HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010.04.05 Council Meeting Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. April 5,2010
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) fledge 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 he 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 March 15, 2010.
(b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance
Manager's office.)
1. To approve General Claims in the amount of $3,882,85184 ($195,666.50 in the form of
Wire Transfer Nos. 5434, 5437, 5442 and 5445; $78,764.21 in the form of Electronic Fund
Transfer No. 1014; and $3,608,423.13 consisting of Claim Warrants numbered 176121
through 176429).
2. To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of $1,812,001.90, Voucher Nos. 40813 through
40881; and EFT Deposit Nos. 30036273 through 30036816.
(c) Appointments to Code Enforcement Board: (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA)
To appoint Donald Cooper to Position No. 3, and to reappoint Dennis Duncan to Position No. 4
and Mary Gutierrez to Position No. 5 (all with the expiration date of 1/1/2012) to the Code
Enforcement Board.
*(d) Final Plat(MF#FP10-004)Linda Loviisa Division 2,Phase 1 (Aho Construction):
1. Agenda Report from David I.McDonald,City Planner dated March 30,2010.
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 hti:p://www.pasco-
wa.t*ov/webat?�?/cit�•cou�ilrc�twrts).
To approve the Final Plat for Linda Loviisa Division 2, Phase 1.
*(e) Resolution No. 3223, a Resolution fixing the time and date for a public hearing to consider the
vacation of Road 86.
1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald,City Planner dated March 30, 2010.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Resolution.
4. Vacation Petition.
To approve Resolution No. 3223, setting 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 3, 2010 as the time and date to
conduct a public hearing to consider vacating Road 86.
*(f) Resolution No. 3224, a Resolution fixing the time and date for a public hearing to consider the
vacation of a portion of Road 32 and a portion of Nixon Street.
1. Agenda Report from David I.McDonald, City Planner dated March 30,2010.
2. Vicinity Map,
3. Proposed Resolution,
4. Vacation Petition.
To approve Resolution No. 3224, setting 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 3, 2010, as the time and date
to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of Road 32 and a portion of Nixon
Street.
(RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read.
4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Regular Meeting 2 April 5,2010
5. VISITORS- OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS:
(a)
(b)
(c)
b. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS:
(a) Verbal Reports from CouncAmembers
(b)
(c)
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
RELATING THERETO:
Q*(a) Ailey Vacation (A/IF #VACIO-001) a portion of the east/west alley in Block 4 Stellin's
Amended Addition(Miguel Serrano).
1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated March 30, 2010.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Ordinance.
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING
Ordinance No. , an Ordinance vacating a portion of the east/west alley in Block 4
Steffin's Amended Addition.
MOTION:- I move to adopt Ordinance vacating a portion of the eas#,We t al le
4. Steffin's Amended Addition and, further, authorize publication by summary Wy.
8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(a) Resolution No. , a Resolution establishing recreation facility rental fees.
1. Agenda. Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
March 17, 2010.
2. Proposed Resolution.
3. PMC 3.07.120 and .140(2 pages).
4. Proposed Aquatic Use and Rental Fees.
5. Regional Comparison.
MOTION: I robe to approve Resolut on o. setting recreational facility fees, to
include agajat c une And rental (eea.
(b) Resolution No. , a Resolution authorizing the sale; of forfeiture/unclaimed asset
property surplus to City needs.
1. Agenda Report from Debbie Clark, City Clerk dated March 10, 2010.
2. Memorandum from David Renzelman, Crime Specialist/Evidence Technician.
3. Proposed Resolution.
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution N • authorizing the sale of seized/asset
forfeiture property considered surplus to City needs.
Q*(c) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation
and denying a Special Permit for the location of a Caretaker Residence at 505 S. 26`''Avenue.
I. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated March 30, 2010.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Resolution.
4. Report to Planning Commission.
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 2/18'10 and 3/18/10,
MOTTO N.T movc:to approve Resolution No. denying a Special Permit for Ty
Gemrnell to locate a caretaker residence at 505 S_ 261e' Avenue.
Q*(d) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation
and approving a Special Permit for the location of a church.
1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey B. Adams,Associate Planner dated March 30, 2010.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Resolution,
4. Report to Planning Commission.
5. Planning Conunission Minutes dated 2/18/10 and 3/18110.
MOTION: I move to approve Ragolut.icn,No. approving Special Permit for a
church at 7505 W. Court Street_
Regular Meeting 3 April 5, 2010
Q*(e) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation
and approving a Special Permit for the location of an elementary school.
1. Agenda Report from David 1.McDonald, City Planner dated March 30, 2010.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Resolution,
4. Report to Planning Commission.
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 2118/10 and 3/18/10.
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving a Special Permit for an
Elementary School at the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60.
Q*(f) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation
and approving a Special Permit for a gravel mine.
1. Agenda Report from David 1, McDonald, City Planner dated March 31, 2010.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Proposed Resolution.
4. Report to Planning Commission.
5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 2,118/10 and 3/18110.
MOTION: 1 move to approve Resolution No. , approvin the Special Permit for the
location and operation of a gravcl mine in an R-T 1Ae ne.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
(None)
10. NEW BUSINESS:
*(a) Road 68 Improvements, Project No. 10-3-02:
1, Agenda Report from Michael McShane,City Engineer dated March 31,2010.
2. Vicinity Map.
3. Bid Summary.
(RC) MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the Road 68 liniPriati!-i'nunts, Project No_ 10-3-02 to
Granite Noi°thwest, (ar- in the €mount of S310129230 and, further°. authorize the Mayor to sign
the contract documents.
11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
13. ADJOURNMENT.
(RC) Roll Call Vote Required
* Item not previously discussed
MF# "Master File
Q Quasi-Judicial Matter
REMINDERS:
1. 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 5, KGH - Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Rep.; AL 'x'ENNEY, .Alt.)
2. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 7, 2601 N. Capitol Avenue - Franklin County Mosquito Control District
Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN,Rep.; .AL YENNEY, Alt.)
3. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, April 8, Walla Walla -- BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
4. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, April 8, Transit Facility- Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT
WAl'KINS, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER MIKE GARRISON, Alt.)
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY"COUNCIL MARCIi 15, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Joyce Olson, Mayor.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers present: Rebecca Francik, Michael Garrison, Robert Hoffmann, Tom
Larsen, Joyce Olson, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney.
Staff present: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney; Stan
Strcbel, Deputy City Manager; Richard Ten vay, Administrative & Community Services
Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Michael
McShane, City Engineer; Denis Austin, Police Chief and Bob Gear, Fire Chief.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA:
(a) Approval of Minutes:
Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated March 1, 2010.
(b) Bills and Communications:
To approve General Claims in the amount of 5920,249.68 ($74,003.46 in the form of
Wire Transfer Nos. 5422 and 5431; and $846,246.22 consisting of Claim Warrants
numbered 175898 through 176120).
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 5244,483.01 and, of that amount, authorize
$181,473.78 be turned over for collection.
(c) Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Recipient Agreement No. 1 (MF#CDBG10-
007):
To approve the amendment to the Tri-Cities HOME Consortium Recipient Agreement
dated September 18, 2008 and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign it.
(d) Dedication Deed: (MF #INF010-016) Dedicating the Ruby Street cul-de-sac:
To accept the deed from La Clinica for a portion of the Ruby Street Right-of-Way.
(e) Dedication Deed: (MF #INF010-013) Dedicating a Portion of 26th Avenue:
To accept the deed from McClaskey Pasco, LLC for a portion of the 26th Avenue Right-
of-Way.
(f) Deed for Future Street Right-of-Way for a Portion of Wehe Avenue (NIF
4INF010-003):
To accept the deed from Pasco Family Housing 11 for a portion of the Wehe Avenue
Right-of-Way.
(g) Final Plat: (NIF#FPIO-003) Village at Pasco Heights, Phase 12 (R.C. Olin):
To approve the Final Plat for the Village at Pasco Heights Phase 12.
(h) Resolution No. 3220, a Resolution approving amendment to the
Neighborhood Stabilization Program Action Plan and Guidelines.
I 3MA
MNUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL MARCII 15, 2010
To approve Resolution No. 3220, approving the revised Neighborhood Stabilization
Program for Acquisition and Rehabilitation and, further, authorize the City Manager to
sign the amendment.
(i) Resolution No. 3221., a Resolution fixing the time and date for a Public
Hearing to consider the 'Vacation of a portion of Ruby Street.
To approve Resolution No. 3221, setting 7:00 p.m., Monday, April 19, 2010 as the time
and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of Ruby Street.
MOTION: Mr. Watkins moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Garrison
seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS:
Mayor Olson and Mr. Crutchfield met with Franklin County Commissioner Brad Peck
and County Administrator Fred Bowen concerning the court space the city leases from
the county.
Mr. Watkins reported on the Benton Franklin Transit Board meeting, the Regional
Facilities meeting and the LEOFF Disability Board meeting.
Ms. Francik reported on a meeting of the arts community at CBC.
Mr. Larsen attended the Senior Citizens Advisory Cominittee meeting.
