of animals), and auto body shops, are generally incompatible with retail
business uses found in the CBD. While auto sales would cluster compatible
uses, other C-3 uses do not fit well in the area. In order to prevent the above
uses from being allowed in the downtown area a Concomitant Agreement
should be entered into limiting allowable uses to auto sales, in addition to all
uses allowed in the C-1 Zone.
4, Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The proposed Rezone should be accompanied by a Concomitant Agreement
limiting uses to those allowed in the C-1 Zone, with the addition of auto sales.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and
the applicant, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A Concomitant Agreement may be crafted limiting uses to only those allowed in
the C-1 Zone, with the addition of auto sales.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact, "Option B" and Conclusions
therefrom as contained in the April 28, 20 11 staff :report.
MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom,
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the
Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business), with
the following conditions:
1. A Concomitant Agreement shall be attached to the property limiting uses
to only those allowed in the C-1 zone, with the addition of auto sales.
2. Only one freestanding sign shall be allowed on the property and shall be
limited to a maximum of 30 feet in height. No roof signs shall be allowed.
3. A minimum of eight parking spaces shall be reserved for customer
parking;
4. The property shall be landscaped to meet the provisions of PMC Chapter
25.75 Landscaping and Screening, including a 10-foot landscape buffer
along the northern property line (Lewis Street). This landscaping buffer
shall be separated from the parking area by perimeter curbing, improved
with 100% live vegetation including a predominant amount of grass and
underground irrigation systems;
5. All required improvements and modifications shall be completed prior to
the issuance of a City of Pasco Business License for the car sales activity.
8
• a
e
�a,
ti
KIM%
MM,t't♦it tint• .:}
IL
Sam
ILI
� � .�•�,�+mot tit*�e�.
�������_ t >•+t tit a,;� -'"�
�*i r � +,o.pe. •,Ott.es� ...r
1�
as!
a aa�
U
i
_ U
� 5�N
O
V
rN
N r
U � N w
y� !f)
ol NA
N � �
E
L
a� O
a�
r
0
®r LAI
"Eve/
NSM
N
lom
=3 if
Zoning Item: Rezone Gl to C-3 Applicant: Shane Fast x
Map File #: Z 2011 -001
R-2
C-1
C-2
C-3
\\\ SITE � � \ � m
C-1
9G
t
willli
Pik
-Z -, / all �09'i�ji�fOIWAMOA FIOJO
III Rglwo ;rim
VA
OAF MA, ♦ '♦ //
NO
WA
// fAIOAO./ - .. ♦ I♦ /
• ♦ / i�
A IS I AF
OEM
"ImpMOW
MAN
0201"Z";MOAO
11,frol AMA
;/ R Vii/•
EXHIBIT #1
Jeff Adams
From: Charles Grigg [chas @griggsonline.ccm)
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 2:01 PM
To: Jeff Adams
It is our feeling that we should not re-zone C-1 zone to C-3 zone (mf#z 2011-001)
The downtown area should not be down zoned to allow car lots.
Pasco has many locations for zoned c-3 around the city, Lets not use the downtown are
For c-3 uses.
Thank you,
Charles Grigg
Grigg Enterprises, Inc
801 West Columbia Street
Pasco,Wa 99301
509-547-0566 Voice
509-547-4387 fax
chas(kgri.ggsonline.com
t
EXHIBIT #2
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 17, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Rezone - Shane Fast C-1 to C-3 (MF# Z 2011-001)
Due to issues raised at the February 24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting
concerning the Fast Rezone for property along West Lewis Street the matter
was continued to March 17, 2011 to allow staff time to research the issues and
report back. As a result of that research Staff found the following:
Issue #1: Teresa Orosco the former owner of 624 West Lewis, indicated in the
hearing that a licensed auto sales facilities was located on the proposed rezone
site in the recent past.
Staff response: A January 9, 2001 business license application shows an
automobile sales husiness was approved for the C-3 zoned property at 612 W.
Lewis Street (Lots 1-8, Block 16, Gerry's Addition). The mailing address (not the
business location) on the business license application was listed as 624 West
Lewis Street. The 612 W. Lewis Street site is located at the southwest corner of
51h Avenue and W. Le Aris Street. The rezone site involves Lots 9 through 12 and
a portion of Lot 13 Gerry's Addition. Staff could not find records for a car sales
lot on the proposed rezone site. There are two expired licenses of record for a
portion of the rezone site at 624 W. Lewis Street. Neither license is for car
sales. In 1990 a license was issued for Pasco Silkscreeners (printing &
graphics) and in 1995 a second license was issued for Showcase Advertising
(retail clothing). There is no evidence in the business licensing records that a
car sales lot was issued a business license for lots involved in the current
rezone application.
Issue #2: Applicant claims the property in question is already zoned C-3
Staff Response: A 1973 Ordinance (#1594) rezoned Lots 1-7, Block 16, Gerry's
Addition from C-1 to C-3. Lots 1-7 are located at the eastern end of the block at
the southwest corner of 51r Avenue and W. Lewis Street. No other ordinances
could be found in the record changing the zoning of any of the other lots in the
block. The oldest zoning map of record (1979) shows approximately the east
half (Lots 1-8) of Block 16, Gerry's Addition fronting W. Lewis Street as a C-3
zone. The west half of the block (Lots 9-16 ) are shown as a C-1 zone. The
applicant's property (Lots 9-12 & part of 13) is located in the west half of the
block and is zoned C-1.
1
Reference 4 - Planning Commission
Minutes dated 2124/11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 24, 2011
D. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3
General Business to allow for auto sales
(624 W. Lewis Street) (Shane Fast) (MF# Z
2011-001)
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 461h, 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 Oroseo 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 corre..tly how did cars
sales occur in the past and if the owners did have cars sales in the past how
can they not be allowed to now?
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 be
inclined to not agree with staff's interpretation.
-1 -
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 come back 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.
-2 -
Reference 4 - Planning Commission
Minutes dated. 3/ 17/11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 17, 2411
C. Rezone Rezone from C-1 Retail Business to C-3
General Business) to allow for Auto Sales
use 624 W. Lewis Shane Fastl IMF# Z 2011-
001
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planner, explained this item was continued from the
previous meeting to allow staff time to research several issues. The main issue
centered on comments from Teresa Orosco, the former owner of the property,
who indicated during the Public Hearing that a licensed auto sales facility was
located on the proposed site in the recent past. Staff found a Business License
dated January 9, 2001 showing an automobile sales business was approved for
C-3 zoned property at 612 W. Lewis Street. The copy of the Business License
showed that Lots 1-8, Block 16 of Gerry's Addition were the lots approved for
automobile sales. That corresponds with the area zoned C-3 in 1973 by
Ordinance Number 1594, Said Rezone applied to Lots 1-7. Staff could find no
other Ordinance rezoning other lots in the block to C-3. The site in question
(624 W. Lewis St.) has never been zoned C-3 and there has never been a
Business License for car sales for that location. Past Business Licenses for 624
W. Lewis St. include a 1990 Business License for Pasco Silkscreeners and a
1995 Business License for Showcase Advertising.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated the initial
Public Hearing was continued and would need to be reopened for public
comment.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf reopened the Public Hearing.
Shane Fast, 3109 W. 46th Avenue, Kennewick, stated the zoning map is
incorrect and the City website shows Lots 9-11 zoned C-3, he stated he had
visited with Shane O'Neill and confirmed that his lots were zoned C-3. The
building is zoned C-1. He stated he is asking that the building be rezoned to
match the zoning of the other lots on his property.
Teresa Orosco-Day, 915 S. Dawes, Kennewick, stated the staff findings were
incorrect and she paid quarterly taxes to the City of Pasco. She explained some
of the history of selling cars from her building at 624 W. Lewis St. and how the
state inspected her businesses. She sold the property to Shane Fast with the
knowledge that she sold cars from those lots and did business from the
building at 624 W. Lewis Street,
-1 -
Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated the information included in the staff
report was correct as it related to the zoning. Mr. McDonald provided some
history on the zoning map and how the maps are computer generated. There
was an error transposed to the computer maps from the original map and as a
result the map on the website is not accurate. The map illustrating zoning
included in the report accurately reflects the zoning from the 1973 Ordinance
that established the C-3 zoning in the block. Mr. McDonald explained the
Business Licenses again and described the lots that were approved for
automobile sales. The Business License application clearly states the business
location was at 612 W. Lewis St. which is the location of the C-3 zoning. The
mailing address is often different than the Business License location and in
this case the mailing address was listed as 624 W. Lewis Street.
Teresa Orosco-Day stated she never got a copy of the business application. She
stated yes she did have a screen-printing business out of the building and did
write auto sales contracts as well from the same 624 W. Lewis Street building.
Ms. Orosco-Day then re-explained the auto sales business she conducted out
of 624 W. Lewis Street.
Mr. White recommended the hearing be continued to obtain all records
mentioned by the applicant and Ms. Orosco-Day.
Commissioner Lukins agreed with Mr. White.
Commissioner Greenaway stated she is in favor of the Rezone. She mentioned
the marked up application and would like to see the original application if the
applicant has a copy.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf also is in favor of moving forward tonight on this
Rezone.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, to continue the
meeting to the April Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed with
Commissioners Gemig and Greenaway casting dissenting votes.
-2 -
Reference 4 - Planning Commission
Minutes dated 4/28/ 11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 28, 2011
A. Rezone Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3
(General Business) to allow for auto sales
624 W. Lewis Street Shane Fast) (MF# Z
2011-001)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner, provided a brief history of the past
discussion on the matter and then summarized the staff report for the benefit
of the Planning Commission. Mr. Adams also pointed out staff had provided the
Commission with an alternate set of findings and motion to approve the rezone
request with a concomitant agreement.
Commissioner Levin asked a number of questions for clarification of the zoning
and past uses in the area.
Shane Fast, 3109 West 461h Avenue, Kennewick supports-d Option "B".
Commissioner Lukins asked Mr. Fast if the conditions of Option "B" were
acceptable.
Mr. Fast stated they were.
Commissioner Levin recommended the Planning Commission go with Option
"B„
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt
Findings of Fact, "Option B" and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the
April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Lukins further moved, second,--d by Commissioner Greenaway,
based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council :approve the Rezone from C-1 (Retail
Business) to C-3 (General Business), with the conditions listed in the report.
The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council May 9, 2011
I
TO: Gary Crutchf Manager Regular Mtg.: 5/16/11
Rick White, !
Community& )~conomic Development Director Q A
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: REZONE (MF# Z 2011-003): Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to
R-2 (Medium Density Residential) with a Concomitant Aareement limiting the
density, (3300 Block of Wernett Road) (Vinh Pham)
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Ordinance
3. Planning Commission Report
4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 3/17/11 and 4/28/11
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/16: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. granting a Rezone
for a parcel of land in the 3300 Block of Wernett Road from R-
1 to R-2 with a Concomitant Agreement as recommended by
the Planning Commission and, further, to authorize publication
by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On March 17, 2010 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a Rezone from R-1 to R-2 for a five-acre
tract located in the 3300 Block of Wernett Road.
B. Following conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that it
would be appropriate to recommend a change in zoning for the property in question
provided the zone change was conditioned with a Concomitant Agreement.
C. The recommended Concomitant Agreement includes conditions limiting development
to 21 lots, requiring an average lot size of 8,400 square feet, allowing only one
dwelling unit per lot and requiring at least four architectural features on front and side
elevations.
D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received.
8(b)
AE ON
f s
i j• • a
r16
IL
OF-
wI
Reference 2 - Proposed Ordinance
WFIEN RECORDED, PLEASE RETURN TO:
City of Pasco
Attn: City Planner
525 N. Third Avenue
Pasco, WA99301
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF LOT 2,SHORT PLAT 2008-09, FROM R-I (LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL)TO R-2 (MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL) WITH A CONCOMITANT
AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been
received and an open record hearing having; been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission
upon such petition; and,
WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be
materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and,
WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that: (A)
the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals
and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community;
and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances
warranting the requested change o`the zoning classification;and NON'4',THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning
Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from to R-1
(Low Density Residential) to R-2 (Medium Density)for the real property as shown in the Exhibit
"I" attached hereto and described as follows:
Lot 2,Short Plat 2008-09
Section 2. That the change of the zoning classification as provided in Section I is
contingent, and conditioned upon the execution and compliance with a Concomitant Agreement
entered into between the Petitioner and the City which will attach to and run with the real
property described in Section 1 above. Said Concomitant Agreement is attached to this
Ordinance as Exhibit No"2".
Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect Five (5) days after its approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by
law this 16`h day of May 20 l 1.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland S. Kerr, City Attorney
os avoa
U
z
0
0
m�
a
LO
I
r
N zs avoa
O �
O ry
W ccavoN
W
atroa
IWO U)
r
�C
W
9£ a1/OZI
"Exhibit # 2"
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non-charter code city, under the laws
of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and Article 11, Section 11 of the
Washington State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to
promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and
development of property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a rezone of such
property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C,W, 43.12(c), the State Environmental Policy
Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in compliance
with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property
situated in the City of Pasco, described as follows:
Lnt 2 Short Plat 2008-09
(Parcel ## 119231029)
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of
Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to insure compliance with the
Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and federal laws relating to the use and
development of the above described property; and
WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by Iaw,
desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this concomitant agreement, NOW,
THEREFORE,
In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of Pasco to R-2
(Mediurn Density Residential) and in consideration of that event should it occur, and
subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and
agree as follows:
1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the agreement in the
event the City, as full consideration herein grants a rezone on the above-described property.
2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this agreement.
3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in
interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described.
4. Conditions:
A. Only 21 single-family low density residential lots will be permitted on
the property;
B. The average lot size shall be at least 8,400 square feet with no lot less
than 8,000 square feet;
C. No more than one dwelling unit is permitted per lot;
D. Zero lot line dwellings must contain at least four separate architectural
features on front and side elevations. Architectural features shall
include but not be limited to the following: vertical siding, accent
materials, (stone, brick, stucco, shingles and horizontal siding),
dormers, cantilevers, cornices, bay windows and other fenestration,
porches, and complementary contrasting paint colors;
E. Front elevations of zero lot line dwellings must be articulated or
otherwise constructed to provide a distinct identity for each dwelling.
The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify that they are the
sole holders of fee simple interest in the above-described property:
Owner:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
County of Franklin )
On this ,L3124 day of , 2011, before me,
the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
V1Y161 't pkl A to me known to be the
individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed,
for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that
he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument.
GIVEN under by hand and official seal this 3j"' da y of
2011.
rL. AQUAHIUS
TA R Y P U DL I C Not ublic in and for the Sate TE OF WASHINGTON of ashington, residing at �MMISSION EXPIRES
JANUARY 28. 2014
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 OF 2
i
Reference 3 - Planning
Commission Report
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. Z 2011-003 APPLICANT: Vinh Pham
HEARING DATE: 3/ 17/2011 203 Huntington
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 Kennewick, WA 99366
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from R-1 to R-2 with a Concomitant
Agreement limiting the density - and applNJTng
minimum design standards
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal Lot 2, Short Plat 2008-09
General Location 3300 Block of West Wernett Road
Property Size Approximately 5 acres
2. ACCESS: The property has access from West Wernett Road.
3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available at the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential). The site is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
North R-S-I- Highway I-182
South R-S-12 - Single-family
East R-S-1 - Single-family
West R-S-1 & R-S-12 - Duplex's, single-family and vineyard
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 property consists of a 5.12 acre parcel located between Wernett Road and
Highway I-182. Although other properties in the neighborhood have been
developed, this parcel has remained undeveloped. In 2004 the parcel was
annexed and in 2008 a developer received Preliminary Plat approval to allow
development of 21 lots on the property. The current owner desires to develop
the property and has explored cost effective ways to accomplish development
1
i
while complying with Preliminary Plat approval conditions which included the
construction of a sound wall along the freeway. The property owner is
proposing to build zero lot line dwellings at densities approved (21 lots) with
the Preliminary Plat for Sun View Estates.
Zero lot line houses are homes built on individual lots with no side yard
setback on one side of the lot. Zero lot line homes have a common wall along a
shared property line. The opposite side of the lot often has a setback greater
than required by code. Pasco does not have specific zero lot line standards. The
only way to accomplish development of zero lot line homes is to either receive
approval for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or obtain a Rezone for medium
density development.
The Sun Willows PUD is an example a development where homes were built
with zero lot lines and Mediterranean Villas is another example. The applicant's
property is only five acres and does not qualify for a PUD designation. The only'
option available to construct zero lot line dwellings on the property would be
through rezoning the site to a multi-family designation with a restriction on the
number of units to ensure densities are consistent with the approved
Preliminary Plat. This process was used for development in the College View
Heights subdivision at the north end of 24th Avenue. In 2002 this 47-lot
subdivision, identified in the Comprehensive Plan for low density development,
was rezoned to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) with a Concomitant
Agreement limiting the total number of dwellings to the number of lots in the
plat and permitting only one dwelling per lot.
