Loading...
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