Mr. Hoffmann attended the Tri-Mats Advisory Committee meeting.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Special Permit (Appeal 1VIF#SP09-008) Location of a Preschool in an R-S-20 Zone
(Faith Assembly Imagination Studios):
Mr. White explained the details of the Special Permit.process.
MAYOR OLSON DECLARED THE CLOSED RECORD HEARING OPEN TO CONSIDER THE
RECORD.
Council discussed the record.
MAYOR OI.SON DECEARE D THE HEARTNG CLOSED.
Resolution No. 3222, a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's
recommendation and approving a Special Permit for the location of a Preschool in
the Faith Assembly of God Church at 1800 Road 72.
MOTION: Mr. Watkins moved to approve Resolution No. 3222, approving the Special
Permit for the location of a Preschool in the Faith Assembly of God Church at 1800 Road
72 with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Garrison
seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Signal Pole Equipment:
Mr. McShane explained the details of the purchase.
MOTION: Mr. Watkins moved to approve the purchase of goods and services from
Northwest Signal for the signal pole equipment for Road 68 improvements in the amount
of$28,834.00, including shipping, plus applicable sales tax. Mr. Garrison seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
2
MINLJTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL MARCH 15, 2010
MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
Mr. Crutchfield explained the proposed process for filling Mayor Olson's vacant council seat.
Council concurred.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Matt Watkins, Mayor Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
PASSED and APPROVED this 5"' day of April, 2410.
3
CITY OF PASCO
Council Meeting of:
April 5,2010
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 nd red or a or rformed as described herein and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid
obligatio a inst a city and th t we are authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim.
Gary C tch d, Ci anager Rick rway
Director Administrative&Comm u Services
We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County,Washington,
do hereby certify that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received; that Wire Transfer
5434, 5437, 5442 and 5445 in the amount of$195,666.60, have been authorized;that Electronic Fund Transfer
No. 1014 in the amount of$78,764.21, has been authorized; that Check No.s 176121 through 176429 are
approved for payment in the amount of$3,608,423.13, for a combined total of$3,882,853.84 on this 5th day of
April,2010,
Councilmember
SUMMARY OF CLAIMSIWIRE TRANSFERS BY FUND:
GENERAL FUND:
Legislative 660.41
Judicial 6,,529.01
Executive 2,100.72
Police 200,937.50
Fire 12,362.38
Administration&Community Services 101,294.31
Community Development 10,384.64
Engineering 6,039.04
Non-Departmental 113,222,67
Library 98,054.35
TOTAL GENERAL FUND: 551,585.03
STREET 47,747.23
C. D. BLOCK GRANT 1,949.50
KING COMMUNITY CENTER 2,019.88
AMBULANCE SERVICE 11,394.03
CEMETERY 8,341.43
ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 5,178.84
SENIOR CENTER 3,988.98
MULTI MODAL FACILITY 2,594.97
RIVERSHORE TRAIL&MARINA MAIN 526.22
LITTER CONTROL 1,733.35
REVOLVING ABATEMENT 806.00
PARKS FUND 0.00
TRAC DEVEL&OPERATING 17,206.00
STADIUMICONVENTION CENTER 8,247.97
SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING 14,679.49
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 302,828.60
WATER/SEWER 2,545,797.27
EQUIPMENT RENTAL- OPERATING 26,024.76
LID GUARANTY 13.00
MEDICALlDENTAL INSURANCE 225,994.87
CENTRAL STORES 51.88
PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST 21,029.12
PAYROLL CLEARING X40,064.53
LID CONSTRUCTION 2,872.90
TRl CITY ANIMAL CONTROL 40,177.99
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 3,882,853.84
3(b).1
CITY OF PASCO
Council Meeting of:
Payroll Approval April 5, 2010
The City Council
City of Pasco
Franklin County, Washington
The followil is a summary of payroll claims against the City of Pasco for the month of
March 2010 is are esente herewith for your review and approval.
r4e 454�1_
Gary . Cr tch Ci Manager Ri Terway,Administrative
IY
mmunity Services Director
We, the undersigned City Council members of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County,
Washington,do hereby certify that the services represented by the below expenditures have been received
and that payroll vol:cher No's. 40813 through 40881 and EFT deposit No's. 30036273 through 30036816
and City contributions in the aggregate amount of$1,812,OC1.90 are approved for payment on this
5th day of April 2C10.
Councilmember Councilmember
SUMMARY OF PAYROLL BY FUND
GENERAL FUND:
Legislative $ 7,275.74
Judicial 71,496.35
Executive 62.197.34
Police 525,121.41
Fire 276,586.88
Administrative 8.Community Services 221,559.93
Community Development 79,846.20
Engineering 78,754.59
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,322,838.44
CITY STREET 32,882.93
BLOCK GRANT 6,621.04
MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER 5,809.29
AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND 113,725.14
CEMETERY 7,849.64
ATHLETIC FUND 3,185.94
SENIOR CENTER 13,157.11
STADIUM OPERATIONS 0.00
MULTI-MODAL FACILITY 0.00
BOAT BASIN 0.00
REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND 0.00
TASK FORCE 0.00
WATER/SEWER 280.870.51
EQUIPMENT RENTAL- OPERATING 25,061.86
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 1,812,001.90
Payroll Summary
Net Payroll 865,933.55
Employee Deductions 532,938.29
Gross Payroll 1,398,871.84
City of Pasco Contributions 413,130.06
Total Payroll $ 1,812,001.90
3(b).2
AGENDA REPORT
FOR.: City Council March 30, 2010
TO: Gary Crutchfiel . anager Regular Mtg.: 4/5/10
Rick White,
Community & I conomic Development Director
FROM: David 1. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT (MF# FP 10-004) Linda Loviisa Division 2. Phase 1 (Aho
Construction)
I. 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 h ://ww�,v.rasco
wa. ov/webs /c't councilr ports)
II. ACTION REQUESTED Of COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4/5: _MOTION: 1 move to approve the final plat for Linda Loviisa Division 2,
Phase 1.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The City Council previously approved a preliminary plat for the Linda Loviisa
Division 2 subdivision. The developer is now seeking final plat approval for Phase
1.
B. Linda Loviisa Division 2 is a single-family residential development located south of
Burden Boulevard and west of the Desert Plateau/Desert Oasis neighborhood,
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Prior to the 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 corripletcd most of the
improvements and has provided the City with a bond in the amount of$13,990 to
cover the cost of outstanding improvements.
B. 'rhe 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)
Item:Overview
Linda
• / Division Phase
I
A / / I Aho Construction '
Map
M FP 10-004
f�, j"i,•
i• �•�l bM�■! "*�� �ft►�*'�� �
� 1.. ... r nC � ar�•� ,� �-;r--a',
//•-�.;}J:p�rE. ,,5'�r�rpayw Y fiw-,�� � � _ 9i�'4T — ! _ _`_ --1 OJi�iR�i�������� � �, 1�• --
�, usra rRa ,�11; .al`�tJ'IrAtsr �s� a,.ad�llillsrw c S ,. •\ ..
+Rtrla•Mr_x +aitra!latlt`„7 `-`.aa!s?/l,tr,; +r .,.•e las .r MtiYl1�1 '�
f' lil�a9 a iflM lied FM ilil+tii I't"ie/ •• b �Y
• w ar r t
a r: F X'Ji(14,4Itat1 .'rll+�
�s. y.
►J , •.z �� = �^ w• :otu ,�► .� Js iR11�iR a�9f ■f w.t�w■ � .•� a di r: >
;. ieTzviRl.irr
y .� � �"'. •silt a -1 av ralU!{�t] ,, _ .�` ,L
1 xi#S• if�4f:Rtr� �r..�.utii_°a ...e :.7 ule 'sW yam, � � ����1���r�-
�
��� t •!\t� ., .ri�iitt���tJiZ.a: ��
"li+irftf trsrT*!*' !r.'rssesis iafir}t!s w •rts s sr i af, E,`.�•t `r,i .�m R.aa � �a 4,W i h5*,
Q,.Oraatai 7Njt+Gi. +b F;,l li.ti: ...:��.s`iii. .�� •+r 1C f� �:t, •+� ,;ra f� - ♦ - -� t��� .',r't,�.'yR _ "mil �.a_• A9
S. �;.sr rr t%}�yi« •r,4,tai�Nlf� :� .,. \d .a .e.l r .t ♦ ! oak ! _
a a 1 a' t . ?i. �!�a►�r�t/1t'tir+tr w�r~y r`:.�«. t3,471fi116��/s}4yi�dLtfti}s l �i.t lots .�r _. . R5 i 7,
Or
'M f ."..;► ss_�i.r a��f's.t
� •�•,.il,r�li:a• •i� -..�i+iils .s. -a .ra ,� Isr�r� ^, i a r � L+ Lr:. 1tt° •. .t. :,a.;vu- ,. .fir_ �..� r llwy � a
~ •a r v.�` dtei f•titf,Li •. '�' 'r yi•7F�j � •'fie.I:f : 11 .'���� � •1 _ -" s ,� � - ..