The parcel in question has been identified in the City's land use plans for the
last 30 years as an area for low density development. The Preliminary Plat
(Sun View Estates) that was approved for the property in 2008 contained 21
individual lots with an average lot size of 8,106 square feet. The approved lots
in the Preliminary Plat are similar in size to the lots in the Newton's Addition
located to the southwest across Wernett Road.
Lots in the Newton Addition average 7,200 square feet in size. The Newton
Addition is 3.7 acres and contains 19 lots for a density of 5. 1 units per acre.
The property in question was approved for a density of 4. 1 units per acre. Lots
to the south are developed at 3.63 dwellings per acre. Rezoning the site to R-2
with a Concomitant Agreement on density would maintain the approved
density of 4.1 units per acre. It should be noted that there are a number of
duplexes and other higher density dwellings within the neighborhood.
The current Comprehensive Land Use map designates the subject property and
all surrounding properties for low density development. Pursuant to CP.3.1 S of
the Comprehensive Plan the Low Density Residential Designation allows a net
density of 2-5 units per acre. The approved subdivision for the property allows
a density of 4. 1 units per acre. The applicant's proposal is consistent with the
approved Preliminary Plat and density suggested in the Comprehensive Plan.
2
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are list below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
• Sewer service is now available in the neighborhood.
• All properties to the south and southeast are fully developed with a
variety of housing types, single family units being the predominate
type.
• The Newton Addition directly across Wernett Road to the
southwest was developed with 7,200 square foot lots.
• Duplex units are located to the east and west of the site,
• Many of the streets in the neighborhood have been rebuilt to a
higher standard in the last ten years.
• The water system was upgraded in the neighborhood within the
last ten years.
• A Preliminary Plat with 21 lots was approved for the site in 2008.
• The approved Preliminary Plat approval conditions require a sound
wall to be constructed along the free,,vay.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The Rezone will provide additional flexibility for site development while
maintaining the low density nature of the site envisioned in the Comprehensive
Plan. Encouraging development of homes on the site will lead to the elimination
of the potential fire hazard created by the current vacant field. The low density
housing will be maintained and future development will participate in the costs
previously incurred by the community for the water and sewer system that
serve the parcel. The general welfare will be supported by additional in-fill
development that will contribute to the cost of providing municipal services.
3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and
the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed Rezone is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and would be
considered a proper implementation of the Plan. Maintaining the previously
approved density of the site will protect the established character of the nearby
neighborhoods and thereby the nature and value of the neighboring properties.
The proposal could enhance development of the site and lead to the elimination
of a large field that grows weeds and grasses that can be considered a fire
hazard for adjoining residential structures.
4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted.
The proposed Rezone will permit zero lot line single-family dwellings providing
the developer with options that may help cover the costs of required Plat
3
improvements including a sound wall along the freeway. Without the Rezone
the zero lot line development would not be permitted,
S. The Comprehensive Land Use designation for the property.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low density residential
development. The proposed Rezone will not increase the density and is
therefore consistent with the Plan.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add Findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The site is currently zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential).
2. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site low density residential
development, which allows a net density of 2-5 units per acre.
3. The approved Preliminary Plat for the site contains 21 lots.
4. The approved Plat has a density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre.
5. The Newton Addition to the southwest of the site is developed to a
density of 5.1 units per acre.
6. The applicant is requesting a Rezone to R-2 with an agreement limiting
the number of dwelling units to no more than 22 units.
7. Duplex units are located directly west and east of the site and other
multi-family units are located nearby.
8. The Newton Addition across Wernett was developed with 7,200 square
foot lots matching the minimum lot size for the R-1 District.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
1. The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan encourage the development
of old and new neighborhoods into safe and enjoyable places to live (Goal LU-
2). The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of a variety of
residential environments (Goal H-2).
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be
materially detrimental.
4
The surrounding properties will not be detrimentally impacted by the proposed
change because the land will be able to be developed with densities similar to
other developments in the neighborhood.
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a
whole.
Rezoning the property to R-2 will allow the site to develop with dwellings at a
density consistent with the surrounding neighborhood (Newton Addition) and
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The Rezone should be conditioned to limit one dwelling per lot to maintain the
low density development envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally to
assist with enhancing neighborhood property values the zero lot line houses
should contain at least three separate architectural features on the front and
side elevations. The front elevations should be articulated or otherwise
constructed to provide a distinct identity for each dwelling.
5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City
and the Petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an
Agreement.
A Concomitant Agreement is necessary to ensure the number of dwelling units
does not exceed the number of approved lots and that the dwellings be
constructed with some minimal architectural features. (See attached
Agreement.)
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as
contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report.
MOTION: I move, based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council Rezone the site from R-1
(Low Density Residential) to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) with
a Concomitant Agreement limiting the number of dwelling units to
21 and requiring minimal architectural features on each dwelling
unit.
5
i
14 u 1 r � •, i
FIX.-
sp �a
• 4
f
' ,`I � 1
4 it." lie
6 r r
-V- 0
MKOR
7l r�
!' /,I ill ! � 1 _ - '•� ��. ( � d_
Land Use Item: Rezone - R- 1 to R-2
Applicant: Vinh Pham x
Map File #: Z 2011 -003
� \ Vacant
— Vacant
I N
SITE
Cf) RNETM
Cq
Residential o � �2
� BROO�x-F1
JAY 5T
os adoa
of
� m
� W1
N Z£ aV021
i
o � �I
N
o
LU e£ c �
LU
Cl) W
arro
r ,
—1U)
O
_s.�adoa
f
1�
i
s
r
•
M
i�
n
2
♦ f-
tal
- - - �,
x
Y
1
I
1
•'
�,
i }.
:, _..r �'
Y
d � � �
� � �
�4'
I�
1
1
• � t5
,�
.�
f
�- � .. �"�
g T
' i
� d''
�� v,
4
�� �1 1
��
�� � — .. 'e
t
.!s
_�
� _ _
Y ''
'�.
P
�'f
�� �
_;_'
. n
� ��
��{
A
r.
!' - s
f�
1
a
�•
_ _..
� —u
....��.-i�.I
s - �'��i:
~� _� '`
a♦ ����
��2
j
�'
4'
t
,.� ,�
,.
-.
` i
l �
i
� �_,
E
+�
v
3 �
'� 1
� �
o ,
� �
-�
x
0
0
a � _
t
1
1
"Exhibit 4" 2"
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non-charter code city,
under the laws of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and
Article 11, Section 1 1 of the Washington State Constitution) has authority to
enact laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and development of
property within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a Rezone
of such property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43. 12(c), the State
Environmental Policy Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might
result because of the proposed Rezone; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in
compliance with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use
and development of property situated in the City of Pasco, described as
follows:
Lot 2 Short Plat 2008-09
(Parcel # 119231029)
WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with
the City of Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning department to
insure compliance with the Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and
federal laws relating to the use and development of the above described
property; and
WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions
available by law, desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by
this concomitant agreement, NOW, THEREFORE,
In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of
Pasco to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) and in consideration of that
event should it occur, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter
stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and agree as follows:
1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the
agreement in the event the City, as full consideration herein grants a Rezone
on the above-described property.
2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth ir. Section 4 of
this agreement.
3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees
or successors in interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described.
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT PAGE l OF 2
4. Conditions:
a. Only 21 single-family low density residential lots will be
permitted on the property;
b. The average lot size shall be at least 8,400 square feet with
no lot less than 8,000 square feet;
C. No more than one dwelling unit is permitted per lot;
d. Zero lot line dwellings must contain at least four separate
architectural features on front and side elevations. Any four
of the following will satisfy the architectural features
requirement of this Agreement; vertical siding, accent
materials, (stone, brick, stucco, shingles and horizontal
siding), dormers, cantilevers, cornices, bay windows and
other fenestration, porches, and complementary contrasting
paint colors;
e, Front elevations of zero lot line dwellings must be articulated
or otherwise constructed to provide a distinct identity for
each dwelling.
The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify
that they are the sole holders of fee simple interest in the above-described
property:
Owner:
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
) ss.
County of Franklin )
On this - day of 2011, before me, the
undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
to me known to be the
individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me
that he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act
and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated
that he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument.
GIVEN under by hand and official seal this day of
, 2011.
Notary Public in and for the State
of Washington, residing at
CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT PAGE 2 OF 2
Reference 4 - Phun g Commission
Minutes dated 3/17/ 11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3/ 17/ 11
A. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential)
to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone
(3300 Block west of Wernett Road) (Vinh
Pham) (MF# Z 2011-0031
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
David 1. McDonald, City Planner, stated the property owner previously applied
for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and after the Planning Commission's
review and recommendation; the applicant withdrew his application before it
was scheduled to go to the City Council. The applicant's intent was to develop
the property in conformance with the Preliminary Plat approved in 2008 for
only 21-single family lots.
The applicant re-filed an application for a zoning change that would permit 21
zero lot line homes on the site. Mr. McDonald explained Pasco does not have
specific regulations for allowing zero lot line homes and the only way to
accomplish that is through the Planned Unit Development process or through a
multi-family Rezone. Sun Willows and Ivy Glades are examples of Planned Unit
Developments and Mediterranean Villas off Road 100 is an example of a multi-
family Rezone where a variation of zero lot line homes was built_ An additional
explanation of zero lot line development was explained along with a review of
the existing conditions in the neighborhood. It was pointed out that the
Newton's Addition which is to the southwest of the site and west of Road 34
has a density of around five units per acre which was approved. The applicants'
proposal is for four units per acre.
Mr. McDonald suggested that if the zero lot line concept was approved there
should be conditions attached which limit one unit per lot and the homes
should be required to have architectural features to give an individual look to
each dwelling.
Paul Christensen, 4121 W. Nixon, representing the applicant was present to
speak in favor of the Rezone. The applicant plans to maintain the of 8,000
square foot density however they would like to develop 22 lots instead of 21.
They want each unit to have different facades to make the homes
architecturally appealing. They came in with the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment earlier and found that if they went through the Comprehensive
Plan change it would allow for 48 lots on that property and that is not what
was intended so they withdrew their application.
Commissioner Gemig questioned what is the difference of a zero lot home and a
duplex?
Mr. Christensen stated a duplex is built on a single lot and maintained under a
single ownership. A zero lot line home sits on its own lot and can be owned
individually.
Commissioner Gemig questioned if they would be connected.
Mr. Christensen stated yes however they are different than a row of
townhouses. The zero lot line homes have larger side yards.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the Public Hearing.
Richard McReynolds, 2220 Road 34, stated he resides next to the proposed
development and has attended previous Planning Commission and City
Council meetings. He is opposed to increasing the density in the area which
would lower his property value. He would like to see more expensive homes
with large lots versus what is proposed. lie presented a letter from Barbara
Lombard who also is opposed to the development.
Lynn Hall, 2216 Road 33, stated he resides close to the proposed development
and mentioned a Special Permit application for a church in the neighborhood
and there has been no improvement made to the property. He was not in favor
of having duplexes in the area. He would like to see bigger lots with bigger
houses. He mentioned the sound barrier and was concerned it would only be a
large berm of dirt.
Commissioner Gemig asked if the Rezone was mainly for the zero lot line factor.
Mr. McDonald stated yes.
Commissioner Gemig stated the density is not changing only the lots.
Mr. McDonald stated the density is not changing and they are developing 21
lots.
Commissioner Gemig asked why they were rezoning the site.
Mr. McDonald stated under the R-1 Zone setbacks are required and under the
R-2 Zone zero lot lines are permitted. Mr. McDonald also explained how the
sound wall needed to be constructed.
Mr. Christensen referred to the comments regarding the density and stated
they would match the current density in the area.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf mentioned the concern regarding rental properties.
Mr. Christensen stated any home in the community could be a rental property.
They are hoping for an owner to purchase two units and live in one and rent
the other one.
Mr. McReynolds stated he would like to see a requirement for a larger lot.
Mr. Hall stated he was concerned about rentals.
Commissioner Greenaway questioned Mr. Christensen's intent to sell or build
for rental properties.
Mr. Christensen stated Mr. Pham has many rental properties and with the zero
lot lines purchasers have shown interest in purchasing both sides where they
would reside on one side and rent the other.
Mr. McReynolds wants an agreement from the developer that they would not be
rentals.
Mr. McDonald stated they cannot make such an agreement.
Commissioner Lukins 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 April 28, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Reference 4 - Planning Commission
Minutes dated 4/28/ 11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4/28/11
B. Rezone Rezone from R-1 (Low Density Residential)
to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone
(3300 Block west of Wernett Road) (Vinh
Phaml (MF# Z 2011-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff reviewed the recommended conditions included in the proposed
concomitant agreement.
Commissioner Lukins moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt
the Findings of Fact as contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioner Lukins further moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway,
based on the Findings of Fact as adopted, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council Rezone the site from R-1 (Low Density Residential)
to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) with a Concomitant Agreement limiting
the number of dwelling units to 21 and requiring minimal architectural
features on each dwelling units. The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council `� May 9, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfie # anager Regular 1k1tg.: 5/16111
Rick White,
Community &rconomic Development Director
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (MF# SP 2011-006): Location of a public park in an R-1
Low Density Residential Zone 5520 Salem Drive Cit of Pasco
I. REFERENCE(S):
1, Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Report to Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 4/28/11
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5116: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving a
Special Permit for the location of a public park at 5520 Salem
Drive.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On April 28, 2011 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine
whether or not to recommend a Special Permit be granted for the location of a public
park at 5520 Salem Drive.
B. Following conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that with
conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a Special Permit for the
park.
C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution.
D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received.
8(c)
e
OL v4
1, v1v
go WA
aR
Ll
LA,}%V— A � .�1
lb r
po
vow I
ie
Alp
oil MCI,
4 "lab
MIND
I in
rw
v
IA
r�n-b° i PAP ®► mail,
;_!•I 11 .it .
IN NOUN
r �!
Reference 2 - Proposed Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PUBLIC PARK AT
5520 SALEM DRIVE
WHEREAS, The City of Pasco, submitted an application for the location of a public
park at 5520 Salem Drive(Tax Parcel 117330179); and,
WHEREAS, the Administrative and Community Services staff held a neighborhood
meeting on April 12, 20:1 to inform the neighborhood about design considerations and funding
for the development of the park; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 28,201 1 to review
the proposed public park; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on April 28, 2011 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a Special Pen-nit for the public park 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 the City of Pasco for the location of a
public park in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) District under Master File # SP2011-006 with
the following conditions:
a) The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel 117330179;
b) The park shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan
submitted with the application (Attachment"A");
c) The Special Permit shall be null and void if the proposed improvements are not
made by June 25, 2012.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 16`h day of May, 2011.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Reference 3 - Report to the
Planning Commission
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. SP 2011-006 APPLICANT: City of Pasco
HEARING DATE: 4/28/2011 525 North Third Avenue
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT Location of _a vublic Park in an -1
(Low Density Residential) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Tracts A, B & Linda Loviisa Park, Linda Loviisa
Phase 1
Location: 5520 Salem Drive
Property Size: Approximately 5.5 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Salem Drive, Juneau Lane,
Sacramento Drive and Providence Lane.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density
Residential) and is currently vacant. The zoning and land use of
the surrounding properties are as follows:
North R-1 — Single family residences
South R-1 — Single family residences
East R-1 — Single family residences
West R-1 — Single family residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for low density residential uses. Policy CF-4-A encourages
implementation of the adopted Parks and Recreation Plan. This
year the City adopted a new Parks, Recreation & Forestry Plan
which contains various goals, objectives and policies related to
development of parks within the City. It is the intent of the Parks,
Recreation & Forestry Plan to establish well developed
neighborhood parks serving surrounding neighborhoods within a
radius of one-half to one mile.
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
t
I
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) has been issued for this
project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
Parks within residential neighborhoods are generally identified as a
desirable urban amenity. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the
location of parks throughout the City. Neighborhood parks are
characterized by parks that are designed primarily for non-supervised,
non-organized recreational activities. These parks are generally small in
size (3-7 acres) and are intended to serve a radius of about one-half of a
mile. In residential areas where densities are two to three units per acre
the service area can be expanded to a one mile radius.
From the Parks, Recreation & Forestry Plan, the most applicable policies
and development criteria for neighborhood parks are as follows:
1. A neighborhood park should be provided when the area it serves
reaches a 60% development level either by land mass or
population. (This park is intended to serve the Linda Loviisa plat
but is within walking distance to the Desert Oasis and Desert
Estates subdivisions. In land mass and population these
subdivisions are nearing the 60% development level.)
2. A neighborhood park should not be less than 5 acres in size if it is
to be located without any other amenities. Where practical
neighborhood parks should be co-located with elementary schools.
(The proposed park is 5.5 acres.)
3. In neighborhoods where the densities are 2-3 dwelling units per
acre the service area for neighborhood parks should be extended to
a mile radius.
4. At least 50% of the park site should be flat and usable. (The
proposed park site has been leveled.)