ty :tr..stlr �., ,e" �ar�Iil2e3li�lr•t} ,. rd r. � -• >r "s� .� :. "' _ .r;.+E' '+ •>lisa �d •aRfF d �a - -- a!Ir
c ti:'.r ./� ,r • 1'_ :' a x�- . a, is?oi `._t is W yrr� r
aKatr!Y'sr ttffsirl+li ttiiiir4t7>ts- t t�•�:` r• . -� ��a1• �rM� AF a 'r r :r ,� t iAs���1dci
.s:i:priydAta, ..!•
•f?.•i.+ � Ir' ��Y,•. �♦1 t i.;�•�7. ♦m-�s,yw sn.1'tr.•i a a i � - �tI[i�% '! �jiw''a.a.. hr's.�1fL!.+i�ii1•t-�a i' " �+'r.,f ..IrW on-me - J r J'L
C IA:40
A i
f -eitrrt.t'�F RCir •i a.. jw 7I � , �»',3 il,/j.,
Lik - __g, f
'
y ♦ a� .i w�J` _; 1Q 4(A � a "}t a t4.�>1 J�`� s M7 ., Cs�! sf-� r►1Q
-. -MIF
t# � �;' EI{� w�jM fd C1p `�.+1�-a�-� wFl" u !y�-'• f-.'�� `r «~". W � li - _- Ll:r 11 I�■ �" ��L����•� ?`
l II' eft' Ll
•+ { ,. ♦ Y V-- ii'iL3 1■ ,i'-W ,I■ fi -r Ir• � Ls• V
s - �I r' �, �♦ ti . "M Ns'7Q1 t, :J b JWJ
� � . � �, - ,_ � �ti ,` T�y •_ .a a r<, ++1_ t ,�! ♦ �Y 7t •F'i, � Y;.r4p
• [� �� �� c►w t'�•�� •+<' vl"� t a ♦ etc <a Ia!I ?<:rM \�
l { i _ .r` ."r+'~ Afars r*1 • ir{�
jr b{ • �s+raJ r�1•a^ti . r-. 3 ^."�"**
� � �� �� ��` 'a'T / `lfiats ,� ♦��Lx*il s� Aai ".�•aa. 4L1 ti .
_ �I. ..�. � ! rr � aYy •-r ,rai.w«.w. .� �.. ^f�`�!1 ==_� ��'i __r ��,i)�� e
y. �� In ► iii lrie� .�/wry �Nal i wl rlt,c •+1
.�a `- +,-.r ,YSF. "L �.aci1 >yY► ,, . li4r t to •ai/ ' ;
'• i� ��:, ��;'_7 v Ca;�wrH�" �+ �IP,:�•+►�.''�� -++1• - - �`' � r _ ,••:•
go
uts
.. �� J J �N,��.. rI r.:Se� �.y +�'� -.o � r. •.a_r. �. ���'� �Ri� �'.y � ..?,
.�_ � �, -, _ �_ `k`� �. ',=sue' � �.,, s.�;i� :se •� iT.� r
4 '
1; `'��� \ �•r `�� f �y�, k llrliS� "
'1• �y�,~a!rc�4�«:i`.>.�r f!.� ��� '" - •` 'sr!�'�•• yr-' '1C, � �S
Item: Linda Vicinity
Loviisa. Phase
Applicant: Aho Construction ` -
Map
File - 1 11 �
Or
Sew
zi 4A � ip,
0 .. 'p rr.
ON
a �
:.,7 _ — "� spy �` •� � 's r t� •'
" z ,
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 30, 2010
T0; Gary Crutch*Ecomic tanager Regular Mtg.; 4/x/10
Rick White,
Community Development Director
FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: STREET VACATION WF4 VAC 10-004): Road 86 (Jack Bunp-er)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution -
3. Vacation Petition
1I. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4h: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No.--7>,—)a3 , setting 7:00
P.M,, Monday, May 3, 2010, as the time and date to conduct a
public hearing to consider vacating Road 86.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The property owners adjoining Road 86 have filed a petition to vacate Road 86,
Road 86 is an unimproved right-of-way lying between Whipple Drive and
Roberts Drive.
B. The petition requires the City Council to fix a public hearing to consider the
vacation request. The earliest regular City Council meeting available for a public
hearing, which provides the statutory 20-day hearing notice, is May 3, 2010.
3(e)
Item: Street Vacation - Rd 86
Vicinity
Ap ;
Map File 10-004
_ 111710._�
MEMO
71 Y•f ��' yh� N
Sit 4 �-"
_- r •�__ ...._v ,t _�!a. .� tutee ___._..� -
1
WIN
�r N�' 1, • 1
AIL
or
O '
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION FIXING THE TIME AND DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER THE VACATION OF ROAD 86.
WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the
general interest of the City,the City Council may vacate rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, R.C.W. 35.79 requires public hearings on vacations to be fixed by
Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
That a public hearing to consider vacating Road 86 lying between Roberts Drive and Whipple
Drive, will be held before the City Cotmcil of the City of Pasco in the Council Chambers at, 525
N. Third Avenue, Pasco, Washington, at the hoar of 7:00 p.m., on May 3, 2010. That the City
Clerk of the City of Pasco give notice of said public hearing as required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 5"' day of April, 20 10.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, CMC Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
FEE $200
CITY OF PASCO
STREET/ALLEY VACATION PETITION
MASTER FILE # 09-1 DATE SUBMITTED: 010
I, we the undersigned, owners of two-thirds of the privately owned abutting
property hereby petition the City Council of the City of Pasco to vacate the
following described street/alley rights-of-way:
i , II £ P
APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNED (Legal Description)
Print Name: - ao
Sign Name:
Address: 'L r
Phone # 5' -lit z I Date
2D/i�
Print Name: � 5,* t` L
Sign Name'
ate .�� 4i a
Print Name: •-
� �� 32i� ya �
Sign Name:
Date
Vicinity Item• Street Vacation - Rd 86
Map File #C Jack
VAC10-004 Bunger N
COURT ST .......... ....
T_
� J I
�W IPFLE DR
ROBE
- _ L RTS DR
Area to be
Vacated LU ��il 0
�
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 30, 2010
TO: Gary Crutchfielk' nager Regular Mtg.: 415/10
Rick White,
Community & Evelopment Director
FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: STREET VACATION (MF4 VAC 09-01S): A portion of Road 32 and a portion
of Nixon Street Good News Church)
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2, Proposed Resolution
3. Vacation Petition
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4/5- MOTION: T move to approve Resolution No.�°�' setting 7:00
p.m., Monday, May 3, 2010, as the time and date to conduct a
public hearing to consider vacating a portion of Road 32 and a
portion of Nixon Street.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The Good News Assembly of God Church and a neighboring property owner
have filed a petition to vacate a portion of Road 32 lying north of Sylvester Street
and a portion of Nixon Street lying easterly of Road 32.
B. The petition requires the City Council to fix a public hearing to consider the
vacation request. The earliest regular City Council meeting available for a public
hearing, which provides the statutory 20-day hearing notice, is May 3, 2010.
3(f)
Vicinity Item: Street Vac. Road 32 & Nixon
Map Applicant: Good News Church N
File #: VAC 09-015
1 Owl
Area
to be .
Vacated
+re M, _ � , r ,fir•.,� z t
RESOLUTION NO. ��
A RESOLUTION FIXING THE TIME AND DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF ROAD 32 AND A PORTION OF
NIXON STREET.
WIIEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the
general interest of the City, the City Council may vacate rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, R.C.V,l. 35,79 requires public hearings on vacations to be fixed by
Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
That a public hearing to consider vacating a portion of Road 32 between Sylvester Street and
Nixon Street together with a portion of Nixon Street lying easterly of Road 32, will be held
before the City Council of the City of Pasco in the Council Chambers at, 525 N, Third Avenue,
Pasco, Washington, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on May 3, 2010. That the City Clerk of the City of
Pasco give notice of said public hearing as required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 5"* day of April, 2010.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST; APPROVED AS TO FORM,
Debra L. Clark; CMC Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
-' - FEE $200
CITY OF PASCO
STREET/ALLEY VACATION PETI'T`ION
MASTER FILE #VAC - -a15 DATE SUBMITTED: 2-10-
1, we the undersigned, owners of two-thirds of the privately owned abutting
property hereby petition the City Council of the City of Pasco to vacate the
following described street/alley rights-of-way:
APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNED (Legal Description)
Print Name: (C'Ooet Ivuv-f 6-ooef Alav
Sign Name: k&14 aYLc n
Address: 3,4_03 w. s, 4,ejYel- (f
Phone ## r- S�Yo 3 Date Lee. 2U.0� � ftio�_ q 42. 0&'7
VLA 40—f
Print Name: u.SL. cr` C�,�. j
Sign Name:
Date c. 2 V q
Print Name:
Sign Name: - � �---
Date
Vicinity Item• Street Vac. Road 32 & Nixon
Map File #c VAC 09 ONSws Church N 1
0
Area
to be
IXON ST � --- -
Vacated
N
10
SYLVESTER ST
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 30, 2010
TO: Gary Crutchfield, anager Regular Mtg.: 4i5/10
Rick White,ez\F4
Community & Economic Development Director
FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: ALLEY VACATION(MF# VAC 10-001:)portion of the east;west alley in
Block 4 Steff n's Amended Addition(Miguel Serrano)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Conduct Public Dearing:
4/5: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance vacating
a portion of the east/west alley in Block 4, Steffi.n's Amended
Addition and, further, to authorize publication by summary
only.
11-1. FISCAL IMPACT:
NOME
1V. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. Miguel Serrano, the owner of Lots 12 and 13 of Block 4, Steffin's Amended
Addition submitted a petition to vacate the alley between his two lots. The alley
has ncvcr been improved.
B. The Council set April 5, 2010 as the date to consider the vacation.
V. DISCUSSION-
A. The proposed alley vacation has been reviewed by the City Engineering
Department and the utility providers.
B. There are no utilities within the alley right-of-way and no easements need to be
retained.
7(a)
Vicinity Item: Alley Vacation Map
Applicant: Miguel Serrano N
File #: VAC 10-001
IF
RQv
"All ST , .�
I!!
w
Area to be F
�: �� . _ �• s � �� - � ,� Vacated
Mj
Lo
WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO:
City of Pasco
Attn: City Planner
525 North 3`d
Pasco, WA 99301
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF THE EAST/WEST ALLEY IN BLOCK 4
STEFFIN'S AMENDED ADDITION.
WHEREAS, a qualified petition has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Pasco
requesting vacation of certain public rights-of-way within the City of Pasco;and
WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general
interest of the City,the City Council may vacate rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, 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, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the east/west alley adjacent to Lots 12 and 13, Block 4 Steffin's Amended
Addition, as depicted in Exhibit"1"be and the same is hereby vacated.
Section 2. 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 3. This ordinance shall take frill 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 5" day of April 2010.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
Exhibit Item• Alley Vacation
#1 File p #:c VAC 10-gu 001 errano x
"A" ST
w I Q �
a ° Area
Vacated
W
v .. 8., ST
i
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 17, 2010
TO: Gary Crutch el tanager
FROM: Rick Terway, 1 irector r d ypis#rative and
Community Services k Work shop Mtg.: 3/22/10
Regular Mtg.: 4/5/10
SUBJECT: Park and Recreation Fees
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Resolution -
2. PMC 3.07.120 and,.140(2 pages)
3. Proposed Aquatic Use and Rental fees
4. Regional Comparison
H, ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
3/22: Discussion
4/5: INlotion: I move to approve Resolution No. setting recreational facility
fees, to include aquatic use and rental fees.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
'.Modest increase in facility rental income,
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Staff is recommending that Council include new aquatic use and rental fees together with the
fees for recreation facilities (previously approved in Resolution 3217) in a new combined
resolution, as attached.
B) At the March 2010 meeting of the Park and Recreation. Advisory Board there was discussion
on fees for use of city Swimming Pools. The Board has recommended that a new fee
structure be established and implemented as stated in the attached schedule.
C) In general, the Advisory Board is recommending that fees be increased because the session
time would be doubled in length.. With the addition of the zero depth area, spray toys and the
double water slide an additional one dollar fee is proposed for each session at Memorial Pool.
D) Because of the remodeling of Memorial pool, some changes to the use patterns are
anticipated (patrons socializing and sunbathing, etc.) which are best managed with longer
sessions,
E) Sessions at Richardson and Kurtzman pools were changed to match Memorial Pool when
possible so that staffing these areas could be managed in a like manner.
F) Based on the session times and facilities, as compared to the region, staff feels the revised
fees are reasonable and recommends adoption.
G) The attached, proposed resolution incorporates all recreational facility use and rental fees
(excepting recreation program fees) into a single document.
8(a)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RECREATION FACILITY RENTAL FEES
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined it in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Pasco,
that certain of the City's recreation facilities be available for rent by individuals, groups and assemblies at
equitable fees;NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
Section 1. Rent of City Recreational Facilities. City parks and recreation facilities, including pools,
buildings, rooms, parks and shelters, shall be available for any group or assembly on a first come, first serve basis.
Section 2. Reservation - Alication. Reservations for recreation facilities rentals may be made by
obtainbig a written permit through the office of the Director of Administrative and Community Services or his
designee. A reservation of the facility may be obtained by submitting a written application to the Director's office
at least fourteen (14) working days prior to the day of the intended use. The application shall contain such
information as the Director shall deem necessary to insure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
Section 3. Reservation Application - Denial, Applications will be denied, approved or approved
with conditions within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of said application, Denial of applications will be
based on one or more of the following:
A) The space has already been applied to for reservation at the time of the application submission,
or;
B) The event or assembly for which the reservation was sought would, because of its time, place or
nature,obstruct or substantially interfere with the enjoyment and use by the general public; or
C) The event or assembly for which a reservation was sought was in violation of any applicable
ordinance, law or regulation.
The Director shall have the authority to approve a permit subject to the applicant meeting reasonable
conditions consistent with all City ordinances and policies as now existing or are hereafter amended.
Section 4. Schedule of'Rental Fees. (See attached schedule)
Section 5. Schedule of Aquatic Use and Rental Fees. (See attached schedule)
Section 6. Resolution No.3217 is superseded by this resolution.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this_ day of March,2010.
CITY OF PASCO:
Joyce Olson
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr
City Cleric City Attorney
6) Environmental Impact Statements Cost 23.10.040
(Ord. 3553, 2002; Ord. 3543, 2002)
3.07.110 POLICE
A) Concealed Weapon Permit: Fee/Charcu_e Reference
1} Application $36.00 RCW 9.41.070
2) F.B.I. Fingerprints $24.00 RCW 9.41.070
3) Renewal Application $32.00 RCW 9.41.070
4) Late Renewal Application $42.00 RCW 9.41.070
5) Replacement Fee $10.00 RCW 9.41.070
B) Vehicle Impounds
1) Administrative Hearing $50.00 PMC 10.18.032
2) Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision $43.00 PMC 10.18.045
(RCW 2.62.060)
(Ord. 3797, 2006; Ord. 3543, 2002).
® 3.07.120 RECREATION PROGRAMS:
Refer to program brochures for individual listings (Ord. 3543, 2002).
3.07.130 STREETS: Fee/Charge Reference
A) Paved Street Replacement (Deposit $100.00 13.36.010
for Patch)
1) Additional square yard fee $25.00 13.36.010
(Ord. 3543, 2002)
V 3.07.140 SWIMMING POOLS:
A) �—Rental: Fee/Charcie Reference
Kurtzman/Richardson (2 hour) $100.00 Ord-3769
a) each additional hour $50.00 Ord-3769
b) extra guard/hour $15.00 Ord-3769
Memorial (2 hour) $235.00 Ord-3769
a) each additional hour $100.00 Ord-3769
PMC Title 3 12/31/2009 27
b) extra guard/hour $15.00 Ord-3769
B) Admission fees — Daily/per session:
1) Kurtzman/Richardson:
a) Youth $ .50 Ord-3234
b) Adult $1.00 Ord-3234
2) Memorial:
a) Youth $1.00 Ord-3234
b) Adult $2.00 Ord-3234
C) Lessons: City Resident Non-City
Resident
Levels 1-6 $12.00 $18.00
Adults $16.00 $24.00
(Ord. 3769, 2006; Ord. 3543, 2002)
3.07.150 UTILITIES -- BILLING:
FeelCharge Reference
A) Account Set Up $25.00 13.16.090
1) Residential — advance minimum
deposit:
a) Inside City 1-4 Units (per unit) 2 mos./swr/wtr 13.16.035
b) Inside City 5 & over (per unit) 2 mos./swr/wtr 13.16.035
c) Outside City (subject to 90% 2 mos./swr/wtr 13.20.080
surcharge)
2) Commercial — advance minimum deposit:
a) Inside City 2 mos./swr/wtr 13.16.035
b) 3/4-8" Meter 2 mos./swr/wtr 13.16.035
c) Outside City (subject to 90% 2 mos./swr/wtr 13.20.080
surcharge)
B) Recon./delinquent service before $50.00 13.16.090
4:30 p.m.
C) Recon/delinquent service after 4:30 $75.00 13.16.090
p.m.