5. Appropriate facilities for neighborhood parks include:
a. Practice fields for softball, soccer, youth baseball etc.;
b. Children's playgrounds;
C. Unstructured open play areas;
d. Paved game courts;
e. Picnic areas with shelter buildings;
f. Trails systems;
g. Trees;
h. Natural open space; and,
i. Drainage corridors
6. The location criteria suggest neighborhood parks be central to the
area they serve, be adjacent a green belt or trail system, be within
2
walking distance of the area they serve, avoid the need to cross
major streets or physical barriers and be readily visible from
adjoining streets.
The proposed location of the Linda Loviisa Park meets the development
criteria for a neighborhood park.
The Administrative & Community Services Director conducted a
neighborhood meeting on April 12, 2011 to accept input from residents
of the surrounding neighborhood. Approximately thirty residents
attended the meeting. No specific requests or issues needing to be
addressed resulted from the meeting.
Scheduling of action on this item has been consolidated to allow
sufficient time for landscaping to establish during the Fall. Following
closure of the public hearing staff urges the planning Commission to
deliberate and develop their recommendation. Accordingly, additional
motions are included in the Recommendation section of this report
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are
initial Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the
staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional Findings to
this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted
during the open record hearing.
1. The proposed site is located at 5520 Salem Drive.
2. The proposed site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential).
3. The site is approximately 5.5 acres.
4. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for low-density
residential uses.
5. The R-1 zoning regulations list parks as a "Conditional Use" and
thereby require Special Permit review.
6. Surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west are
zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential).
7, Access to the site is from Salem Drive, Juneau Lane, Sacramento
Drive and Providence Lane.
8. The proposed site is located within the Linda Loviisa subdivision.
9. The Parks Department held a public meeting on April 12, 2011 to
inform the neighborhood about design considerations and funding
for the development of the Linda Loviisa Park.
3
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed Findings
are as follows:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
Policy CF-4-A encourages implementation of the adopted Parks and
Recreation Plan. This year the City adopted a new Parks, Recreation &
Forestry Plan which contains various goals, objectives and policies
related to development of parks within the City. It is the intent of the
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Plan to establish well developed parks
serving surrounding neighborhoods within a radius of one half to one
mile. The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of open space
and parks within the city.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use is considered an infrastructure improvement.
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 proposed park will be an asset to the surrounding neighborhoods.
The park will be maintained by City maintenance crews for litter removal
and landscaping to ensure the park does not become a nuisance or
eyesore.
4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site
design discourage the development of permitted uses on property
in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The playground equipment, restrooms and gazebo will be lower in height
than the surrounding houses. The tallest structures in the park are the
gazebo and restrooms which are proposed to be a maximum of thirteen
feet in height. A home's close proximity to public open space is
commonly viewed as an asset and as such can enhance the appeal of a
neighborhood to prospective home buyers.
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 park will create less traffic, flashing lights, fumes or vibrations than
the permitted uses in the neighborhood.
4
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?
Parks are typically located in residential neighborhoods to enhance the
quality of life and improve the general welfare of neighboring residents.
Well maintained public open spaces generally contribute to the public
welfare and enhance the appeal of residential neighborhoods.
APPROVAL CONDI'T'IONS
1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel 117330179;
2. The park shall be developed in substantial conformance with the
site plan submitted with the application (Attachment "A") ;
3. The Special Permit shall be null and void if the proposed
improvements are not made by June 25, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION I move to close the hearing on the proposed park and 'initiate
deliberations.
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and
Conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 28, 2011
staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the
City of Pasco for the location of a neighborhood park with
conditions as contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report.
5
logo
ut WE
dw
d. 04
9,00
dp
• �
ass ��
411
�� ;�&
�'7
�r
IL fw
!6
• `� dbA
long I
..oup,
million
l
0.
z z
N o
w a�
1 ISON AVE MADISON LN
TLANTA LN Pon*
c w ui
� w
a
W co
Q }- LANSING LN
LU
v
U • • Q o w
m
DES MOINES LN
MONTGOMERY LN
(40)
Q�
UIENIX LN
J
W
� a
z '
ISON AVE MADISON LN
TLANTA LN
ui
o o
o
o }- LANSING LN
c CO) o
z U • • a w
ui
C � o
m
~ � �
DES MOINES LN
!� f
FEW MONTGOMERY LN
I ITTI . I I I
,� - `•
i�
r� l
� �.
� � � .1�
I r
a
j� �
1 - '�
��- � �
�.
.� .,.
..� �.
�� _
f
•
•
•
r
��
1
P
�`
l
l
1 ,t
f
J �
E.
• 4
•.ja -- I
I
i
1 I
C ' }�
1�
r�
� I
r
1
Oki
'
i�� � �
,'-� ��
y �1� I
� J,
� U � � '� �
. �
ti -�r
�'C�'�,
,,
� . �
�t. ��� �
� �` _ � �
� �� t
,,, ,
���w�
, � ..
,- ,
�, ,_
• :�
�= ,.
�` _� � �'
Rti�
•
,� 3
. �_
�,._
.�_ '
{� � �
,�
�;:
1
i
N � ��
1 � r
yt
I� '�
��s�-
� Ir .. ��
_ �
.t^•
�.
•
�,
��
.r
- �
�.',�-
S
I N
Y• O
Y
CC)
t;
s T
l O
N
t--
S
i
fir'; �•1
t N
O
U
t
,.} o
L-C,
G7
' r, s
G �
w
LO f
M
I� 1!
I�
8
I
�a I >
s
PROVIDENCE LN < �
(a 0
'NN
b m
Q Q
z
Ii o
li 4
"I
i m , •
I �
1
I D
)P-
a3.
� r -
.-. N co
Ll
C7
n
D
N
a
W
O
TOPEKA DR
i
a
JUNEAU LN
LINDA LOVIISA PARK CITY C, t���C�
i ��` PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
CYTY QF PASCO
,q 509) Say-344-t r
LINDA LOVISA PARK aE.IU N `; oral,
"^ PARK IMPROVEMENTS - '> r
�� CITY OF PASCO
Reference 4 - Planning Commission
Minutes dated 4/28/11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4-28-11
A. Special Permit Location of a 1park in the Linda Loviisa
Subdivision (5520 Salem Drivel (City of
Pasco) (MF# SP2011-006)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, reviewed the staff report for the benefit of the
Planning Commission. Mr. O'Neill explained that staff is recommending
that the public hearing and deliberations on this item be consolidated
and urged the Planning Commission to take action on this item tonight.
Chairman Cruz reiterated the staff recommendation to take action on the
proposed park during tonight's meeting.
Mr. O'Neill stated that is the request of the City Administrative and
Community Services Department.
Dan Dotta, City of Pasco Facilities Services Manager, presented the
proposal and addressed the timing concerns related to growing seasons
and FCID irrigation water availability.
Commissioner Lukins requested verification that a neighborhood meeting
was conducted.
Staff answered affirmatively.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to
close the hearing on the proposed park and initiate deliberations. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adopt
Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 28,
2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan further moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay,
based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council grant a Special Permit to the
City of Pasco for the location of a neighborhood park with conditions as
contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council May 9, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi d, Qt Manager Regular Mtg.: 5/16/11
Rick White, 7
Community & E4conomic Development Director �h(
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I [�--
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (MF# SP 2011-005): Location of a church in an R-2
(Medium Density Residential) Zone (316 North 11th Avenue) (Mario Rivera)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Report to Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 3/17/11 & 4/28/11
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5116: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving a
Special Permit for the location of a church at 316 North 11 th
Avenue.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On March 17, 2011 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine
whether or not to recommend a Special Permit be granted for the location of a church at
316 North 1 1 th Avenue.
B. Following conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that with
conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a Special Permit for the
church.
C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution.
D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received.
8(d)
Reference 1 - Vicinity Map
n
ti Np A
{
i
w
t �'no1 At
l
ct - ��►
• '' i Ir
Iz
r4 �; ►
r
.P" " au
.� • 0
mmmqw
Reference 2 - Proposed Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CHURCH
AT 316 NORTH I I TH AVENUE
WHEREAS, Mario Rivera, submitted an application for the location of a church
at 316 North 1 Ith Avenue (Tax Parcels 112-271-033 & 112-271-042); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 17, 2011
to review the proposed church; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on April 28, 2011 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a Special Permit for the church 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 Mario Rivera for the location of
a church in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) District under Master File # SP2011-
005 with the following conditions:
a) The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcels 112-271-033 & 112-271-042;
b) The church occupancy shall be limited to 88 people;
c) The church shall not object to the issuance of a liquor license within 1,000 feet
of the church building;
d) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco Business License is
not obtained by August 1, 2011.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 16`h day of May, 2011.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Reference 3 - Report to the
Planning Commission
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. SP 2011-005 APPLICANT: Mario Rivera
HEARING DATE: 3/ 17/2011 5814 Ochoco Lane
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a church in an R-2 Medium
Density Residential) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal The east half of Block 10 Pettits Addition together
with adjoining vacated right-of-way
General Location 316 North 11th Avenue
Property Size Approximately 0.5 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from 11th Avenue.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) and contains a partially occupied multi-tenant commercial
building. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as
follows:
North R-2 - Single family residences & duplexes
South C-1 - Single family residences
East R-2 - Single family residences
West R-2 - Single family residences
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for Low-Density Residential uses. Policies of the Plan encourage
compatibility between land uses and harmony between existing and
proposed development. The Plan does not specifically address churches,
but various elements of the Plan encourage adequate provision of off-
street parking and situating businesses in appropriate locations for their
anticipated 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.
l
ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking a Special Permit to allow the location of a church in an
existing church. Churches are defined in Pasco Municipal Code as
"Unclassified Uses" which require a Special Permit prior to locating in any zone
within the City.
The approximately 3,648 square foot building proposed to be used for a church
was originally developed for church uses is 1985. Prior occupants have
received City of Pasco Special Permits to conduct church activities on the site.
Those Special Permits were conditioned to require termination of the Permit if
the owner/applicant changed. In this case, the recommended conditions
would apply to the parcel and would not be personal to the applicant.
In terms of occupancy load, the proposed church contains 22 parking stalls.
Pasco Municipal Code requires one parking stall for every four seats in a
church. Inversely, we can interpret that to imply that for every parking stall
four occupants are allowed. Accordingly, the existing off-street parking will
support up to 88 people attending church at any one given time. A condition
addressing maximum the occupancy load is contained below under Initial
Approval Conditions.
Traffic generated by the church will occur mostly on Sunday mornings when
traffic is minimal. The operations of churches generally generate few
complaints from adjoining property owners.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional Findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. Churches are unclassified uses and require review through the Special
Permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning district.
2. The proposed site is zoned R-2 (Medium Density Residential).
3. The proposed site is located at 316 North 1 lch Avenue.
4. The site is approximately 0.5 acres.
5. The site contains 22 off-street parking stalls.
6. Access to the site is from 11th Avenue,
7. The proposed site has been developed with a church structure since
1985.
2
8. Churches are classified as an "A" occupancy under the International
Building Code.
9. The municipal Code (PMC 25.78.170) requires one off-street parking
space for every four fixed seats.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows:
I. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
Policy LU-2-B of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the support of facilities
for educational and cultural activities.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use will have a minimal impact on public infrastructure.
Churches are generally used during off-peaks hours, on Sundays and during
evenings in the middle of the week. The church will use existing City utilities
and infrastructure.
3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be
in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity?
Churches are typically located in or near residential areas. This site is largely
surrounded by single family residences. The site does not require substantial
exterior modifications to its current appearance.
4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the
general vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The location and height of the existing structure has not discouraged the
development of permitted uses on surrounding properties in the past. No
exterior site modifications are proposed, Any prospective businesses seeking to
locate within the vicinity will be aware of the church since it is an existing
structure.
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?
If the site were to be developed residentially, under the current zoning up to
four units could be permitted. The noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, and
flashing lights generated by four dwelling units would be less than those
generated by the church during peak operation. However, churches are
typically used infrequently, generally two or three days per week and generate
3
traffic during off-peak times such as Sunday mornings and in evenings during
the week. During the remainder of the week, the site is likely to generate fax
less disruption to the surrounding residents than would four dwelling units.
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?
Past history of church operations within the City has shown they usually do
not endanger public health or safety. Churches are generally accepted uses
within the community.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to Tax Parcels 112271033 & 112271042;
2. The church occupancy shall be limited to 88 people;
3. The church shall not object to the issuance of a liquor license within
1,000 feet of the church building;
4. The Special Permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco Business
License is not obtained by August 1, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the April 28, 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 Mario Rivera for the operation of a church with
conditions as listed in the April 28, 2011 staff report.
4
1
NIM
H IVN
ocr
Soft
,
� o
TVt\17 `
T 1 --- AS1 '
~ , dd
QL lo-
IL
-
o w �
ploo ° A� o
Polo
w
� rN
N '
a 0
� � N e
13TH AVE U
A �
� A
c� �
G� -cH pvE
ct
a Z 2
z
• � a 00
N P
13TH AVE
3
i.
i
rN
L )
CD
a
r'
CV
3-
C
CD
1
!r
51� �
�ja R 1
r ,
i
1�a�9W
p �
_ mow•�-,:1"*py�c+T��w��T i � s�
~ti•
A v
I CN /
Jdjjr4LW—! *4
r l
,a
��_ ,�p�,�`tea •.•. �• ° - � .�
-• '��. • �F y't'lam
y '14
•4 .
0
R -
i
7 '
U1
CD
A
GL A=
-44
� a 4
9y� i
I
fi
t
r. .r
. s
t�,
O
i
� f
qd
t
e MF# SP 2011-005
4
M
f,
•
V
Reference 4 - Planning Commission
Minutes dated March 17, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 17, 2011
D. Special Permit Location of a church in a R-2 (Medium
Density Residentiall Zone 1316 N. 112th
Avenue) (Mario Rivera) (MF# SP 2011-005)
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner 1, stated this application is for the re-establishment of
church use in the half-acre site which was originally developed as a church.
The application is a result of Code Enforcement action; the applicant was
unaware of the requirement for a Special Permit for a church and therefore has
applied. The circumstances surrounding the requirement for a Special Permit
to operate a church in an existing church is largely the result of previous
Special Permits not applying to the land itself but the applicant. It creates the
need to renew and go through the Special Permit process every time a new
owner or new church tries to use the facility. The site is zoned R-2 and
churches require a Special Permit regardless of zoning. There are 22 parking
spaces on the site and back-calculating based on code language provides an
occupancy load of four (4) attendees for each parking spot, by multiplying, we
arrive at a maximum occupancy load of 88 people which would be
accommodated by the existing parking lot. It's not the facility itself that has an
occupancy load of 88 people but the existing parking allows that amount of
people to attend church at any given time. The overall facility is just over 3,500
square feet. The report includes conditions that would allow the Special Permit
should it be approved, to carry with the land and avoid having to go through
the Special Permit process again. The site is fully developed with landscaping,
curb, gutter and sidewalk. It is surrounded by dense residential neighborhood
and is an active community.
Mario Rivera, 5814 Ochoco Lane, stated he purchased the church February
2010 and was under the impression the Special Permit would automatically
transfer to his church. When he received the notices from Code Enforcement he
quickly carne in to resolve the issue. The applicant is using the facility for
religious purposes for the Spanish speaking community.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the public hearing, after three calls and no
response the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Gemig, 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 April 28, 2011 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Reference 4 - Planning Commission
Minutes dated April 28, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 28, 2011
D. Special Permit Location of a church in a R-2 (Medium
Density Residential) Zone (316 N. 11th
Avenuel Mario Rivera) fMF# SP QQSJ
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner 1, stated there were no changes made to the
report.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, to
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in
the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway further moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lukins, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a Special
Permit to Mario Rivera for the operation of a church with conditions as
listed in the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council .1 May 9, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi+gl t '�.anager Regular Mtg.: 5%16%11
Rick White, � r-
Community & Economic Development Director
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (MF# SP 2011-001): Renewal and expansion of a resource
recovery facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial) Zone 215 East Ainsworth Avenue
(Ray Poland & Sons, Inc.)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Report to Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 3!17/11 & 4128/11
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/16: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving a
Special Permit for the renewal and expansion of a resource
recovery facility at 215 Fast Ainsworth Avenue.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On March 17, 2011 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine
whether or not to recommend a Special Permit be granted for the renewal and expansion
of a resource recovery facility at 215 East Ainsworth Avenue.
B. Following conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that with
conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a Special Permit for the
renewal and expansion of a resource recovery facility in an 1-1 (Light Industrial) Zone.
C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution.
D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received.
8(e)
V W f
1�
c or
r c
VOM
i ! f v
r . ,/ VIVO , t
INV
M
y _ 4 io `
Reference 2 - Proposed Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE
RENEWAL AND EXPANSION OF A RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY AT 215
EAST AINSWORTH AVENUE
WHEREAS, Ray Poland & Sons, Inc., submitted an application for the renewal
and expansion of a resource recovery facility at 215 East Ainsworth Avenue (Tax Parcels
112401151, 112401142 & 112401124); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 17, 2011
to review the proposed renewal and expansion of a resource recovery facility; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on April 28, 2011 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a Special Permit for the renewal and expansion of a resource
recovery facility 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 Ray Poland & Sons, Inc. for the
renewal and expansion of a resource recovery facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial) District
under Master File #f SP 2011-001 with the following conditions:
a) The Special Permit shall apply to parcels 112401151, 112401142 &
112401124;
b) The activities approved by this Special Permit are limited to concrete crushing
and recycling and wood chipping;
c) The site shall not be used for the disposal or storage of any items classified as
solid waste and/or which readily decompose;
d) The applicant shall obtain and maintain all necessary governmental permits for
the operations permitted by this Special Permit;
e) Crushing and chipping activities shall only be permitted between 7:00 a.m, and
6:00 p.m.;
f) Crushing and chipping activities on Sundays and holidays is prohibited.
Holidays include the date of observance of New Years Day, Martin Luther
King Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and
Christmas Day;
g) A five (5) foot wide landscaping strip meeting standards listed in PMC 25.75
shall be installed along Ainsworth Avenue east of the driveway entrance. The
landscaping strip shall extend east from the driveway entrance to connect with
existing landscaping at the intersection of Gray Avenue and Ainsworth
Avenue;
h) The concrete crushing operation must follow best management practices. Best
management practices include, but are not limited to:
• Using water or chemical dust suppressant on particulate matter (PM)
containing surfaces (i.e. haul roads, staging areas, transfer areas and
parking areas) and'or materials prior to and during activities that may
release P-M into the air. Re-application may be required periodically to
maintain effectiveness;
• Managing activity during high winds, if the winds are likely to cause the
release of PM into the air;
• Minimizing the free fall distance, i.e. drop height, of PM containing
materials at transfer points such as the end of conveyors, front-end loader
buckets, etc.;
• Managing vehicle loads with potential of release of PM with appropriate
covers or freeboard consistent with applicable laws;
• Minimizing exposed areas of PM containing materials such as storage
piles, graded surfaces, etc, an&or using tarps or chemical dust
suppressants to minimize releases to the air;
• Limiting vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour on unpaved surfaces;
• Consolidating storage piles whenever possible;
• Managing stockpile loader and haul truck travel to control release of PM;
• Prevent the deposition of PM onto paved public roadways;
i) This Special Permit shall expire on January 1, 2021.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 16`h day of May, 2011.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Ken, City Attorney
Reference 3 - Report to the
Planning Commission
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. SP 2011-001 APPLICANT: Ray Poland & Sons, Inc.
HEARING DATE: 3/ 17/2011 503 West Columbia Drive
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 Kennewick, WA 99366
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT Renewal and----exl2ansion of a _resource
recovery facility in an I-1 (Light Industrial)
Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal That portion of the southeast 1/4 of the northwest
1/4, Township 9 North, Range 30 East, Section 32
included in parcel #'s (112401151, 112401142 &
112401124)
General Location 215 East Ainsworth Avenue
Property Size Approximately 14 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Ainsworth Avenue.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial)
and contains a resource recovery facility. The site has been partially
mined for gravel. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as
follows:
North 1-1- BNSF railroad
South R-2 & R-3 - Single family residences & duplexes
East I-1 - Municipal sewer treatment facility
West R-2, R-3 & 1-1 - BNSF railroad, single family residences &
duplexes
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area
for industrial uses.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the State Environmental Policy Act
checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, city development
regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting
in a Determination of Non-Significance has been issued for this project
under WAC 197-11-158.
1
ANALYSIS
Resource recovery facilities are listed as unclassified uses in PMC Chapter
25.86.020(9) and as such are required to be reviewed through the Special
Permit process before locating or expanding anywhere in the City. The
property in question was issued a Special Permit in 1998 for concrete crushing
and recycling operations. The applicant is requesting to simultaneously renew
their Special Permit for concrete crushing and recycling and to add hog fuel
production to their existing facility.
The proposed hog fuel facility is essentially a wood recycling plant. Activities
associated with the proposed use include accumulation of scrap wood, wood
chipping via mechanized chipper, piling of wood chips and transportation of
wood chips to off-site locations for use as fuel.
The concrete crushing operation involves scrap concrete arriving on-site; the
concrete is loaded into the crusher, crushed and comes out as a finer material.
The crushed concrete is stored in large piles outdoors until it is transported for
use at construction sites. All resource activities on site occur within a
substantial topographic depression which serves as a noise and sight barrier.
The western border of the site however, is level with the 4th Avenue road grade
and the residences located on 4th Avenue. It should be noted that the homes
on 4th Avenue are separated from the facility by an 80 foot wide right-of-way
and active BNSF railroad tracks. The combined width of the adjacent railroad
and City rights-of-way equal approximately 277 feet.
The concrete crushing and recycling business has been operating for the past
thirteen (13) years without generating complaints from any of the neighboring
residences.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report
and comments made at the Public Hearing. The Planning Commission may
add additional findings as deemed appropriate.
1 . The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).
2. The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for industrial uses.
4. The site was originally used as a gravel mine.
5. The site is located along the western edge of the City's Sewer Treatment
Facilitv.
2
6. The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way and the 4th
Avenue right-of-way are located along the western boundary of the site.
7. Ray Poland & Sons Inc. was granted a Special Permit in 1998 to operate
a concrete crushing resource recovery facility.
8. The existing and proposed mechanical equipment is located toward the
east side of the complex which is furthest away from residences.
9. The concrete crushing equipment is located in the bottom of the old
gravel mine.
10. The wood chipping equipment will be located in the bottom of the old
gravel mine.
11. The Special Permit was issued in 1998 and expired in January of 2010.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria
listed in P.M.C. 22.80.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows:
1. Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
Although resources recovery facilities are not specifically addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan, the proposal will serve an important role in reducing the
volume of waste entering landfills. Policy ED-2-B encourages the development
of a wide range of commercial and industrial uses strategically located to
support local and regional needs.
2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed land use does not require sewer and water service. The impact
on public infrastructure associated with the addition of hog fuel production will
be unnoticeable when combined with the associated current concrete crushing
operations.
3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The concrete crushing facility has been operating in harmony with the
surrounding uses for approximately thirteen (13) years. The general vicinity
can be characterized by the surrounding industrial land, including the railroad
and sewer plant.
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?
This proposal will not involve the construction of permanent structures and
will not differ from previous specially permitted uses on the property and
3
adjoining properties. Additional mechanical equipment will be located on site
for wood chipping but will not substantially alter the appearance of the site
from its current condition. The use of the site for concrete crushing and
recycling over the past 13 years has not discouraged development within the
general vicinity nor has it impaired the value of adjoining property.
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 activities will be limited to certain daytime hours and dust will be
controlled. The proposed use could be objectionable but in this case mitigation
measures on emission controls and hours of operation will address those
concerns. No complaints from the surrounding neighbors have been received
over the span of the previous Special Permit for concrete crushing. The
addition/operation of wood chipping equipment is anticipated to be masked by
the effects of concrete crushing operations,
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 proposal with mitigation measures including dust control will not become
a nuisance to other uses permitted in the district. Additionally, limitations on
the days and hours of operation are measures to assure this use does not
become a nuisance to the residences within the general vicinity.
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall apply to parcels 112401151, 112401142 &
112401124;
2. The activities approved by this special permit are limited to concrete
crushing and recycling and wood chipping;
3. The site shall not be used for the disposal or storage of any items
classified as solid waste and/or which readily decompose;
4. The applicant shall obtain and maintain all necessary governmental
permits for the operations permitted by this special permit;
5. Crushing and chipping activities shall only be permitted between 7:00
am and 6:00 pm;
6. Crushing and chipping activities on Sundays and holidays is
prohibited. Holidays include the date of observance of New Years Day,
Martin Luther King Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day,
Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day;
7. A five (5) foot wide landscaping strip meeting standards listed in PMC
25.75 shall be installed along Ainsworth Avenue east of the driveway
4
entrance. The landscaping strip shall extend east from the driveway
entrance to connect with existing landscaping at the intersection of
Gray Avenue and Ainsworth Avenue;
8. The concrete crushing operation must follow best management
practices. Best management practices include, but are not limited to:
• Using water or chemical dust suppressant on particulate matter
(PM) containing surfaces (i.e. haul roads, staging areas, transfer
areas and parking areas) and/or materials prior to and during
activities that may release PM into the air. Re-application may be
required periodically to maintain effectiveness;
• Managing activity during high winds, if the winds are likely to
cause the release of PM into the air;
• Minimizing the free fall distance, i.e. drop height, of PM containing
materials at transfer points such as the end of conveyors, front-
end loader buckets, etc.;
• Managing vehicle loads with potential of release of PM with
appropriate covers or freeboard consistent with applicable laws;
• Minimizing exposed areas of PM containing materials such as
storage piles, graded surfaces, etc, and/or using tarps or chemical
dust suppressants to minimize releases to the air;
• Limiting vehicle speed to less than 15 miles per hour on unpaved
surfaces;
• Consolidating storage piles whenever possible;
• Managing stockpile loader and haul truck travel to control release
of PM;
• Prevent the deposition of PM onto paved public roadways;
9. This Special Permit shall expire on January 1, 2021,
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the April 28, 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 Ray Poland & Sons Inc. for the operation of a
concrete crushing/hog fuel production facility with conditions as
listed in the April 28, 2011 staff report.
5
,1
•
r
� � �� � ,._'� •�� fir* „�„�,��{
Ned
lei
�1• , �. ��'�' a dw
�a
mot(, •,
I
7 7 .
Land Use Item: Special Permit (resource recove�-y)
Applicant: Ray Poland & Sons . nc. N Map File: SP 2011 -001
I 177T
"C" ST z
=� 1�> � O BNSF Railroad
SFRS °P (vacant) Sewer
DTreatment
ublic Works
W Facility
a
Port of SIT �
Pasco
4Z
wo
FRS R3g1
S �w
ar
D
r.
d
=. = Q
CQ {O -w O
0 CD 31t �' 1
cn
!j O N r. r
I 3s ��
t r�
+� ���'t t , aa •i
CL
INV
GRA„�' VE " �
0
n n
-
_
ar
I
f
Reference 4 - Planning Commission
Minutes dated March 1 7, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 1 7, 2011
S. Special Permit Eland and continue recovery,
operation in an I-1 (Light Industriall Zone
(215 E. Ainsworth Avenue) (Ray Poland &
Sons, Inc,) (MF# SP 2011-0011
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Shane O'Neill stated this item has been continued from the Public Hearing to
modify the request. The original request was to add hog fuel production to the
site, which amounts to not much more than wood chipping, piling scrap wood,
chipping it, locating it in piles and then having it trucked away. Upon
researching the item, Mr. O'Neill discovered the original special permit for
concrete crushing expired last year. The staff report has been revised to include
the renewal of concrete crushing operations.
The site is approximately 14 acres and contains a concrete crushing facility
where discarded concrete is brought on site, crushed and reused elsewhere.
The site is surrounded by a mix of uses, some of which are residential. To the
northwest you will find single family residences which are separated by a
relatively large right-of-way and by railroad tracks. The City of Pasco Sewer
Treatment Facility and single family residences are located to the northeast.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for industrial uses. The addition
for hog fuel production is considered to be an industrial use. However, in the
City of Pasco Municipal Code resource recovery facilities are considered
"Unclassified Uses" which require special permit review prior to locating or
expanding anywhere in the City.
The staff report contains conditions relating to management of particulate
matter and fugitive dust. The report also contains a condition to add a small
amount of landscaping connecting with existing landscaping near the entrance.
The site plan indicates where the current facility is, fairly centralized, and the
proposed addition of hog fuel is in the northeast corner of the site, closest to
the water treatment facility. One positive aspect of the proposed hog fuel
production operations is the proposed location is the furthest away from
surrounding residences. To Mr. O'Neill's knowledge there have been no
complaints regarding the concrete crushing facility since the original special
permit was issued in 1998. However, during Mr. O'Neill's site visit employees of
the sewer treatment facility expressed some concern regarding dust
management and conditions similar to those contained in the Central Pre-Mix
Resolution were added.
Jack Finch, 3507 W. 36th Loop, employee of Poland & Sons, stated they are a
good neighbor and would like to add hog fuel to their recycling process. He
questioned during construction of the overpass, they were told curb, gutter,
sidewalk and landscaping were to be installed as well as lowering the existing
sewer line and that never happened. He questioned the 5-foot wide landscaping
strip. He asked for direction as far as what type of trees were allowed and if
xeriscape landscaping would be acceptable.
Mr. O'Neill stated that would be allowed.
Mr. Finch asked if that was to exist inside or outside of the fence.
Mr. O'Neill stated 50% live vegetation is required in the landscaping area.
Mr. Finch stated he needed clarification for what is acceptable for landscaping.
Mr. O'Neill stated the landscaping requirement is required for any new
development.
Mr. Finch understood.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the public hearing, after three calls and no
response the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hay questioned the applicant if he had any problems with the
recommended approval conditions.
Mr. Finch stated no. The approval conditions are similar to those contained in
their original Resolution.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the
hearing on the proposed resource recovery facility expansion and permit
renewal and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of Findings of Fact,
Conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 28, 2011
meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Reference 4 - Planning Commission
Minutes dated April 28, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 28, 2011
C. Special Permit Expand and continue resource recover
operation in an I-1 (Light Industrial)
Zone (215 E. Ainsworth Avenue) {Ray
Poland & Sons Inc.1 (MF# SP 2011-001
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Shane O Neill, Planner I, stated that no changes have been made to the
report.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Lukins, to
adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in
the April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway further moved, seconded by Commissioner
Lukins, based on the Findings of Fact an Conclusions therefrom the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a Special
Permit to Ray Poland & Sons Inc. for the operation of a concrete
crushing/hog fuel production facility with conditions as listed in the
April 28, 2011 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council May 6, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfiel t anager Regular Mtg.: 5/16,111
Rick White,
Community & Economic Development Director
V-4
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner 1�l
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY PLAT: Ranger Heights (East side of Road 80 at Ruby Street)
(Basswood, LLC) (MF# PP 2011-00 1)
I, REFERENCE(S):
I. Overview and Vicinity Maps
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Preliminary Plat (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the
Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the city's webpage at htjV@//www.jpasco-
ILL.gov/cij incilreforts .
– — – 1.. „)
4. Report to the Planning Commission
5. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 3/1712011 & 4/28/2011
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/16: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving the
Preliminary Plat for Ranger Heights.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On March 17, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing, which was
continued to April 28, 2011, to develop a recommendation for the City Council on the
Preliminary Plat for Ranger Heights, a proposed 11-lot subdivision located on the east
side of Road 80 at Ruby Street.
B. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission determined that
with conditions related to sewer service and other infrastructure needs, the
Preliminary Plat could be recommended for approval. The recommended conditions
are contained in the attached resolution.
C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received.
8
• ' ° !��: a "�} } ` .� ` , i f
1 � ��s 1r
• � i _i �i���R;�►'r�.�� 1. � t r.
lop.- arc
4A.
Ow
} n
� � a r •�� 4 o d'°IA.".iL�r
/ y '
i
OL 'ti•�, � 41M �• `- Y� i
�. owl 41 'r
F
� 1
i d
dil
Reference 2 - Proposed Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELEMINARY PLAT FOR
RANGER HEIGHTS
WHEREAS, RCW 58.17 enables the City to uniformly administer the process of
subdividing property for the overall welfare of the community; and,
WHEREAS, owners and developers of Short Plat 76-10 Lot 2, have requested approval of
a preliminary plat; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said preliminary plat which is named
Ranger Heights; and,
WHEREAS, following a public hearing, the Planning Commission found the proposed
plat promoted the general welfare of the community and recommended said preliminary plat be
approved with conditions; NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
That the preliminary plat for Ranger Heights, Short Plat 76-10 Lot 2, located on the east side of
Road 80 at Ruby Street, is hereby approved with the following conditions:
1) Ruby Court shall be built to the City of Pasco's Local Street Standard.
2) The developer/builder shall pay the "traffic mitigation fee" established by ordinance at the
time of issuance of building permits for homes. Fees collected shall be placed in a fund and
used to finance signalization and other improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts on
the circulation system.
3) All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard fencing shall
be identified in the notes on the face of the final Plat(s).
4) No utility vaults, pedestals or other obstructions will be allowed at street intersections.
5) The developer/builder shall pay the current City "Park fund fee" upon issuance of building
permits for homes.
6) All storm water is to be disposed of per city and state codes and requirements.
7) The developer shall ensure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement activities
occur during the construction of the subdivision and of the houses thereon.
8) The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All record drawings
shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed in the Record Drawing
Requirements and Procedure form provided by the Engineering Division. This form shall be
signed by the developer prior to plan approval.
9) The developer shall install a properly designed irrigation system which includes valves to
each of the lots of the development, as well as an appropriate size distribution system.
Developer shall also furnish proper construction documents and final as-built drawings
showing any deviations from the construction drawings.