PMC Title 3 12/31/2009 28
Parks and Recreation Fees Schedule
Location 1/2 day 1/2 day Full Fay Full Day Supervisor Deposit
Proposed Shelter Fees Resident Non-Res Resident Non-Res
Volunteer- Pavilion 50.00 75.00 90.00 135.00 100.00
Memorial - Pavilion 50.00 75.00 90.00 135.00 100.00
Kurtzman- Pavilion 50.00 75.00 90.00 135.00 100.00
Chiawana#1 50.00 75.00 90.00 135.00 1 100.00
Chiawana#2 35.00 52.00 60.00 90.00 50.00
Chiawana#3 35.00 52.00 60.00 90.00 50.00
Hourly rate Hourly rate Supervisor Deposit
Proposed Facility Fees Resident Non-Res per/hour
City Hall Gym 15.00 22.00 12.00 100.00
MLK Center 15.00 22.00 12.00 100.00
City Hail Classroom 15.00 22.00 12.00 50.00
Alcohol Supervisor
(1st 4- Alcohol (1st per/100 Deposit
Min 4-hours Min 4-hours hours) 4-hours) per/hour Deposit w/alcohol
Current Senior Center Fees Resident Non-Res Resident Non-Res
SC Multipurpose Room (entire) 75.00 122.00 120.00 180.001 15.00 300.00 450.00
SC Multipurpose Room-north only 25.00 37.00 40.00 60.001 15.00 100.00 150.00
SC Multipurpose Room -south only 25.00 37.00 40.00 60.00 15.00 100.00 150.00
SC Multipurpose Room -middle only 25.00 37.00 40.001 60.00 15.00 100.00 150.00
SC Education Room 25.00 37.00 NA NA 15.00 100.00 NA
SC Craft Room 25.00 37.00 NA NA 15.00 100.00 NA
Computer Lab 25,001 37.00 NA NAI 15.001 100.001 NA
Kitchen (per hour/supervisor req.) 75.00 112.00 NA NA 15.00 200.00 NA
Entire SC Fee (no pool or computer) 200.00 300.00 NA NA 15.00 600.00 NA
Card Area 25.00 37.00 NA NA 15.00 100.00 NA
Hourly rate �-- Hourly rate Hourly rate
Field Fees(rental only;not league) Field Prepi Lights Supervisor
Field location Resident Non-Res
PSC#1 7.00 L 2-5.001 12.00 As required @ $15.00/hour
PSC#2 7.001 25.001 12.00
PSC#3 7.00 25.001 12.00
PSC#4 7,001 25.001 12.00
PSC#5 7.00 25.001 12.00
PSC#6 7.00 25.00 12.00
Mound Rental (daily) 50.00
PSC Spray Park(rent for closed party) 50.00 75.00
Memorial Field#1 7.00 9100 12.00
Memorial Field#2 7.00 9.00 NA
Highland Football#1 7.00 9.00 NA
Highland Football#2 7.00 9.00 NA
Highland Football#3 7.00 9.00 NA
36th Soccer#1 10.00 12.00 NA
36th Soccer#2 10.00 12.00 NA
36th Soccer#3 10.00 12.00 NA
36th Soccer#4 10.00 12.00 NA
Proposed Aquatics Fee Schedule
Memorial Mon-Fri Child Adult
Lessons 8:50-12noon
Lap Swim 12:15-1:15pm NA $2.00 1 hour
Open Swim 1;15-4:45pm $3.00 $5.00 3.5 hours
Open Swim 5-8:30pm $3.00 $5.00 3.5 hours
Memorial Sat-Sun Child Adult
Open Swim 1:15-4:45pm $3.00 $5.00 3.5 hours
Open Swim 5-8:30pm $3.00 $5.00 3.5 hours
Richardson Mon-Fri Child Adult
Lessons 8:50-12noon
Aerobics 12-1pm
Open Swim 1-4pm $1,00 $2.00 3 hours
Aerobics 5-6pm
Lessons 6-7pm
Open Swim 7-8:30pm $1.00 $2.00 1.5 hours
Richardson Sat-Sun Child Adult
Open Swim 1:15-4:45pm $1.00 $2.00 3.5 hours
Open Swim 5-8:30pm $1.00 $2.00 3.5 hours
Kurtzman Mon-Fri Child Adult
Lessons 8:50-12noon
Open Swim 1-4pm $1.00 $2.00 3 hours
Lessons 5-7pm
Open Swim 7-8:30pm $1.00 $2.00 1.5 hours
Kurtzman Sat-Sun Child Adult
Open Swim 1:15-4:45pm $1.00 $2.00 3.5 hours
Open Swim 5-8:30pm $1.001 $2.001 3.5 hours
* Program Fees to be set by staff.
Proposed Aquatics Rental Fees
Memorial
2 hour minimum (includes 8 lifeguards - 300 people or less) $350.00
Each additional hour 1 1 $150.00
Additional Guards (every 25 people over 300) $15.00 /hour
Richardson
2 hour minimum (includes 2 lifeguards-75 people or less) $100.00
Each additional hour 1 $50.00
Additional Guards (every 25 people over 75) $15.00 /hour
Kurtzman
2 hour minimum (includes 2 lifeguards- 75 people or less) $100.00
Each additional hour 1 1 $50.00
Additional Guards (every 25 people over 75) $15.00 /hour
Pool Rental Hours
8:45pm - 10:45pm
Pool Hours Comparison 2010
Facility Public Swim Session Duration Fees
City of Hermiston, OR 5 hr 12 & under= $3.00
13-17 = $4.00
18 & up = $5.00
City of Moses Lake, WA 8 hr 4 & under= Free
5-12 =$7.00
18-64=$9.00
65 & up =$7.00
City of Renton, WA 3.5 hr Under 1 = Free
1-4=$2.00
5-12 =$5.00
13-17 =$6.00
Adult= $7.00
Senior=$6.00
City of Richland, WA 1.5 hr 17 & under R= $0.50
17 & under NR= $0.75
Adult R = $1.50
Adult NR =$2.00
Family R = $3.50
Family NR= $4.50
City of Kennewick, WA 17 & under= $1.00
Senior(50 and up) = 1.00
1.5 hr(M-F) Adult= $2.00
2 hr(Sat)
Memorial 3.5 hr 3 & under= Free
4-17 =$3.00
18& up= $5.00
Richardson& Kurtzman 3 hr (M-F) 3 & under= Free
1.5 hr(M-F eve) 4-17=$1.00
3.5 hr(Sat-Sun) 18& up = $2.00
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 10, 2010
TO: Gary Crutchfie Manager W/Shop Mtg.: 03/22/2010
Rick Terway, A to .trative & Cn ity
'rVices Director Regular Mtg.: 04/05/2010
FROM: Debbie Clark, City Clerk
SUBJECT: A resolution authorizing the disposal of surplus property.
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Memorandum from David Renzelman, Crime Specialist / Evidence Technician
2. Proposed Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
03/22: Discussion
04/05: Motion: I move to approve Resolution No. authorizing the sale of
seized/asset forfeiture property considered surplus to City needs.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The Police Department has acquired five (5) weapons through seized/asset
forfeiture. The weapons have been processed through the Police Department and
are now available for disposal through a Licensed Federal Firearms Dealer. The
weapons are considered surplus to City needs.
B) No minimum price is suggested for each weapon. Staff requests Council to
declare the weapons surplus to City needs, and authorize staff to sell at auction.
The weapons will only be sold by a Federal Licensed Firearms Dealer to other
Licensed Firearms Dealers for a price that is in the best interest of the City.
C) Staff proposes to have the auction consigned to H.A. Rowell Auctioneers,
Licensed Firearms Dealer for a 25% commission on the gross proceeds from the
sale with no charge for transporting the items to auction or advertisement thereof.
Staff has been made aware that H.A Rowell Auctioneers currently has a weapons
auction scheduled for April 2010, staff would recommend the inclusion of the
above referenced weapons for auction.
D) In comparison with other auctioneers, this proposal is most advantageous to the
City.
8(b)
Pasco Police l
Seizure / Asset Forfeitures
Evidence Inventory Disposition Request
11 March 2010
Below is a weapon listing that has been approved by the ISD, SSD Captains and the Chief of Police
for disposal as excess property.
The value of each weapon described below is less than $200.
1 request these weapons be classified as surplus equipment and disposed of through Auction by a
Licensed Federal Firearms Dealers. Said weapons are to be sold by a Federal Licensed Firearms
Dealer to other Licensed Firearms Dealers.
CF # ID # Make Model Caliber Serial #
99 19701 499127 Ruger Single-Six Revolver .22 61-08610
07 19331 389034 Smith —Wesson 650 Revolver .22 AFZ6072
0849356 453410 [Beretta 21A-22LR .22 LR BCS 5961 U
0933469 479986 Kel Tec PF-9 91VIM R7S24
0733985 402880 Taurus 63A Revolver .38 1934736
David Renzelman, Crime Specialist
Certified Evidence Technician
MAil NO
PASCO
CfP(CLM
OFFICE
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the sale of forfeiture/unclaimed asset property surplus to
City needs.