10) Any and all utilities shall be located as directed by the City Engineer. This shall include but,
is not limited to gas, phone, power, cable and all other utilities located within or adjoining the
1
plat. Any existing utilities that present difficulties shall be relocated at the developer's
expense, pursuant to the City Engineer's direction. All utility plans, including the above
mentioned, are required to be submitted to the City of Pasco prior to subdivision approval.
11) The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with construction inspection and
plan review service expenses incurred by the City of Pasco Engineering Division.
12) All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat drawings shall utilize the published
City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be identified on each such submittal.
13) The final plat shall contain 10-foot utility easements parallel to all streets. An additional
easement shall be provided as needed by the Franklin County PUD. All other easement
widths are to be as directed by the City Engineer.
14) The final plat shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility District statement:
"The individual or company making improvements on a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible
for providing and installing all trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and
backfill for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD
specifications; said individual or company will snake full advance payment of line extension
fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to PUD construction and'or
connection of any electrical service to or within the Plat."
15) All storm water shall be disposed of through grassy swales paralleling the paved surface of
the street. The developer shall install the swale with the construction of the street. The Swale
area must be fully irrigated and sodden or seeded before a certificate of occupancy is issued
for each lot. A note shall be placed on the final Plat stating these requirements.
16) The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan Review process.
A copy of the requirements for the Civil Plan Review process is available from the City of
Pasco Engineering Division.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of , 2011
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
2
Reference 4 - Report to the
Planning Commission
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO. PP 2011-001 APPLICANT: Basswood, LLC
HEARING DATE: 3/17/2011 1119 West Columbia Drive
ACTION DATE: 4/28/2011 KennevNrick, WA 99366
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: PRELIMINARY PLAT Ranger Heights, I 1-lots
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal Short Plat 76-10 Lot 2
General Location East side of Road 80 at Ruby Street
Property Size 4.37 Acres
Number of Lots Proposed 11 single family lots
Square Footage Range of Lots 12,207 to 24,361 square feet
Average Lot Square Footage 17,302 square feet
2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 80,
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer are stubbed to the site. Both will
need to be extended throughout the site from the vest.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING. The site is zoned RS-12 (Suburban
Residential). Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows:
North RS-12 - Single Family Residences/Vacant Lots
South RS-12 - Church/Vacant Lot
East RS-12 - Single Family Residences/Vacant Lot
West RS-12 - Single Family Residences
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for low-density residential development. According to the
Comprehensive Plan low-density residential means two to five dwelling
units per acre. The criteria for allocation under the future land use
section of Volume II of the Comprehensive Plan (Vol. II, page 17)
encourages development of lands designated for residential uses when or
where: sever is available; land is suitable for home sites; and when there
is a market demand. Policy H-1-E encourages the advancement of home
ownership and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to maintain a variety of
housing options for residents of the community. Goal LU-2 encourages
the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the creation of new
neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the State Environmental Policy Act
checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development
1
regulations, comments received from the Pasco School District, and other
information, the City issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
The City's land use plans for the last 29 years have indicated the property in
question should be utilized for low density residential development. For much
of the past 29 years the site was located outside the City limits but within the
City's urban grou-th area. The site was annexed in 2002 and sewer service was
extended north on Road 80 to the intersection with Ruby Street in 2007.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site in question into 11 single-
family lots. The plan calls for a cul-de-sac branching west from Road 80. Due
to the proximity of Court Street this would be an acceptable design, although a
through-street with the intent of punching through to Road 76 would be
preferable. The proposed lot sizes will conform to the RS-12 zoning and existing
lots within the neighborhood.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 11 lots; with the lots varying in size
from 12,207 square feet to over 24,000 square feet. The average lot size is
around 17,000 square feet, consistent with the site and neighborhood zoning.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have adequate frontage on streets that will be
dedicated.
UTILITIES: The developer will be responsible for extending sewer, water and
other utilities into the Plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10-
feet of street frontage of all lots. The final location and width of the easements
will be determined during the engineering design phase. The front yard
setbacks for construction purposes are larger than the requested easements;
therefore the front yard easements will not encroach upon the buildable
portions of the lots.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and
streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire
hydrants are located at street intersections and at a maximum of 500-foot
intervals and streetlights are located at street intersections and at 300-foot
intervals on residential streets.
STREET NAMES: The only street in the proposed plat is a continuation of
Ruby Street (Ruby Court).
IRRIGATION: The site is within the Franklin County Irrigation District and all
irrigation line extensions must conform to the requirements of the District.
2
WATER RIGHTS: The site is located within the Franklin County Irrigation
District.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.0 10) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning
Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision
will protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. The following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact":
PREVENT OVERCROWDING: Minimum lot sizes of 12,000 square feet or
greater will address the overcrowding concern by providing manageable lots
and usable open spaces. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the property in
question be developed with two to rive dwelling units per acre. The proposed
Plat has a density of about 2.5 units per acre. No more than 40 percent of each
lot can be covered with structures per RS-12 zoning standards.
PARKS OPENS SPACE/SCHOOLS: Chiawana Park is located approximately
850 yards west of the site. Ruth Livingston Elementary School, McLoughlin
Middle School, and Chiawana High School are all located less than a mile to
the north. The preliminary plat was submitted to the School District for review.
The School District has determined that the proposed subdivision will generate
over 9 student units (4.5 elementary, 1 .8 middle school, and 1.9 high school
multiplied by 11 SFDU's). Since one of the lots is already developed, this
reduces the potential new enrollment to 8.2 student units. The School District
is in the process of installing several new portable classrooms at Livingston
Elementary School and McLoughlin Middle School and will not be requesting a
voluntary agreement for the imposition of mitigation fees on the proposed plat.
A March 31, 2011 letter from the School District indicates no requests for
mitigation fees will be made by the School District for plats submitted for
review prior to April 1, 2011.
EFFECTIVE LAND USE/ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT: The plat is laid out for
low density residential development as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
The maximum density permitted under the Comprehensive Plan is five dwelling
units per acre. The proposed development with about 2.5 dwelling units per
acre is an orderly continuation of the existing residential subdivisions
surrounding the site.
SAFE TRAVEL & WALKING CONDITIONS: The plat is connected to Road 80.
No sidewalks are required in the RS-12 zone.
ADEQUATE PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES: All lots within the plat
will be provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
PROVISION OF HOUSING FOR STATE RESIDENTS: This preliminary plat
contains one developed site and ten undeveloped residential building lots to
provide new housing sites for Pasco residents.
3
ADEQUATE AIR AND LIGHT: The lot sizes and maximum lot coverage
limitations will assure that adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
PROPER ACCESS & TRAVEL: The one cul-de-sac street in the Plat will be
paved and developed to City standards to assure that proper access is
maintained to each lot. Connections to the community will be provided by Road
80, which feeds out to Court Street to the south. The preliminary plat was
submitted to the Transit Authority for review (The discussion under "Safe
Travel" above applies to this section also).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES & MAPS: The Comprehensive Plan
designates the Plat site for low density residential development. Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan encourage the advancement of home ownership and
suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for residents.
OTHER FINDINGS: (list additional findings as appropriate)
• The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
• The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within the Urban Growth Boundaries.
• Comprehensive Plans for the past three decades have set the site aside
for low density residential development.
• Low-Density Development is described in the Comprehensive Plan as two
to five dwelling units per acre.
• The site is zoned RS-12 (Suburban Residential).
• The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
advancement of programs that promote home ownership and
development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
• The Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
interconnection of neighborhood streets to provide for the disbursement
of traffic.
• The interconnection of neighborhood streets is necessary for utility
connections (looping) and the provision of emergency services.
• This subdivision has not been laid out to have interconnecting streets or
utilities.
• Dedicated cul-de-sacs are provided on the ends of streets where they are
not planned to be extended in the future.
• Properties to the west and south of the site have been developed. Partial
development has occurred to the north and east.
• A sewer line is located along Road 80.
• An 8-inch water line runs north In Road 80 between Court Street and
Wernett Road.
4
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
1. Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and
general welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys,
other public ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks,
playgrounds, transit stops, schools and school grounds, sidewalks for
safe walking conditions for students and other public needs;
The proposed Plat will be required to develop under the standards of the
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering
division. These infrastructure standards were designed to ensure the public
health safety and general welfare of the community are secured. These
standards include provisions for streets, drainage, water and sewer service and
the payment of park fees. This preliminary plat has been forwarded to the
Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School District and Ben-Franklin Transit
Authority for review and comment. Chiawana Park is located approximately
850 yards west of the site. Ruth Livingston Elementary School, McLoughlin
Middle School, and Chiawana High School are all located less than a mile to
the north. The School District has stated it is not in a position to accept further
enrollment at the elementary or middle school levels in this area.
2. The proposed Subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed Plat makes efficient use of vacant land, with access to nearby
Court Street via Road 80.
3. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and
narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates the site for low density
residential development. Low density development is described as two to five
single-family units per acre in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. The Housing
Element of the Plan encourages the promotion of a variety of residential
densities and suggests the community should support the advancement of
programs encouraging home ownership. The Plan also encourages the
interconnection of local streets for inter-neighborhood travel for public safety
as well as providing for traffic disbursement. The proposed Subdivision
conforms to the policies, maps and narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City
Council;
5
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the
form of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Subdivision conforms to the
policies, maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
5. The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
Subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the Subdivision regulations have been enumerated
and discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact
indicate the Subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the
Subdivision regulations.
6. The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
Subdivision.
The Proposed Plat, if approved, will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this Plat. These factors will ensure the public use and interest
are served.
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be
developed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This includes,
but is not limited to, water and sewer lines, streets, and storm water retention.
Curb, gutter, sidewalks, and street lights are not required in the RS-12 Zone.
All existing and proposed utilities must be installed underground by the
developer at the developer's expense.
1. Ruby Court shall be built to the City of Pasco's Local Street Standard.
2. The developer/builder shall pay the "traffic mitigation fee" established by
ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for homes. Fees
collected shall be placed in a fund and used to finance signalization and
other improvements necessary to mitigate traffic impacts on the
circulation system.
3. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of
yard fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final
Plat(s).
4. No utility vaults, pedestals or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
5. The developer/builder shall pay the current City "Park fund fee" upon
issuance of building permits for homes.
6. All storm water is to be disposed of per city and state codes and
requirements.
6
7. The developer shall ensure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter
abatement activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and
of the houses thereon.
S. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All
record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements
detailed in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form
provided by the engineering department. This form shall be signed by the
developer prior to plan approval.
9. The developer shall install a properly designed irrigation system which
includes valves to each of the lots of the development, as well as an
appropriate size distribution system. Developer shall also furnish proper
construction documents and final as-built drawings showing any
deviations from the construction drawings.
10. Any and all utilities shall be located as directed by the City Engineer.
This shall include but, is not limited to gas, phone, power, cable and all
other utilities located within or adjoining the Plat. Any existing utilities
that present difficulties shall be relocated at the developer's expense,
pursuant to the City Engineer's direction. All utility plans, including the
above mentioned, are required to be submitted to the City of Pasco prior
to Subdivision approval.
11. The developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with
construction inspection and plan review service expenses incurred by the
City of Pasco Engineering department.
12. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final Plat drawings shall
utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be
identified on each such submittal.
13. The final Plat shall contain 10-foot utility easements parallel to all
streets. An additional easement shall be provided as needed by the
Franklin County PUD. All other easement widths are to be as directed by
the City Engineer.
14. The final Plat shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility
District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on
a lot or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all
trench, conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill
for the PUD's primary and secondary distribution system in accordance
with PUD specifications; said individual or company will make full
advance payment of line extension fees and will provide all necessary
utility easements prior to PUD construction and/or connection of any
electrical service to or within the Plat."
15. All storm water shall be disposed of through grassy swales paralleling the
paved surface of the street. The developer shall install the swale with the
construction of the street. The swale area must be fully irrigated and
7
sodden or seeded before a certificate of occupancy is issued for each lot.
A note shall be placed on the final Plat stating these requirements.
16. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan
Review process. A copy of the requirements for the Civil Plan Review
process is available from the City of Pasco Engineering department.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the April 28, 2011 staff report.
MOTION: 1 move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted,
that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approve a
preliminary plat for Ranger Heights Subdivision with the
conditions as listed in the March 17, 2011 staff report.
8
Pasco School District #1
C. L. Booth Education Service Center
1215 W.Lewis • Pasco,Washington 99301
'AISC (509)543-6700
March 11, 2011
Rick White
City of Pasco
PO Box 293
Pasco, WA 99301
RE: Ranger Heights Subdivision —Master File Number: PP2011-001
Dear Rick:
As indicated in the letter the Pasco School District filed, there is not sufficient capacity to serve
elementary and middle school students from the 11 houses that are contemplated in the proposed
Range Heights Subdivision.
As reflected in the 2010-2017 Pasco School District Capital Facility, a copy of which is attached to this
email, the District needs to construct a new elementary and new middle school to serve students from
new residential development. The cost to construct a new 750 student elementary is over
$26,000,000, or approximately $35,000 per student. The cost to construct a new 1,250 student
middle school is over $60,000,000, or approximately $48,000 per student.
The Ranger Heights Subdivision will generate at least 5 elementary school students and 2 middle
school students, using a district-wide average of the number of students that live in new single family
homes. The proportionate share of the cost to construct the new elementary school, which is
necessary as a direct result of the proposed subdivision, is $175,000 (5 students x $35,000 per
student). The proportionate share of the cost to construct the new middle school, which is necessary
as a direct result of the proposed subdivision, is $96,000 (2 students x $48,000 per student). The
total cost to mitigate the direct impacts associated with the proposed subdivision is $271,000.
As you know, the Pasco School District has requested the City of Pasco and Franklin County adopt a
school impact fee ordinance and collect $6,012 from the builder of every new single family home to
mitigate the impacts new homes are having on schools.
To mitigate the impacts associated with the proposed Ranger Heights Subdivision, the District is
willing to accept payment of $67,122, or the equivalent of what would be collected in school impact
fees if the City were implementing the District's requested school impact fee program. The payment
of $67,122, as demonstrated in the materials the District has submitted, is significantly less than the
actual cost to mitigate the direct impacts.
If the City determines it is appropriate to approve the proposed Ranger Heights Subdivision, the
District requests a condition of approval requiring the applicant to sign a voluntary agreement under
which the applicant will be required to pay $67,122 to mitigate the impacts the subdivision will have on
the schools. We understand voluntary agreements are authorized under RCW 82.02.020.
Equal Opportunity Employer
Rick White
March 11, 2011
Page 2
Thank you for asking for more information and for considering the District's request.
Sincerely,
� i
John M. Morgan
Execrative Director, Operations
Celebrating academics, diversity and innovation.
Pasco School District No. 1
Operations Department
John Morgan, Extcntive Director (509)543.6()48
Jean Martin,Adminisprative Assistant (509)546-2880
iprjw 1215 West Lewis Street
Pasco,WA 99301
Hoot liS">�EC'f 1 F";{509}543471$
RECEIVED
MAR 3 1 2011
March 31, 2011 CAl41WNrlY&EOONow DEVELOPMENT
Gene Batey
9800 W Maple Drive
Pasco, WA 39301
RE: Ranger Heights Subdivision — Master File No, PP2011-1
Dear Gene:
After careful consideration of your concerns regarding the Peso School District's
decision to request impact/mitlgaWn fees on your proposed development, the district
decided to withdraw its request for mitigation payments associated with your proposed
development. Factors that led the district to this decision were:
1. Your development had already received preliminary approval
2. There was no formal statement of impact/mitigation fees for schools as
you pursued city or county approval.
Please note that Pasco School District will request impacUmitigation fees on all housing
developments after the date of April 1. 2011.
The district believes this decision is In the best Interest of the school district and
community,
Sincerely,
YYW4
John M. Morgan
Executive Director Operations
cc. City of Pasco Planning Depa►tment
o •
3
7
rr -
��r� fl� . 1 s d .� � � •;.
t �.ff'.t_��t �• `mss+;Y •
is I??S ,►
Ir
', gal ,,� �► t
s�
yyAIM-' , A
low
•
1i
. -
f.
i r1 it
a l
- y
F. T
W
W
x
� T
,V9.0 d N
LL LL
� `
Q
z
r o a
LL
LL
ui
LL
z 7
04 LL \ d d V
r
LL r g
L` s 40 1 r \
,�
ni o 7 :
tm
AVA
rn
{ i 7
,L
N
cli co
m Cl �', O1 87 L6 r-
01
IN
co
(1 to
z I
LL I A'60 L
cA x to rep
—x—x-
CIS o a
o
N LL
x ❑ co
10'ML �r r �� OT- I,
0'dd'ONOO I I I ci
i
LN3W3S`d9 L Z
� ifln,m � O
�LLI I _}
L7 ,0'604 i
cpa w
C 2
PU I
0
co z co \
LO cq
I
I
\\ �� �i � 4
l Cl) IZ
uj
-E--C W
?� E £ }_—
----- ------------- - ��; ---�-- _ i� ri�_=--------------------------- ' ??� o W z
e
--------------
- r
CL
IL
09 GVM:l o W IRR � — oc C
Isx w = Zm
aLL ti
J
� a
IL +Q
9
4 -
t
i
-r
r
ri*
II
r'_yam
3
cn 'I
E
L
3
a� -
t ,
I
9`u
y'
Q
i
v�
v�
f� fit
i'.