WHEREAS, there are certain items of forfeiture/unclaimed asset property acquired by
the Pasco Police Department and property is surplus to City needs; and;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PASCO:
SECTION 1: The items of forfeiture/unclaimed asset property include (_}
weapons as listed below, are declared surplus property and city staff is authorized to sell such
property at public auction. Weapons will be sold through a Licensed Federal Firearms Dealer to
other Licensed Firearms Dealers:
CF# ID # Make Model Caliber Serial#
9919701 499127 Ruger Single-Six Revolver 22 61-08610
07 19331 389034 1 Smith—Wesson 650 Revolver .22 AFZ6072
0849356 453410 Beretta 21A-22LR .22 LR BCS 5961U
0933469 479986 Kel Tec PF-9 9MM R7S24
0733985 1 402880 Taurus 1 63A Revolver .38 1934736
SECTION 2: The city staff is hereby authorized to dispose of said surplus property at
auction for a price that is in the best interest of the City.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this day of April, 2010
Matt Watkins, Mayor Pro Tern
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Lee Kerr, City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 30, 2010
TO: Gary Crutchfield, anager Regular Mtg.: 4/5/10
Rick White,
Community Atoo. omit Development Director
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SL°13JEC1': SPECIAL PERMIT (MF4 SP 10-006) Location of a caretaker residence in an I-I
(Light Industrial) Zone
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Report to Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 2/18/2010 & 3/18/2010
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4/5: :MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. denying a special
permit for Ty Gemrnell to locate a caretaker residence at 505
South 26`x' Avenue,
Ill. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On February 18, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted to locate a
caretaker residence at 505 South 26th Avenue.
R. Following conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended
denial of a special permit for the location of caretaker residence at 505 South 26th
Avenue.
C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been
received.
8(c)
Vicinity Item: Caretaker Residence in I- 1 Zone Map
Applicant: Ty Gemmell N File #: SP 10-006
OWE#"..�E�VI�L'LE
r ' !
FL MING LN
Wl; 3 i^ Wy r
if
vi
r J. SATE +,r
04
,;4T
�"� � i �n �` .• f iii'
��.� .!} '. fit . •< � - �.� '� ��t, •�.
.. _ - �► Silk
:T
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYINIG A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE
LOCATION OF A CARETAKER RESIDENCE AT 505 SOUTH 26TH
AVENUE,
WHEREAS, on January 22, 2010 Ty Gernmell submitted an application to locate a
caretaker residence at 505 South 261 Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an open record hearing on February 18,
2010 to review the proposed caretaker residence application for a Special Permit; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on March 18, 2010, the Planning Commission
recommended denial of a Special Pen-nit for the caretaker residence.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, that a
Special Permit is hereby denied to Ty Gemmell for a caretaker residence at 505 South 26"'
Avenue under Master File # SP 10-006 based on the findings and conclusions contained in the
March 18, 2010 Planning Commission staff report.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this "' day of April, 2010
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 10-006 APPLICANT: Ty Gemmell
HEARING DATE: 2/ 18/2010 505 S. 26th Avenue
ACTION DATE: 3/ 18/2010 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Caretakers Residence in an I-1
(Light Industrial) Zone (505 S. 26ei Avenue)
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The west 147.91' of the east :575.7' of Sec 25, T 9 N, R 29 in
the S 1/2 of Government Lot 3, EXC S 495' Thereof.
General Location: 505 S. 26th Avenue
Property Size: Approximately 0.45 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from south 26th Avenue
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING:
The site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and contains Gemmell's
Welding & Services shop. The zoning and land use of the surrounding
properties are as follows-
NORTH-R-I-A2 Manufactured homes
SOUTH- I-1 & RP Indoor shooting range, a single family house &
manufactured homes
EAST- R-1-A2 Manufactured homes
WEST- RP Manufactured homes and former excavation
company
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area as mixed residential. The Comprehensive Plan does not
specifically address the sitting of caretaker's facilities. Policies of the
plan encourage compatibility between land uses , and harmony
between existing and proposed development.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this proposal which has been issued a Determination of
Non-Significance in accordance with review under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21(c) RCW.
1
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to locate a caretaker's facility to provide security
to the existing Geinmell's Welding &; Services shop. The proposed site
contains a 2,000 square foot shop building, a number of old vehicles,
trailers and antique tractors. The site also contains a concrete RV pad with
utility connections. There are no records readily available that indicate why
or how the RV pad was installed on the property.
Pasco Municipal Code Section 25.70.060 establishes criteria for locating
caretakers in commercial and industrial zones through the special permit
process. The code requires the caretaker's facility to be utilized for security
purposes only, be located on a site at least two times the size of the
caretakers' residence and to conform with applicable regulations for
residential structures (in this case RV structures). In addition, a special
permit for a caretaker's residence may be reviewed annually if requested by
property owners within 300 feet of the caretakers unit. In the absence of a
request by adjoining property owners the special permit automatically
extends.
The key criteria for the approval of a caretaker's residence would be whether
or not there is a security need on site twenty-four hours per day. Police
records would give the Planning Commission a good indication of crime
activity on the site in question. According to the Pasco Police Department
there has only been one police contact at the site within the last three years.
An individual was arrested at or near the site for an outstanding warrant.
In the last three years there has been no property crimes reported at the
site.
The property is located on the private drive portion of 26th Avenue that
connects with "A" Street. There are five manufactured homes located
directly north or east of the site. These homes are all within 40 feet or less
of the site. The site is totally fenced and located on a dead-end private
roadway. Twelve occupied dwellings are located along this roadway leading
to the site. The site is more or less surrounded by dwelling units that make
the area less attractive for burglaries. Police reports bear this out.
Unlike other commercial or industrial properties this site is highly visible to
neighboring residential properties that are occupied all night long. There is
little criminal activity to justify the location of a caretaker's residence on this
site.
2
Caretaker residences have been approved in the past for areas of the
community that are isolated or sparsely developed. These areas often lack
street lights and do not receive regular patrols by police vehicles. Other
approved sites have demonstrated need resulting from burglaries. The site
in question is not in an isolated part of the city and does not have a history
of burglaries.
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 site is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial).
2. The site is located on a dead end private roadway.
3. The site is approximately 0.45 acres.
4. The applicant has requested that an RV be permitted for use as a
caretaker's residence.
5. The site contains a concrete RV pad that was previously used for the
storage and occupancy of an RV unit.
6. The site contains a 2,000 square foot industrial shop building.
7. The site currently contains a welding business.
8. The site contains a number of old tractors, vehicles and equipment.
9. The site is located within the central core of the community.
10. The site is surrounded on the north, east and partially on the west by
occupied manufactured homes.
11. The site is fenced on all sides.
12. Twelve dwelling units are located along the private roadway leading to
the site.
13. Only one police contact has been made with the property in the last
three years.
14. No property crimes or burglaries have been report to the police
department from the site in the last three years.
15. An indoor shooting range is located directly south of the site.
16. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential
uses.
17. The current zoning and use of the site is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
3
18. All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
19. Public testimony indicated there were recent police calls at 520 S. 26th
Avenue (one parcel south of Gemmell Welding).
20. Public testimony indicated Police calls related to problems with drug
use and criminal activity specific to the occupants of 520 S. 26th
Avenue.
21. The applicant indicated the site is completely surrounded by site
obscuring fencing.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its
conclusions based upon the criteria listed in P.M-C, 25.86.060. The criteria
are as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The plan does not address security issues within the community. The
Mixed Residential land use designation is intended to permit a variety of
housing types including single-family and multi-family units. The property
is non-conforming with respect to the plan.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The required municipal utilities are sized to accommodate demands of a
greater intensity than this proposal will place upon the systems.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be
in harrnony with. existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The existing character of the area is somewhat confused in that the area
contains a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. Most of
the neighborhood to the east, north and south has transitioned from
industrial zoning to residential development consisting of manufactured
homes on private lots or in mobile home parks. Much of the neighborhood
is developed with manufactured homes. The intended character of the
neighborhood is one of single-family dwellings located on landscaped yards
and permanently connected to utilities. The proposed use is inconsistent
with the intended character of the area.
4
3) 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 height of the structure is approximately 9 feet while the 1-1 Zoning
District does not have a height limitation. The surrounding properties were
developed previously before the proposal to locate a caretaker's residence.
4) 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 site is zoned 1-1, which allows a variety of industrial and commercial
uses, many that typically generate more traffic, noise, fumes, vibrations and
dust than the proposed caretaker's residence.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located
and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance
to uses permitted in the district?
A caretaker's residence located in this industrial area is much less intensive
than most uses allowed in the I-1 district. The safety of the general public
will not be impacted by the proposed caretaker's residence. However
locating the caretaker's residence behind a fenced compound may create
some safety concerns for the delivery of emergency service to the residence.
CARETAKER RESIDENCE CRITERIA
In addition to the standard special permit review criteria the Planning
Commission needs to considered the requirements of PMC 25.70.060
dealing with the permitting of caretakers residences.
(1) The caretaker's residence is solely intended to provide security for
the established principal permitted use of the property;
The proposed site is in a well developed part of the community surrounded
by single family dwellings. The site is secured on all sides by fencing. Police
Department records indicate there have been no burglaries or property
crimes on the site within the last three years. Property security does not
appear to be an issue at this location. Convenience for the business
operator is not a legitimate reason for granting a special permit.
5
(2) The residential stm..cture, to include factory assembled homes, will
be located on a parcel at least two times the size of the
caretaker's residence;
There is ample space on the site for the location of a caretaker's residence.
(3) The structure will conform to other applicable codes and
regulations for residential structures.