� L
lk�f..'
SSW
Kr
r ,
�'Ilk
t r�71
�, `•� a i A it'
6
f
i
1
1 "� k fit
f ,k
c�
r�
r
O
rn
c
s
0
0
J
_N
from "Voluntary",but is a fee that builders and developers had no knowledge of when they
bought their land, and is therefore a threat to property rights and another barrier to growth.
The HBA urges the City of Pasco and Franklin County to pass any pending and future plat or
development approvals without the condition to enter into a voluntary agreement and pay these
outrageous fees and allow development and building to continue without pause.
Sincerely,
Reneb Dahl gren
Director of Government Affairs
cc: Pasco School District; Jerrod MacPherson; Rick White
Home Builders Association of70•Cties,WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave 4 Kerinewck,WA 99338
(509)735.2745 or(877)842.8453 1 Fax;(509)735.8470 l www.hba'C,com
Eatbibit 1 - 3/25/11 Letter frolmt HBA
RECEIVED
^r�� MAR 2 5 20tl
.FT40'1Q�M;Ct L'd5IX.ti9J�i.i110116'T.i CAle 1,�{ &MR FA[(h1{(�{ GntrWt&Jr
Building the Tri-Cities since 1958 a�ni� LVS��KIIYL{J{JLY
Pasco City Council Franklin County Commissioners
Pasco Planning Commission Franklin County Planning Commission
P.O. Box 293 1016 N.4`t'Street
Pasco, WA 99301 Pasco, WA 99301
March 25,2011
It has come to our attention that the Pasco School District is opposing all new subdivisions in the
City of Pasco and Franklin County on the basis of insufficient capacity in the schools. In order to
mitigate the impacts associated with new development, the Pasco School District has requested
all applicants be required to sign a voluntary agreement and pay an amount equivalent to the
proposed impact fees. On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities(Hl3A), I would
like to express our opposition,not just to the impact fee proposals,but also to this proposed
circumvention of impact fee ordinances through a so-called "voluntary"agreement.
Whatever it is called or however it is imposed, whether it's an impact fee ordinance or a SEPA
mitigation fee, it is quite simply a tax targeted at new construction.Growth is beneficial to the
entire community. Residential construction not only creates jobs and increases the tax base, but
also leads the way for commercial development as it provides those much needed consumers.
And commercial development is certainly desired—not just for the tax revenue, but also for a
better quality of life for the residents.And yes,there are costs to growth and development—they
require more schools, parks, roads,and public services. But because the entire community gets to
enjoy the benefits of growth,then the entire community should pay for the costs, which are
ultimately returned to taxpayers through that tax revenue. In fact, in 2009, for every 400 single
family homes built in the City of Pasco, the one-year, local impacts were equal to$51.6 million
in local income; $7.5 million in taxes and other revenue for local governments,and 855 local
jobs. In addition,those 400 homes generate substantial ongoing annual local impacts, including
$10.1 million in local income; $4.0 million in taxes and otherrevenue for local governments and
189 local jobs.
Although such"voluntary"agreements are allowed under state law,the use of such agreements
to impose fees circumvents the impact fee process and has the potential to cause immediate and
lasting damage to the building industry in our area.This damage may include lost jobs and
increased unemployment rates, less economic development and declining tax revenues. Impact
fees are currently being considered by both the City and County and until that process is
complete, including the necessary and valuable public hearings and comment period,builders
and developers should not be forced into paying the equivalent of such fees. Not only is this far
Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities,WA
10001 W Clearwater Ave I Kennewick,WA 99336
(509)735-2745 or(877)842-8453 1 Fax:(509)735-8470 1 www.hbatc.com
Reference 5 - Planning Commission
Minutes dated March 17, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 17, 2011
E. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat aRRroyal for an 11-1ot
subdivision located at 1621 Road 60
(Basswood, LLC) IMF# PP 2011-0011
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner, stated the proposed subdivision is an 11-
lot subdivision. One of the lots is already developed in the northwest corner of
the subdivision which is a very large house and takes up basically the size of
two lots. The average lot size is actually 13,000 if you take the one lot out. It is
well within the range of the surrounding houses and is surrounded with RS-12
zoning. To the north you see a single family residence and some vacant lots. To
the south there is a church and a vacant lot. To the east are single family
residences and that area is built out. To the west there are single family
residences and more vacant land. The City has issued a mitigated
determination of non-significance, this means we have received comments from
the School District concerned about impacts this development will have on the
school and they have issued a letter attached in your packet showing the
impacts. I put together a table in the staff report that corresponds with the
letter we received from the School District showing that the capacity at Ruth
Livingston Elementary is 500 students and the October 2010 enrollment was
800. McLaughlin Middle School has a 1000 student capacity and 1480
enrolled, and Chiawana High School 2,200 student capacity and current
enrollment just over 2,000. As a result of that, they have requested the
condition of approval be included requiring the applicant to sign a voluntary
agreement under which the applicant will be required to pay $6,012 per
building permit issued and will be paid at the time of issuance of building
permits to mitigate the impact the subdivision will have on schools. The
applicant has begun negotiations with the School District on this point and
that should be a matter for the Commission to deliberate. Otherwise the
subdivision is rather unremarkable; it will be built with a cul-de-sac coming off
of Ruby Street. A revised site plan shows a slight curve at the end of the street
to accommodate the offset of Ruby Street, which is a condition that has been
added to the staff report and has been recommended by the Engineering
specifications. All utilities will be available to the subdivision; sewer, water and
irrigation. Due to the zoning of RS-12 there is no requirement for curb, gutter
and sidewalk. The three schools mentioned are within a mile of the subdivision.
And Chiawana Park is less than 1,000 yards of the subdivision.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf questioned if this language will be included in new
plats coming in, regarding the education and will it be standard or is it just for
this area.
Mr. Adams stated this is a new development within the school district and their
intent is to include this in all future subdivisions.
Commissioner Lukins questioned staff if this is the appropriate to discuss
impact fees or if this was a legislative decision for the City.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated this is the
appropriate decision point and is a related to the plat. The City does not have
impact fees for school facilities right now. The School District as a provider of
an important community service receives referrals about developments. They
have indicated that due to the overcapacity, which includes all of the Pasco
District Schools except for the High Schools, they do need to have mitigation
required with development that will produce new impacts on the school system.
They are requesting this through the SEPA process and through the state law
RCW 58.17 which requires the cities or counties to make findings that
appropriate public facilities are available to serve new development. So the
impact fee question itself is being addressed, a resolution of that will not occur
until maybe this time next year. It does involve an amendment not only to our
development ordinances but to our Comprehensive Plan and the Commission
knows that only happens once in any given calendar year.
Gene Batey, 9800 W. Maple Drive, stated the Commission might be as shocked
as he is regarding the impact fee. He started this process a few months ago and
has been to the City, as well as reviewed the website, to assess the fees
involved to complete a subdivision. It is nowhere on the website or in asking
the City do they tell you about this fee that he discovered the day before at 8:00
a.m. He has been in contact with the school however there have not been any
negotiations so far. He stated it is shocking that a developer or builder that is
responsible for those type of fees that the City is making this a requirement for
this plat. This is the first plat the City has done this on. If you come down and
want to build a home you are not required to pay this fee per lot, just on
development only. They are the people that are building infrastructure up for
the City and handing it over at no cost. He finds that portion of the
requirements rather ridiculous. These people that will be building homes will
he taxpayers for the school in the following year. Where he lives he doesn't even
pay half of that to the schools. He will negotiate with the school however he
finds it odd that the School District is dictating a requirement that the City is
imposing on him without putting it somewhere where I can look at this prior to
spending thousands of dollars to get to this in the plat process. He either will
walk away from this plat and lose thousands of dollars or finish the plat and be
lucky if he makes any money off of this. He is asking that the fee be removed
until the City and County can get with the School District and take care of this,
figure out a fee instead of imposing this on developers. This is not his "day" job,
he is doing this on the side to put his kids in college. He does not feel he needs
to make that happen between the School District and the City and County.
This should be negotiated and posted on the website and where everybody has
access to this prior to investing thousands of dollars and finding out right
before the meeting that it is fee is required.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf opened the public hearing.
Jeff Lynch, 3507 W. 361h Loop, represents and is a board member of the Tri-
Cities Homebuilders Association. He stated the impact fees are unfair they are
being proposed and he was unaware of the fee until this meeting. If you own a
home in Pasco and want to upgrade to this subdivision, you have already paid
school fees for 30 years and now you have to pay $6,000 just to buy a new
home. It does not wash. The Homebuilders Association has contributed 10% of
the goal for the Pasco School District to get the broad based levy passed to help
their plate. This is only a temporary situation because the homes will pay for
themselves and the taxes generated will pay for this overabundance of children
in this particular point in time. In the meantime, we need to do broad-based
taxes that everybody chips in and not just these 11 people. There is no
justification for these fees and they are imminently unfair.
John Morgan, 425 Road 37, Executive Director of the Pasco School District,
stated he visited with Mr. Batey on two different occasions and understands
his concerns. He stated they turned in this request to the City and County in
December for consideration of the impact fees. He attended a County Planning
Commission, and every development he is required as a district employee on
the Board to voice their concern that they do not have enough space for their
schools. The City and County collect impact fees and is not something new.
The Pasco School District has experienced 71% growth since the year 2000.
That's 600 students per year, 1 elementary school per year. If they raised
status quo that would work, however we are not in status quo time. We are the
fastest growing School District in the State of Washington, fastest growing
County, it isn't status quo, you can't do the same thing that has always been
done. For years when he was with the City of Richland they would receive
money from the federal government impact fees to help build the schools, we
don't get that. We have a low commercial base in the City of Pasco, we have a
large housing base. Richland and Kennewick have a large commercial base and
they receive more money. When more people move in they do not receive more
money. They have had taxpayers vote on levy's and just because more people
move in means it lowers what the people pay for that levy cost. They do not
receive more money as a school district. The cost to build schools is significant,
in a 50 year old elementary school the average cost would be $35,000 per
student if you wanted to mitigate that in a true mitigation form. To provide
schools for students for new housing the district will no longer rely on status
quo. The state law requires the City and County ensure there are adequate
provisions for school before the approval of any subdivision plats or multi-
housing developments. State law requires new developers mitigate the impacts
has on the built environment which includes schools. It can be satisfied three
ways, 1-the developments can be denied, 2-proposed developments can be
approved subject to conditions that require the mitigation of the impact, 3-City
or County can implement what is known as an impact fee. To most people
impact fees are the most fair of all, because mitigation fees are usually much
more expensive. The City and County collect impact fees for needed
infrastructure such as roads, in the Pasco Urban Area Park and Traffic fees are
collected. The School District has looked at a lot of options and are running a
bond. Districts traditionally having growth such as ours have often asked and
had impact fees imposed. In Pasco, the School District is calculating and
requesting from the City and County the possibility of impact fees.
Julie Woodbury, 1817 Road 80, stated she purchased her home in the fall of
2009 with intent to subdivide their 5-acre lot. Her reason for attending the
meeting was to see what the impact would be for her property value and if she
subdivided to half-acre to one-acre lots. She was interested in the quality of
homes would be built and what their covenants would be. The impact fees
proposed would throw a wrench in her future plans. She pays over $5,000 in
taxes on their property and a significant amount of that goes to the School
District. They also need to extend sewer to their property which costs more
money. When is the impact fee and how that will affect them. The School
District did not put in impact fees for AH4 homes or any of the large developers
whereas in small neighborhoods that are adding 10 or so homes it is a huge
cost. Are the proposed homes going to built by the applicant or are they going
to be contracted out and what the covenants would be.
Bill Hanson, 1600 Road 80, stated he resides across the street and loves the
sizes of the proposed lots and relocated from a 8,700 square foot lot and says
the new lot is heaven. When sewer was installed on Road 80 he dealt with dirt
issues, dirt in his pool, no water truck on the weekends, he used hoses and
paid for the use of water to control the dirt. He is concerned with the dust
control from the new development and has concerns about the rear yard not
being developed and are fences going up along Road 80 from the yard to the
church location. He also mentioned the "V" for storm water and was the biggest
mosquito nest he ever had. He has lived there for 14 years and for the past two
years there are mosquitoes everywhere.
Lynn Hall, 2216 Road 33, stated the School District mentioned a fee for this
applicant and did not mention a fee for the previous applicant who would
involve twice the number of kids for Mark Twain Elementary School. Why is
this not being asked of the previous applicant as they said they would. That
might have made a difference on the previous applicant. The City and the
School District spend money and are not being careful about spending. He
mentioned the new bond of renovating Stevens and this has happened in the
past, why don't the School District save up the money and build a new school.
There are schools that are not full to capacity, such as Captain Gray with a
love-density of students and the School District is padding their report to
support their demand for supporting schools. He does not agree that they
should assess every little subdivision for this extra money to build a new
school.
Commissioner Lukins questioned if the School District has authority to impose
a fee and they have asked County Commissioner and City Council to approve a
fee.
Mr. White stated that is correct.
Commissioner Lukins stated the fee has been proposed and not yet finalized.
Roger Lenk, 1817 Road 76, stated staff referred to the plats as vacant land and
they actually have homes on them. Neighbors along Road 72, 76, and 80 and
other adjoining streets are concerned of the method of development. The new
subdivisions are encapsulated into compact cul-de-sacs which provide ingress
and egress from a single point of the road. The occupants of these new compact
subdivisions are isolated from the noise and traffic from the many similar
subdivisions bringing up on substandard streets. Substandard streets with
new cul-de-sacs every other street. The mirror development on Ruby Court is
an unmitigated disaster. There are no conditions for concrete walls, or other
items which will prevent a similar situation. Cul-de-sacs near the main
entrance to the street is a recipe for at risk automobile accidents. Traffic and
children from the school will have a significant safety hazard. PMC 26.24.70
requires you make conclusions related to the following questions where you
will find input from local neighbors regarding those questions. Adequate
provisions are made for the public health, safety and general welfare and for
open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys and other public ways, water
supplies, sanitary waste, parks, playgrounds, transit stops, schools, sidewalks
for safe walking conditions for students and other public needs. There are no
sidewalks, the subdivision will be a significant safety risk in terms of traffic
onto a substandard street near a school and a church. It will cause significant
safety issues with ingress onto Court with a blind curve to the west. The
entrance to the nearby park is a half-mile away and requires additional walking
to the park and the entrance to the new newer park is closed for the majority of
the year and as a result children will play on the adjacent undeveloped
properties or in the street. The grassy swales utilized for drainage will turn out
to be like those on Court Street, in the winter it will be a hazardous skating
rink. The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision and the answer is no. In terms of traffic onto a substandard street,
near a school and church, established residents will be punished with noise
and traffic whereas the new residents of the proposed subdivision will be
immune from these impacts. Fewer numbers must be permitted, no more than
two cul-de-sacs should be permitted within a single block and not within 1,000
feet of each other, or within 1,000 feet of a cross street such as Court. Based
on the above local neighbors recommend against approval of MF#PP201 1-001.
David Meyers, 1621 Road 80, stated he is trying to sell his house and the
adjacent lots and it is too large and won't sell as one piece. Mr. Lenk raised
concerns, there are water, sewer, irrigation, he rides the bus and walks 300
feet to catch the bus. There is adequate access to schools and finds that the
$6,000 proposal is obscene and ridiculous. It is not in effect yet and putting in
as a condition as a rule is a bit premature.
Mr. Morgan stated he did not pad any of their enrollment figures. In the report
it states the Captain Gray Early Learning Center is not at capacity at this time.
That freed up 12 classrooms that were already filled up at city schools by
refurbishing that into an early learning center.
Mr. Batey stated in speaking with the School District and in reading the WAC
mentioned he is not a lawyer but he says it states they can ask for this if they
have not made provisions. He mentioned an article from public records in
Franklin County that basically states the School District is more specifically
that the above described funding mechanisms to allow the School District in
2011 the ability to make appropriate provisions by placing new modified
portables for the following schools: Longfellow, Robinson, Captain Gray,
Whittier, Ochoa and McLaughlin. He stated they are double dipping and they
are already making provisions with the bond. He does not have a problem with
paying for his children to go to school, he has lived in Pasco all his life. To
impose this without making the public aware and it was stated earlier that this
is not passed and in speaking with individuals at the City it is as standard and
is going to stick. At 3:30 earlier today the City Manager stated this is law and
they are going to hold it up. He does not see how that can happen when they
are making provisions for growth and are about eight years late on this fee.
AHO developments that contain 100's of homes and this development is only
for 10 homes. To address the remark concerning dust control, they will make
all provisions for dust control. This is not passed by the City Council and
wants to know if this requirement will be stricken from this.
Commissioner Lukins stated this is not a requirement right now and Mr.
Morgan sent the letter to the City asking to impose impact fees. They are
looking at it from the RCW and decide whether the plat will move forward with
adequate provisions. The fee itself they have no say, that is other Councils
other Commissions.
Mr. White stated he did not want the applicant to leave with the wrong
impression. The fee is not in place right now and if you have an existing lot,
such as the comment made earlier regarding the rezone the Commission
considered, it does not apply to the rezone because they are not platting. If I
have an existing lot I am not going to pay anything and will not come in front of
the Commission because building a single home is exempt from SEPA and from
platting requirements if the lot's existing. The School District has chosen to use
the SEPA process and the findings in state law and are within their rights to
do, to identify that mitigation is needed because a new development will have
new impacts on the school system. So even though there not an impact fee
ordinance in place they are asking that the Planning Commission, Council and
the Franklin County Planning Commission to approve mitigation in the form of
a fee per lot. It won't be stricken from the record just because there is not an
existing impact fee but will take a conscious decision from City Council.
Dennis Poland, 199864 E. Gamefarm Road, Kennewick, stated it is ironic that
the Commission and City Council wanted growth and they did everything they
could to bring growth and now they want money. He is not saying stop growth,
they just need money. He mentioned Las Vegas is closing schools because they
were the fastest growing city in the world came to a screeching halt. He
mentioned the economy going up and down, Hanford changes, creates an
exodus of people and homes left. It does not say that children would reside in
these houses, they could contain 10 children or a couple. He is in favor of
approving however does not feel taxing should occur and should he stricken.
Commissioner Greenaway stated her husband knows the owner of this lot and
has never met the owner personally and would recuse herself if requested.
Vice-Chairwoman Kempf noted there were no requests.
Mr. White stated this is an unusual circumstance and if the Commission feels
comfortable to continue the public hearing to consider any additional
information.
Commissioner Hay stated he is in favor of continuing the hearing since he is
not satisfied with the $6,000 impact fee per lot.
Commissioner Gemig questioned if they approve the lot are they approving...
Mr. White stated they are not approving anything tonight, however continuing
the hearing will allow the applicant to discuss and provide additional
information to consider.
Commissioner Lukins stated it is noted that the tentative plat approval
condition number 18 is to actually agree to approve this impact fee where City
Council would consider for approval.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Gemig, to
continue the public hearing to the April Planning Commission meeting. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Lukins asked staff for comparison data where other cities who
have experienced growth similar to the City of Pasco.
Mr. White stated the Association of Washington Cities has information readily
available however an impact fee to be analyzed would be difficult.
Commissioner Lukins called for other situations such as lessons learned from
other cities.
Mr. White stated there is a lot of information out there and staff will try.
Reference 5 - Planning Commission
Minutes dated April 28, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4/28/11
E. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat approval for_ _Ranger
Heights, an 11-lots subdivision located at
1621 Road 80 (Basswood, LLCI (MF# PP
2011-0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Jeff Adams, Associate Planner indicated that at the hearing in March there
were some questions raised about the School District requesting the developer
enter into a voluntary agreement for the imposition of impact fees. Mr. Adams
indicated the School District has withdrawn the request for impact fees on the
proposed plat.
Chairman Cruz opened the public hearing for additional public comment,
Roger Lenk, 1817 N Road 72, was present to speak in opposition to the
proposed plat. Mr. Lenk made a number of comments related to the lack of
classroom space available in local schools and read a portion of the previous
letter the School District provided explaining the same. Mr. Lenk stated the
public would be negatively impacted if the plat was approved.
Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director indicated the City
was not in the business of providing educational services and defers to the
School District to comment on those needs. It was pointed out again that the
School District withdrew their request for impact fees for any plat submitted
prior to April 1, 2011. Mr. White also pointed out the School District is in the
process of installing portable classrooms at Livingston and McLouglin.
Gene Batey, 9800 Maple Drive, Stated he understands the School District has
difficulties but it is hard to tell if the future buyers of lots within the proposed
plat will have school children or whether of not they will move from other parts
of town.
Commissioner Greenaway stated she understood the School District capacity
problems but there was no way of knowing if only retired people would move in
or if existing families are just changing homes.
Chaiiman Cruz indicated he thought there should be some policy direction
before impact fees are required.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 28, 2011
staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hay further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based
on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted, that the Planning
Commission recommend City Council approve a Preliminary Plat for Ranger
Heights Subdivision with the conditions as listed in the April 28, 2011 staff
report. The motion passed unanimously.
The appeal process was briefly explained by staff for the benefit of the
audience.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council May 11, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi Manager Regular Mtg.: 5/I6/11
FROM: Rick White, �.
Community & Economic Development Director.
SUBJECT: Authorization of Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Grant Avolications
HAEIFC
I. REFERENCE(S):
I. HAEFIC Grant Program Description
2, Grant Application for the sewer pump station
3. Grant Application for technical assistance
4. Proposed Resolution
I1. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/16: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , authorizing the
submittal of HAEIFC Grant applications for partial funding of
a sewer pump station and technical assistance for the
Downtown Pasco Development Authority.
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
Estimated $200,000 to the Sewer Fund and $30,000 to $40,000 to the Industrial
Development and Infrastructure Fund.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF;
A. The HAEFIC grant program can provide funding for up to $100,000 per entity
(City of Pasco and the DPDA) for eligible activities. The focus of the HAEFIC
grant program is to create primary jobs and business expansion that help diversify
the local economy.
B. The City has discussed the possibility of providing municipal water and sewer for
the expansion of an agricultural product processing plant located on the north side
of US 12 near the Kahlotus Highway. That discussion involved the necessity of
the plant annexing to the City, and the City and the plant owners coming to an
agreement that would enable pretreatment of the processing water to the extent it
could be accepted by the City's sewer plant. As part of this agreement, it is
anticipated that a sewer pump station would need to be built for the plant
expansion and also as an area - wide benefit for location and expansion of
industries and businesses in this vicinity.
C. The City is also in the process of appointing Board members to the Downtown
Pasco Development Authority (DPDA), which is expected to have their first
organizational meeting in early June. It is expected that the DPDA Board will
need technical assistance to begin the process of strategic planning for the
Downtown area including: business owner involvement, infrastructure and
property condition inventories, lease agreements, and development of marketing,
promotion and advertising strategies.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. There is no match requirement for the City in the submittal for the sewer pump
station, although it is estimated that the maximum grant of 5100,000 will pay for
one third of the total cost of the station.
B. The grant application for technical assistance for the DPDA will require a one to
one match with City funds.
C. The deadline for grant submittal is May 24, 2011. and HAEFIC requires an
authorizing resolution to accompany the grant applications.
D. Staff requests Council approval of the proposed resolution.
8(9)
Reference 1 - HAEFIC Grant Program
Description
Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Public Grant Program
Grant Criteria: The Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund Committee's (HAEIFC)grant program serves as a catalyst for private capital
investment and new job creation. Projects eligible for grant application are those projects that focus on creating primary jobs and that
encourage new development and business expansion in targeted industry sectors that diversify the economy in Benton and Franklin
Counties. Although no specific match is required,applications containing matching funds,particularly those in cash,will receive preference.
Operational expenses and political expenses are not eligible for this grant program.
Grant applications will be accepted up to two times per year for up to$100,000 per entity per calendar year from the following entities in
Benton and Frankiin Counties:
• Counties - Special purpose districts(e.g.,public utility districts)
• Cilia$ . Municipal corporation and quasi-municipal corporations with economic
• Towns development purposes(e.g.,public development authorities)
• Port Districts
Examples of eligible projects include:
Bridges Natural Gas Sanitary Sewer
Electricity Port f=acilities Storm Sewer
Domestic and Industrial Water Railroad Spurs Telecommunications
General Purpose Ind.Buildings Roads Tourism Infrastructure
Applicants are required to clearly demonstrate sufficient public benefit as a result of receipt of a grant.Public benefit is defined as the creation
of at least one full-time equivalent job within 5 years of the grant receipt, per$50,000 of HAEIFC grant funds used. Preference is given to the
creation of primary jobs,which are defined as positions that are involved in the production of products,and/or services that bring new money
into the community as opposed to those that re-circulate money within the community(e.g., retail or restaurant sales).These are preferred to
be"living wage"jabs with benefits.
Grant Procedures
First Stage: Entities desiring to particfpate in the program should contact the HAEIFC loan and grant consultant. The consultant will explain
the grant program and,if it is determined that the applicant may qualify for financing, the applicant may proceed to complete the application.
The application form may be requested from the consultant or may be obtained from the HAEIFC website.
Second Stage: Once the application is received by HAEIFC,the Grant Review Committee wilt review the application and make
recommendations to HAEIFC,which makes the final decision.The applicant will be notified in writing of the HAEIFC decision.
Third Stage: If the grant is approved,the applicant will meet with HAEIFC consultant(s)to review the terms and conditions of the grant and
review the procedure that will lead to document signing and disbursal procedures.Additional information may be requested at that time. Upon
receipt of all requested information,a closing date will be set and grant documents will be prepared. The applicant will be informed of the
reporting requirements to occur after the disbursal of funds. HAEIFC will request progress reports from the grant recipient including
demonstration of approved use of project funds,milestone completion,and job creation.
Grant Applicants: Below is the review worksheet used to evaluate grant applications;it is provided for information only;do not submit it with your application.
HAEIFC Grant Application Review Worksheet
-FOR HAEIFC INTERNAL USE ONY-
Agency
Project
WEIGHT CRITERIA POINTS
10 Completeness of Grant Application Package
20 Number of Ion -term jobs created or retained
20 Ratio cf long-term jobs created or retained to the total cost of the project
20 Nature of jobs created
24 1 Project supports the location of new industry or supports the ex ansioniretention of an existing Industry in the region
20 Level and aval[abl[ity of matching funds
15 Project planrilng and engineering is complete
15 Proect is necessary to support other nigh priority projects or demonstrates a regional partnership
15 Project addresses policies1pri oriles of HAEIFC
155 TOTAL POINTS FOR PROJECT
4
Reference 2 - Grant Application
for the sewer pump station
r
HANFORD AREA ECONOMIC INVESTMENT FUND
INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT APPLICATION
Please provide complete and concise responses to the issues listed on this two-page application. You may expand or collapse the fields
under each question as needed for your responses but the entire application,including any attachments, may not exceed four pages.
Government Applicant City of Pasco
Contact Person: Rick White Title: Community and Economic Development Director
Telephone: 509.545.3441 E-mail:whiterpasco-wa.4ov
Address: 525 N. 3,d Avenue
Project Title Ka lotus Highway Sewer Pump station
1. Project Description: A lift station at SR 12 and the Kahlotus Highway to provide sewer service along the US 12 Highway
coni or.
2. Project Status: Start Date: September 2011 Completion Date:January 2012
❑ Concept stage ® Planning complete ❑ Engineering complete
Explanation: Existing agricultural product processors will expand if the process water can be pretreated so it can be
sent to the city's sewer treatment plant„ and redevelopment in this area is hindered by the lack of sewer service.
3. Project Funding: Total Project Cost: $330,000 Grant requested: $100,0Q0
List all anticipated sources of funds (not including HAEIFC) and indicate if the funds have been committed, for each
source:
Source Funds Committed?
City's Sewer Utility X Yes ❑No
❑Yes ❑No
❑ Yes ❑No
❑ Yes ❑No
❑ Yes ❑%
❑Yes ❑Na
❑ Yes ❑No
List all anticipated uses of funds; Engineering and construction of the pump station.
4. Project Matching Funds—Available; $230,000 * Not Available; $ Source; City Sewer Utility
'Attach letter of commitment
5. Please provide a detailed description of the scope of work for the project including specific construction components, if
applicable.
The ro'ect involves construction of a pump station and associated pipinc to enable a -gravity flow sewer system from the
area to feed a force main to the City's sewer treatment plant
PROJECT IMPACT
1. Explain hot;the project addresses regional and local economic development priorities;
A concerted and successful effort yeas made to establish an industry cluster related to food production and processing in
Pasco. "Value Added Agriculture Products and Processes" (VAAPP) is a designated target of TRIDEC's industrial
recruitment efforts. This industry cluster in this area has proven locational advantages for private sector investment, and
the additional sewage caUcjt y to ether with the existirg n im-proved transportation system co nues to
industry and commercial interests market based advantages in production and distribution,
2. How does the project support the location of new industry in your community or region and /or expand existing industry?
Describe targeted industry sector:
New industry needs sewer service. The project will also free up lands for new commercial development within the
footprint for the new SR 121Tank Farm interchange. There is a strong and growing food industry in this region located on
both sides of SR 395 and the north side of SR 12. The expansion of sewer capabilities will leverage existing public and
private investments for this industry sector and allow its expansion to continue. The food growing and processing indust
is considered "recession proof"and has continued to grow in all economic cycles
3. How does the project support other high priority project(s) and/or economic strategies in your community or region?
This application leverages significant public investment in transportation facilities and utilities with the successful
development of the Pasco Processing Center, the largest manufacturing 'ob creator over the past quarter century in
Franklin County. Support of this industry cluster is key to the future of the Tri-Cities, Capital investments in this industry
cluster continue to improve and enhance recent success of these industries. The project for the sewer pump station will
allow primary and secondary businesses to locate in this region.
4. Employment Impact: Provide an estimate of the number and type of jobs created both long term and short term and
describe what company or industries will be creating the jobs. Describe the number and type of jobs retained, if
applicable. Minimurn of 1 FTE job witi.in 5 years for each 550,000 in HAEIF grant,
Estimated 10 shoe term lobs for constriction and 50 — 1 C 'obs created by expansion of an exis*.ing agriculture product
processing pant.
5. Impact on Private Capital Investment: Describe the impact of industries anticipated to expand or locate following project
completion, Include company name (or type of industry/business)and the timing of investment.
Construction of the pump station is expected to enable an existing agriculture processing plant to double shift and
increase production capability at I�asj W-fold, Investment in expansion is expected within 2-3 nears
z
6. Briefly describe the applicant's capability to administer, implement and attract private sector investments to the project.
The_Q of_Pasco has demonstrated capacity to com2lete economic develo _m_ent Eraiects timely and successfully. "The
Pasco Processing Center", aided by an EDA grant for sewer lines in 1995, successfully attracted more than $75,000,000
in private investment capital within its first 5 years and now contains more than $130,000,000 of investment and nearly
1,100 lobs.
Attach resolution authorizing this application.
Declaration' I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THIS APPLICATION TO THE HANFORD AREA ECONOMIC
INVESTMENT FUND COMMITTEE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
Rick White, Director
Community ant Economic Developrrent
3
Reference 3 - Grant Application
for technical assistance
HANFORD AREA ECONOMIC INVESTMENT FUND
INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT APPLICATION
Please provide complete and concise responses to the issues listed on this two-page application, You may expand or collapse the fields
under each question as needed for your responses but the entire application,including any attachments,may not exceed four pages.
Government Applicant Downtown Pasco Development Authority?(DPDL
Contact Person. Rick White Title, Community and Economic Development Director
Telephone: 509.545.3441 E-mail, whiterpasco-wa,g<ov
Address: 525 N, 310 Avenue, Pasco,99301
Project Title Downtown Pasco Technical Assistance
1. Project Description: Technical assistanc2 grant to begin strategics planning effort for downtown revitalization
2. Project Status: Start Date: October 2011 Completion Date: January 2012
® Concept stage ❑ Planning complete ❑ Engineering complete
Explanation: The DPDA is a new public corp[araticn a ainted by the Pasco City.Council. The Development Authority has
broad powers to undertake a variety of tasks and measures associated with community renewal and revitalization. Their
charter includes the primary purposes of increasing private investment, creating lobs and increasing the economic vitality of
downtown Pasco.
3. Project Funding; Total Project Cost: $70,000 Grant requested: $35,000
List all anticipated sources of funds (not including HAEIFC)and indicate if the funds have been committed, fcr each
source:
Source Funds Committed?
Pasco Industrial Development and Infrastructure Fund ®Yes ❑No
❑Yes ❑No
❑ Yes ❑No
❑ Yes ❑No
❑ Yes ❑Nc
Yes ❑%
❑ Yes []No
i
List all anticipated uses of funds: The funds will be used to hire professional assistance_ to develop the prima�r
components for a strafe�ic revitalization and Investment plan for the Pasco downtown.
4. Project Matching Funds—Available:$35,00T Not Available: $Source: Industrial Development and Infrastructure Fund
"Attach letter of commitment
5. Please provide a detailed description of the scope of work for the project including specific construction components, if
applicable. The Professional will work with-the newly appointed DPDA Board and Executive Director to develog, and
implement methods of involving downtown property owners and businesses in promotional and revitalization efforts
completinq a Physical cudition invento of Downtown Pasco infrastrucLUre and property n i i ns comoleting an
inventory of available properties and buildings, assessing and developing the opportunities to partner with the Pasco
Chamber of Commerce and Columbia Basin College for business education and trainincfor Downtown businesses and
creating} a strategy for broad based area marketing and advertising_
PROJECTIMPACT
1. Explain how the project addresses regional and local economic development priorities:
The Pasco Downtown serves as a regional center for the demand goods and services that particuiariv serve areas of
Pasco located east of US 395. There is a population base of low to moderate income families that comprise the majority
of the population in this area. The Tri•Cities Consolidated Plan for the Pasco Kennewick and Richland provide for
the Goal of"Improving Local Economies"by the followin tCatd.Q-s
Strategy 1. Support businesses that crate permanent jobs for lower-income residents.