RV units meeting minimum sanitation and safety criteria are permitted to
be used for primary dwellings in mobile home parks and RV parks.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
Staff cannot recommend approval of a caretaker's residence on the site.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as
contained in the February 15, 2010 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions there from
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny a
special permit to Ty Gemmell for the location of a caretaker
residence at 505 S. 261tJ1 Avenue.
6
I
Vicinity. Item: Caretaker Residence in I- 1 Zone {Map
Applicant: Ty Gemmell
File ,#: SP 10-006
.tO
r, 7CE
AP
WNlE1�iIL-LF
AW
S TE
: : , � ; ,N . • Sri°,
,y L a
yam. �"'', •E .r t;.
Land Item: Caretaker Residence in I- 1 Zone
Use Applicant: Ty Gemmell N
Map File #: SP 10-006 1
L T
Ind .
BONNEVILLE ST
FL MING LN \` SFDU's -
Cemetery
Industrial
D ,
SITE I E D U=
n
0 Cn
0
MHP
- "A" 3T
Zoning Item: Caretaker Residence in I- 1 Zone
Map Applicant: Ty Ger�1me11 N File #: SP 10-006
= W
H �
BONNEVILLE STN ;a FRoNrq
GFRD
a (
LEMIN -UN-- R=7 =*1U
Q
1=1 N
SITErN
C-3 oC
RP
i
"A" ST
5 .
c I
f—D 29
316 FAr7 L E ESTATES NO • '#
�' /17
Sh'-d. 0'�-' Lt FAG L FFS f ATG,
��•R?� 1 J-r,�,-.ice ;•�'r.t-'F �/I?� .b � 4j
-
ry
Ma
45 R��
s
CD ZI
s_.... 516
L awsox1 - Gem me ( 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2/1$/2010
A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Caretaker's Residence in a I-1
zone [Ty Gemrnelll (505 S. 26th Avenuel [MF#
SP 10-0061 T
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff stated the applicant has requested the location of a caretaker's residence
next to Gemmell Welding facility. The intent of a caretaker's residence is to
provide security for the business on site. There have been no police reports or
any other types of violations reported within the last 3 years. The site is
completely fenced and staff is not recommending approval on this item.
Chairman Samuel questioned city staffs position with regard to the potential
negative impacts with granting this special permit.
Staff stated the site is zoned light industrial and by the nature of zoning the
permitted uses are allowed to be quite hazardous when it comes to human
habitation. The intent of the industrial zoning is to separate the residential
uses from industrial permitted uses. Allowing this type of special permit would
set a precedent for other locations in the community where someone may want
to make a similar proposal. There are no caretaker's facilities that have been
approved over the past 25 years that have been in a fully developed part of the
community. The caretaker would provide security not necessarily provide a
convenient place for someone to live or to allow to rent a facility and live on the
facility so they would not live somewhere else. There is a caretaker's residence
out on B Circle where there are few police patrols, minimal neighborhood
traffic, and no type of neighborhood watch program which make a caretaker's
residence nearby. On Columbia Avenue there is an auto body shop with high
crime and they have a caretaker's facility which provides security for the auto
body shop as well as surrounding properties. Therefore, staff does not
recommend this special permit for a caretaker's facility.
Chairman Samuel questioned if there were any data provided regarding
declining real estate values if a caretaker's residence is in the area.
Staff stated no; there are only 2 that staff is aware of.
Chairman Samuel questioned if there were any data indicating increased safety
issues or any sanitation problems with caretaker's residences.
Staff stated no.
Commissioner Anderson believes the intent of a caretaker's statute is to
provide security to the site and does not believe there is any compelling reason
to grant this special permit request.
Ty Gemmell, 2525 W. A Street, Space 11, Pasco, WA stated he feels there is a
security problem at this site. He agrees there have been, no burglaries at 505 S.
26th Avenue; however the building has been vacant for the past 3 years and the
site consisted of large heavy equipment. There have been burglaries reported
next door; in 2008 there was a reported $10,000.00 burglary. There is an 8 foot
fence surrounding the property which prevents people to look in, however wood
has been knocked out of the fence from men climbing the fence within the past
30 days. He presented pictures which showed the view from inside the fence.
There was only one resident who has a view into the property. It was reported
that a house next to the site had a reported 25 calls to the police within the
last 60 days.
Chairman Samuel called for clarification on the reported calls to the police.
Mr. Gemmell stated yes.
Commissioner Anderson questioned why the police had been called to that
residence.
Mr. Gemmell stated an individual was wanted for narcotics and three weeks
ago the SWAT team was there and they were told to stay inside their fence
because they were looking for an individual with a rifle who had ran out the
back of the house.
Mr. Gemmell further presented pictures of the view from inside the property
location. He stated there is only one residence that has a look into the property
and he pointed out the one location along the fence where you can look in. He
mentioned the "little red house" that has police activity and he has a new
business that just opened in September and he is concerned with the activity
of the neighborhood to prevent any theft.
Chairman Samuel questioned what the caretaker facility would look like, what
would the size would it be and what hours would someone be there.
Mr. Gemmell stated his son would live there and is his business partner. There
currently is an RV hookup with sewer, electric and water service. There is a
concrete slab already there. In the next couple of years if they purchase the
property they intend to put in a mobile home if permitted.
Chairman Samuel questioned that someone would live and work there 24-7.
Commissioner Anderson questioned if he has considered an alarm system.
Mr. Gemmell stated no.
Commissioner Anderson stated alarm systems don't sleep.
Mr. Gemmell stated he does not think they are as good as humans.
Commissioner Anderson disagrees with Mr. Gemmell and suggests he consider
it.
Commissioner Cruz questioned staff based on the statements regarding the
neighborhood if they were allowed to consider the activities in the surrounding
neighborhood.
Staff stated they did check on the specific property and did not check on any
neighboring properties.
Commissioner Cruz questioned if any special permits have been granted for a
caretakers residence for a short term basis, such as 6 or 12 months.
Staff stated the other caretakers residences are permanent facilities.
Chairman Samuel questioned the impact to Mr. Gemmell's operations if this is
not approved.
Mr. Gemmell's main concern is theft.
Chairman Samuel questioned if there were any operations that would require
24-7 hour presence.
Mr. Gemmell stated no.
Earl Warren, 520 S. 26th Avenue, Pasco, WA lives across the street from the
"little red house". He stated his driveway is ... In the past there was a
caretaker's residence on the property. He stated he served on the Planning
Commission for 13 years.
Chairman Samuel thanked Mr. Warren for his years of service.
Mr. Warren stated this property has had activity in the past without going
through the City to obtain permits and Mr. Gemmell is going about this the
right way. He stated there were young people living at the red house and a
burglary occurred there as well as the shooting range. He is in favor of this
proposal to bring more people in the neighborhood.
Phil, Pasco, WA stated he owned a business a decade ago and agrees with the
applicant. He had to deal with graffiti and damaged property. He mentioned he
had two dogs that could respond and a security system cannot.
Mr. Warren further stated people are frustrated with the dead end. The people
in the red house are currently being evicted.
Staff called for clarification on recommendations for this special permit.
Commissioner Anderson stated he is sympathetic with the applicant however
with his experience in law enforcement he stated an alarm when properly
monitored will alert the police. He is not in favor of this special permit; he feels
this is a dangerous precedent to allow this in a residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Cruz is also sympathetic and he does not want to establish a
place for someone to live at the business location. However, he recommends
staff to prepare findings that would support a special set of circumstances and
well stated criteria for granting a permit in this case.
Chairman Samuel stated this is a hard balance to strike for people to be able to
do what they want with their property versus zoning requirements which allow
for certain uses which in this case is surrounded by homes.
Commissioner Cruz questioned for staff to look at the surrounding properties
as a special consideration especially regarding the police calls to the little red
house.
Phil, Pasco, WA stated this property is in a light industrial zone.
Commissioner Anderson mentioned that Mr. Warren is in the process of
evicting the residents in the little red house and does not feel any further
investigation is necessary.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Perez to close the
hearing on the proposed Caretaker Residence and initiate deliberations and
schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the
City Council for the March 18, 2010 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/18/2010
A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Caretaker's Residence in a I-1
zone (Tv Gemmell) (505 S. 26th Avenue) (MF#
SP 10-006)
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff stated the findings of fact and conclusions were modified to reflect the
items of concern addressed during the public hearing.
Chairman Samuel asked staff if they had investigated any police reports for the
neighborhood.
Staff stated they did not investigate since the tenants of the referenced "little
red house", who were the source of police calls, had been evicted.
Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt.
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 15,
2010 staff report.
Commissioner Cruz further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson,
based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council deny a special permit to Ty Gemmell
for the location of a caretaker residence at 505 S. 26th Avenue. The motion
passed unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 30, 2010
TO: Gary Crutchfield, Cit ger Regular Mtg.: 4/5/10
Rick White, tG
Community &Economic Development Director
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT fMF# SP 10-005 Location of a Church Sikh Tem le in an
R-S-20 (Residential Suburban) Zone
1. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Report to Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 2/18/2010 & 3/18/2010
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4/5: .MOTION: 1 move to approve Resolution No. approving a
special pen-nit for a church at 7505 West Court Street.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE,
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On February 18, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public bearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a special permit he granted to locate a
church (Sikh Temple) at 7505 W. Court Street.