Strategy 2. Support businesses that provide essential services to lower-income neighborhoods.
Strategy 3. Support businesses that provide stability to at-risk areas or to areas with existing conditions of degradation
and/or blight.
Strategy 4. Support activities that improve the skills of the local workforce and prepare lower-income and special needs
workers for access to living wage jobs.
Strategy 5. Support facilities, infrastructure, or other eligible improvements that create living wage jobs and that need
economic development assistance by virtue of their qualifying physical, environmental, economic, or demographic
conditions.
2. How does the project support the location of new industry in your community or region and !or expand existing industry?
Describe targeted industry sector
The Downtown was the community retail center until the 1960's.As in manLother communities throughout the region and
nationally, that retail center declined in economic importance in the 1970's and the MO's due to a variety of issues
including decentralization of population, emergence of new forms of retail including shopping malls,deferred maintenance
in older properties, and lack of effective resources for coordinated initiatives for Downtown organization, design,
promotion and economic restructuring. However, in recent years the effects of significant population growth in Pasco —
particular in the Hispanic population - has resulted in the emergence of Downtown Pasco as a regional center for
Provision of ctoods and services. The Proposal hopes to take advantage of this momentum and build on efforts to leverage
this recent private investment trend with an overall strategy and investment plan developed by a public corporation
charged with revitalization. In addition, an important community partner — Columbia Basin College — has devoted a
significant effort at business education for the Pasco Downtown and has developed a business education Program that
was launched last year and will continue for 2011 and 2012.
3. How does the project support other high priority project(s) and/or economic strategies in your community or region?
2
The City is interested in oQt1mizinq the use of its properties located Downtown in an effort to provide focused
management in a manner that helps realize important City policies and purposes. The City is also interested in actively
encouraging maintenance reinvestment and development cf Downtown area properties by other property owners and by
businesses, public or non-profit crganizations and residents as occupants. The City has determined that the creation of a
oublic corporation iDPDA'i as an independent legal ent111V to undertake specific projects is the best_means to accomplish
the City's management and revitalization goals, including serving as a recipient of public funds from City, state and
federal sources to,aether with private funds for ur oses as determined by the DPDA.
4. Employment Impact: Provide an estimate of the number and type of jobs created both long term and short term and
describe what company or industries will be creating the jobs. Describe the number and type of jobs retained, if
applicable. Minimum of 1 FTE job within 5 years for each$50,000 in HAEIF grant.
I; is estimated that a revitaliza'ion effort from the DPDA will create a minimum 10 lobs within the next 5 year period. It is
expected thal ob creal:on.will be initiated by_whotesale and retail trade and services_
5. Impact on Private Capital Investment: Describe the impact of industries anticipated to expand or locate following project
w.mpleticn. Include company name (or type of industrylpus;ness)and the timing of investment,
The DPDA expects that 'he amount of vacant storefronts in the immediate downtown district will be reduced. a
successful con ruaticn cf'he City's Fnade Improvement Program will result in improved storefronts and street appeal,
a phased strategic investment plan for iMprovingpublic infrastructure vrill be developed an� there will be a direct
recognized increase I n trade from a comprehensive adve.tising and marketing program.
6. Briefly describe the applicant's capability to administer, implement and attract private sectcr investments to the project.
The ability' to manage a grant funded program as described is tyoical resoonsibiliV of mWnici,paiities an ublic
b
corporations. In this case, significant oversiqht of the DPDA's efforts can be accomplished the he City of Pasco.
Attach resolution authorizing this application.
Declaration: 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THIS APPLICATION TO THE
HANFORD AREA ECONOMIC INVESTMENT FUND COMMITTEE IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
Rick White, Director
Community& Economic Development
3
Reference 4 - Proposed Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A HANFORD AREA
ECONOMIC INVESTMENT FUND GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A SEWER PUMP STATION AND TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE FOR THE DOWNTWON PASCO DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.
WHEREAS, the city has a long standing goal of increasing industrial development as an
expansion of the local tax base; and
WHEREAS, establishing the most effective organizational structure for downtown
revitalization is a Council goal; and
WHEREAS, the HAEFIC Grant Program provides an opportunity to help achieve both
of these goals; NOW THEREFORE;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PASCO:
That authorization to submit HAEFIC applications for the May 2011 cycle for construction of a
sewer pump station on the north side of US 12 and technical assistance for the Downtown Pasco
Development Authority is granted.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 16th day of May, 2011.
CITY OF PASCO:
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark Leland B, Kerr
CMC City Clerk City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council May 12, 2011
FROM: Gary Crutchl k Manager Regular Mtg.: 5/16111
SUBJECT: Appointment o� Municipal Court Judge
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Resolution
'. Contractual Agreement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/16 MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. confirming
the City Manager's appointment of David L. Petersen as Municipal
Court Judge,
III. FISCAL IMPACT-
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The City has long operated its own municipal court, in accordance with RCW
Chapter 3.50. State law requires a Municipal Court fudge to be appointed to four-
year terms, subject to confirmation of the City Council.
V. DISCUSSION-
A) The recent retirement decision of Municipal Court Judge Mary Berndt Ramirez
leaves the position vacant and an unexpired term to fill. Staff has solicited interest
in the position from attorneys throughout the Tri-Cities. After screening nine
candidates and interviewing four, the City Manager recommends appointment of
David L, Petersen.
B) Mr. Petersen is well-acquainted with Pasco Municipal Court, as he has been a
regular pro tern judge there for the past 11 years and was the unanimous preference
by the screening/interviewing committee. Mr. Petersen has concurred in the
contractual agreement and is prepared to modify his private practice upon
appointment to accommodate the requirements of the Municipal Court Judge
appointment, effective June 1, 2011.
8(h)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION confirming appointment of David L, Petersen as Pasco
Municipal Court Judge.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco operates a Municipal Court governed by Chapter 3.50
RCW; and
WHEREAS, operation of the Pasco Municipal Court is an important matter to the
citizens of Pasco and its local government; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Court Judge Mary Berndt Ramirez, appointed to a four-year
term in January 2010, recently retired, leaving an unexpired term to be filled by appointment;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined to appoint David L. Petersen as
Municipal Court Judge to complete the unexpired term, fixed to expire December 31, 2013;
:VOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The appointment of David L. Petersen as Pasco Municipal Court Judge is
hereby confirmed to complete the current Municipal Court Judge term to expire December 31,
2013.
PASSEL) by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting dated this 16`x'
day of May, 2011.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR
MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the City of Pasco, Washington, a
Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City," and David L. Petersen. Attorney-at-Law,
Hereinafter referred to as "Judge," for the purpose of employment as a Municipal Court Judge for the
City of Pasco Municipal Court.
WHEREAS, the City has established by Ordinance a Municipal Court as authorized by
Chapter 3.50 the Revised Code of Washington, having jurisdiction to exercise all powers vested in
Municipal Courts, together with such other powers and jurisdiction as are generally conferred upon
such Courts in the State of Washington, either by common law or by express statute or Ordinance;
and
WHEREAS, Judge has qualified to serve as Municipal Judge and desires to do so as a part-
time employee of City; NOW, THEREFORE,
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. Duties. Judge shall serve as Municipal Court Judge for the City. Judge shall:
A. Court Administration. Judge shall supervise the Court staff, and shall make
or be responsible for all the administrative decisions regarding operation of the Court in
conformance with State iaw and Pasco Municipal Code. Judge shall recommend personnel
policies for Municipal Court administration, and shall make recommendations for the hiring,
discipline and termination of employees. Administration of Court personnel shall be in
conformance with the City policies and with the concurrence of the City Manager.
Administration ofthe Court financial or budgetary functions shall be in conformance with the
City policies and standard accounting practices, BARS and JIS, and with the concurrence of
the City financial Services Manager,
B. Adiudication. Judge shall be available, consistently and punctually, to
adjudicate all Municipal litigation on the dockets as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference. Designation and scheduling of dockets may be
amended from time to time upon mutual written agreement of the parties. All dockets shall
continue until scheduled cases for that docket are adjudicated or continued.
In addition, non-docket hours shall be performed as may be necessary to review and provide
appropriate direction to staff on correspondence, accomplish research, case review,
telephonic issued warrants and orders, and Court administration up to a combined (docket
and non-docket) maximum of thirty (30) hours per week. Should these activities or
administration demands of the Court require more than thirty (30) hours in any week, Judge
shall not be entitled to additional compensation from the City.
C, Judicial Conduct. Judge shall maintain a judicious demeanor fostering
respect for the Bench, fulfill continuing legal or judicial education requirements (no less than
half of which shall consist of training in criminal law and procedure), and shall comply with
the Code of Judicial Conduct.
2. Inter-Department Cooperation. Judge shall endeavor to administer the Court at all
times so as to comply with any reasonable requests of any other municipal department, or the
executive or legislative branches of City government, so long as such compliance does not impair the
necessary independence of the Court. Judge will comply with written directives from the Mayor
and/or City Manager which apply to administrative and financial matters; such directives will not
apply to judicial issues.
3. Leinth of Term. Unless earlier terminated as provided below, the term of
employment shall commence on June 1, 2011 through December 31, 2013.
4. Salary. Judge shall be paid S yq,000 per year, commencing June 1, 2011,
subject to applicable payroll taxes and deductions. Salary shall be payable in accordance with the
City's planned payment schedule. The annual salary may be adjusted annually during the budgeting
process and subject to the annual cost of living adjustments, if any, as fixed by action of the City
Council. This is an exempt salary position and Judge wi 11 not be entitled to payment for overtime,
5. Holiday. The Court will not be in session during Washington State's statutory Court
holidays. Judge shall receive payment for holidays, credited at the rate of b hours per holiday.
b. Pro Tern, Judges. In addition to the schedule as provided in Section 1 above, the use
of Pro Tern Judges may be necessary due to Judge's absence from regularly scheduled dockets.
Payment for such usage shall be made from that sum budgeted for pro tem services.
In the event a pro tem is used because of a conflict of interest on Judge's part or because of the filing
of an Affidavit of Prejudice, the item shall be placed on the pro tern docket, however, Judge shall not
be excused from fulfilling any other administrative or calendared duties required of his office.
In the event that Judge is not able to fulfill his judicial and/or administrative duties due to suspension
by the Washington State Commission on Judicial Conduct, such time period shall be considered
leave without pay and City may use pro-tem services pending completion of the suspension. The
City reserves the right to place Judge on administrative leave, with or without pay, and use pro-tern
services pending completion of an investigation by the Commission.
7. City Employment Benefits. Judge shall be entitled to the following City benefits:
A. Vacation leave accrued at the rate of 5.54 hours per bi-weekly pay period,
13. Sick leave accrued at the rate of 2.78 hours per bi-weekly pay period.
Vacation or sick leave taken during regularly scheduled dockets (and requiring the use of a
Pro 'f em Judge) will be deducted from Judge's leave bank, Leave shall be scheduled to the
extent possible around established dockets.
C. Civil and bereavement leave may be taken per City policy.
D. Medical, dental, vision and accidentai death and dismemberment insurance,
as available to City department directors.
E. Life Insurance. The City shall provide life insurance in the amount as
available to City department directors.
Personal Services Agreement— Municipal Court Judge
Page 2
1:,, Participation in the Washington State Public Employees (PERS) Retirement
System.
S. Termination of Emii1ovment. The City may immediately terminate Judge's
employment for cause as set forth in RCW 3.50,095, For the purpose of this Agreement, the failure
of Judge to perform the duties provided in Section I above, shall constitute misconduct or
malfeasance in office. Judge may terminate his employment by giving sixty (60) days written notice
of intent to terminate. If employment is terminated during a month, Judge shall receive a pro rata
amount of salary for that portion of the month before the effective date of termination.
9. General Provisions.
A. For the purpose of this Agreement, time is of the essence with respect to the
performance of any ofthe provisions hereof,
R. Dispute Resolution. In the event of a dispute regarding the breach,
interpretation, or enforcement of this Agreement, Judge and the City Manager of the City of
Pasco shall meet in an attempt to settle such dispute. Any disputes remaining unresolved
following such meeting shall be litigated in the Franklin County Superior Court, and the
prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and costs as additional
judgment against the other.
C. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between the parties with
respect to the subject matter hereof. All prior negotiations, agreements, representations,
warranties or other matters of like or any other nature shall be of no further force or effect or
superseded by this written Agreement. Notwithstanding any course of dealing to the
contrary, this Agreement shall not be amended or modified in any manner other than by an
instrument in writing, signed by all parties.
CITY OF PASCO
Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Date
MUNICIPAL COURT .JUDGE
David L. Petersen Date
Personal Set-vices Agreement— Municipal Court Judge
Page 3
Exhibit "A"
Pasco Municipal Court- Docket Schedule- Start Times*
Day Start Time Docket**
Monday 9:00 a.m. Mitigation, Pre-hearing Conferences,
Contested Hearings and Arraignments
1:45 p.m. Pretrial and Arraignments
Tuesday 9:00 a.m. Pretrial and Compliance
1:45 p.m. Arraignments and Settlement Conferences
Wednesday 9:00 a.m. Jury Trials
(even days) 1 :45 p.m. Jury Trials
Wednesday 9:30a.m.*** Pro tem docket
(odd days) ***Judge may be needed for In-Custody Arraignments
Thursday 9:30 a.m. In-Custody Arraignments (if needed)
Friday 9:30 a.m. Motion Docket (even days)
Trial Readiness (odd days)
* Typical start time on the bench. Court scheduled times should be listed as earlier to
accommodate pre-court preparation.
** In custody arraignments may be required on any court day. Additional items may be added to
an), docket,
Start times may vary due to specific circumstances, jail schedules, etc. The intent of this
exhibit is to provide for consistent and reliable start times, as much as possible, to insure
efficiency and economy for the court and all participants.
Personal Services Agreement - Municipal Court Judge
Page 4
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council ll May 11, 2011
FROM; Gary Crutchfic Manager Regular Mtg,: 5116111
SUBJECT: Downtown Pasco Development Authority Board Appointments
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Applications (5) (Council packets only)
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5116: 1 move to confirm the Mayor's appointment of
to the Downtown Pasco Development Authority Board,
II1. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) City Council formed the Downtown Development Authority in December 2010
under Ordinance No. 39$5. to initiate the creation of a new downtown
revitalization organization. The Pasco Downtown Development Association
(private association) representatives agreed to keep its basic operations in place
(particularly for the farmers market and specialty kitchen) pending the startup of
the new organization.
B) Applications have been solicited for consideration of appointment to the new
board of directors (nine seats), emphasizing those individuals with a real property
or business interest in the downtown area. A total of 16 applications were
received and each was then asked to provide a written response to three questions
regarding downtown Pasco. Once received, the applications and letters were
reviewed by the screening committee (Mayor Watkins and Councilmembers
Martinez and Yenney) to identify those recommended for interview.
C) As the application/screening process has consumed much more time than
originally contemplated, it is important that the board appointments be made as
soon as possible and the corporation's work program initiated. In particular, it is
imperative that the recruitment of a full-time director be initiated; that work
cannot happen until the board takes action to authorize it, The city attorney
advises that a board composed of at least five members is sufficient to initiate and
conduct business of the corporation.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The screening committee recommends five of the current applicants be
interviewed; the respective applications and response letters are attached for
Council review. To fill the remaining seats, the screening committee recommends
another round of applications be solicited, without the caveat that individuals have
a property or business interest in downtown.
10(a)
AGENDA REPORT NO. 6
FOR: City Council 1 May 3, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi`
FROM: Ahmad Qayounpi, Public Works Director Regular Mtg.: 05/16/11
SUBJECT: Award 3`d Avenue and Pearl Street improvements
1. IZEFERENCE(S):
1. Bid Summary
IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
05116: MOTION: I :nave to ratify the City Manager's award of the 3`d Avenue
and Pearl Street Improvements project to A&B Asphalt, Inc. in
the amount of$54,350.61.
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
Arterial Street Fund
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF,.
A) On April 29, 2011, staff received two (2) bids for the 3rd Avenue and Pearl Street
Improvements project. The low bid was received from A&B Asphalt, Inc. in the
amount of$54,350.61. The second lowest bid was received from Inland Asphalt,
Inc. in the amount of$58,888.88. The engineer's estimate is $65,000.00.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) This project involves the installation of HMA paving, curb and gutter, and
extruded curb.
Staff requests ratification of the contract award to A&B Asphalt, Inc.
io(b)
City of Pasco
3rd Avenue and Pearl Street
Improvements
April 29, 2011
BID SUMMARY
Total
1. A&B Asphalt, Inc. $54,350.61
2. Inland Asphalt $58,888.88
Engineer's Estimate $65,000.00