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 location of 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)
Vicinity Item: Special Permit - Sikh Temple Map
Applicant: Gurowara Guru Nanak PW N
File ##: SP 10-005
SITE ,
•I ,yam t .r � a.-.r \[� i 1 1 RrY
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL, PERMIT FOR THE
LOCATION OF A CHURCH
WHEREAS, Gurdwara Guru Nanak P.W. submitted an application for the
Location of a church (Sikh Temple) at 7505 W. Court Street (Tax Parccl 118-492-052);
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 18,
2010 to review the proposed church; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on March 18, 2010 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 Gurdwara Guru Nanak P.W for the
Location of a Church (Sikh Temple) at 7505 W. Court Street, under'Vlaster File # SP
10-005 with the following conditions:
a) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant
b) The bathroom shall be retrofitted with ADA hardware, as per City of Pasco
requirements.
c) Two exits for the assembly area with lighted exit signs and out-swinging
doors equipped with "panic" bars shall be provided.
d) The pole-mounted religious symbol shall not exceed 35' in height, and shall
not be lit.
e) One off-street parking space for each four seats, based on maximum seating
capacity of 54 (a minimum of 14 parking spaces) shall be provided.
f) All parking areas and shall be paved with asphalt or Portland cement concrete
and striped.
g) The Temple shall only use the western drive approach to the parking area for
Temple services.
h) The eastern driveway approach to the parking area shall be closed off for
Temple wr-yrices with a city-approved barricade.
i) All landscaping shall be retained and maintained along Court Street.
j) Attendance may not exceed 54 persons, based on maximurn occupancy.
k) The building shall be connected to municipal sewer/water.
l) Any expansions or renovations beyond the scope of this Special Permit shall
require a new Special Permit application.
m) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit is
not obtained by March 1, 2011.
1
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 5th day of April, 2010.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clark Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
2
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE #: SP 10-005 APPLICANT: Gurdwara Guru Nanak P.W.
HEARING DATE: 2/ 18/10 7505 W. Court Street
ACTION DATE: 3/18/ 10 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Church (Sikh Temple) in an
R-S-20 (Residential Suburban) Zone.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The south 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 of the southwest 1/4 of the
southeast 1/4, of Sec 21, T 9 N, R 29 E, less the west 160' and
less the east 103' of the west 263' of the south 1/2 of the
southwest '/4 of the southwest 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of said
Section and less roads.
General Location: 7505 W. Court Street
Property Size: Approximately 2.8 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Court Street.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-S-20 (Residential
Suburban) and contains a single family residence. The zoning and
land use of the surrounding properties are as follows:
NORTH - County RS-20
SOUTH - R-S-1/PUD
EAST- RS-20
WEST- RS-20
The surrounding properties north, west and south contain residential
development, with a church to the east.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area as Low Density Residential. 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. Policies of the Plan
also encourage the location of facilities for educational and cultural
activities in the city.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been
issued a Determination of Non-Significance in accordance with
review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter
43.21(c) RCW.
ANALYSIS
The application involves converting a 1,800 square foot single-family
residence into a place of worship with a 35' tall sign/religious symbol
along Court Street and approximately 20 parking spaces. Parking would
he located along the property lines in the northeast corner of the lot. The
applicant will be required to pave and stripe the parking area.
The applicant estimates a total of 10 Sunday vehicular trips at peak
usage. This traffic projection is based on an estimated 15 regular
attendees out of a pool of 15-25 congregant families in the Tri-Cities
area. The applicant will also be required to connect the building to City
severer and bring the restroom up to ADA standards.
Two people will be living on-site at the temple.
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 church site is zoned R-S-20.
3. The proposed site is located on the north side of Court Street;
Court Street is a designated "Minor Arterial" street at this
Iocation.
4. The main driveways to the church will be located on Court Street.
5. Improvements surrounding the site have recently been upgraded
(streets, curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc.).
6. The proposed church is located merest of an existing church.
2
7. Churches are typically located in residential zoning districts
within Pasco.
8. The proposed church contains 1,800 square feet, approximately
800 square feet of which could be used for seating. The maximum
seating capacity based on this area is 54.
9. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual (7th Edition), the estimated number of vehicle
trips for a 1,000-square-foot synagogue/temple on Sunday is
13.5.
10. The City will require the applicant to retrofit the bathroom with
ADA hardware.
11. The City will require the applicant to provide two exits for the
assembly area with lighted exit signs and out-swinging doors
equipped with "panic" bars.
12. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 25.78.170 requires one off-street
parking space for each four seats in a church, based on maximum
seating capacity.
13. The PMC (25.78.170(1)) requires the proposed church to have a
minimum of 14 parking spaces.
14. The PMC (25.78.090) requires all parking areas and driveways
between the street and the face of the building to be paved with
asphalt or Portland cement concrete.
15. The church is providing 20 paved parking spaces.
16. The church site will include a pole-mounted religious symbol that
does not require special permit approval, as it is within the local
height restrictions.
17. The church building and all parking areas meet or exceed the
front yard setback requirements for the R-S-20 District.
18. The church site is fully landscaped.
19. The site is not hooked up to city sewer or water.
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?
3
Policy LU-2-13 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.
The congregation proposes to meet only once each Sunday. Estimated
number of vehicle trips will have a minimal impact on Court Street or on
water/sewer facilities.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general
vicinity?
The intended character of the general vicinity is residential. Churches
are typically located in or near residential areas and add to the
character of a neighborhood. The proposed church will maintain or
exceed the front yard setbacks for all buildings and parking facilities.
The site is sufficiently landscaped to complement the adjacent
residential lots in the neighborhood.
4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site
design discourage the development of permitted uses on property
in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof?
No current or proposed on-site structures will exceed the height limits of
the R-S-20 zone. The presence of churches in residential neighborhoods
in other parts of the community has not discouraged potential
residential development or impaired the value of residential properties.
5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes,
vibrations, dust, traffc, or flashing lights than. would be the
operation of any permitted uses within the district?
Churches are used infrequently, generally two or three days a week and
generate traffic during off peak times such as on Sunday mornings and
a couple of evenings during the week, Under current R-S-20 zoning the
parcel could be subdivided into four single-family lots, potentially
generating about 280 vehicle trips per week. The current application
proposes only Sunday use and the housing of two residents, which use
would generate approximately 110 vehicle trips. Churches may not be
expanded without review through the special permit process. Churches
are generally well maintained and contain well-landscaped front yards.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if
located and developed where proposed, or in any way will
becorne a nuisance to uses permitted in the district?
4
Churches are generally accepted uses in or near residential
neighborhoods. Past history of church operations within the City has
shown they do not endanger public health or safety.
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant
2) The bathroom shall be retrofitted with ADA hardware, as per
City of Pasco requirements.
3) Two exits for the assembly area with lighted exit-signs and
out-swinging doors equipped with "panic" bars shall be
provided.
4) The pole-mounted religious symbol shall not exceed 35' in
height, and shall not be lit.
5) One off-street parking space for each four seats, based on
maximum seating capacity of 54 (a minimum of 14 parking
spaces) shall be provided.
6) All parking areas and shall be paved with asphalt or Portland
cement concrete and striped.
7) The Temple shall only use the western drive approach to the
parking area for Temple services.
8) The eastern driveway approach to the parking area shall be
closed off for Temple services with a city-approved barricade.
9) All landscaping shall be retained and maintained along Court
Street.
10) Attendance may not exceed 54 persons, based on maximum
occupancy.
1 1) The building shall be connected to municipal sewer/water.
12) Any expansions or renovations beyond the scope of this
Special Permit shall require a new Special Permit application.
13) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco
building permit is not obtained by March 1, 2011.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 18, 2010
staff report.
5
MOTION for Recommendation: 1 move based on the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council approve a Special Permit for the
location of a church (Sikh Temple) and parsonage with a ,pole-
mounted religious symbol at 7505 W. Court Street, with
conditions as listed in the March 18, 2010 staff report.
6
Item: Special Permit - Sikh Temple
Vicinity
Map Applicant Gurowara Guru Nanak PW
�
File #: SP 10-005
,. Rf
•
'- - : it
SITE o +
r_
r�or
'� „' � ����y `1i � `RAG �T"�'. �'•
Land Item: Special Permit - Sikh Temple
Use Applicant: Gurowara Guru Nanak PW
Map File # : SP 10-005 +
SFDU's '
]Church SFDU �-
SITE
COURT ST
�yo �
o
SFDU'slol � `�,_� �� SFDU S � a
Zoning Item: Special Permit - Sikh Temple
Applicant Gurowara Guru Nanak PW N
Map File- #: SP010-005
RS-20 -- --- RS-20
SITE
COURT ST
co i I
_ i ; a'
S o
,o
i �
ZrI
�� 11
f
j+f
l
: � uP-T S �
Exhibit # 1 - Letter from SparksC �� D
February 16, 2010
caMM��m'�ccar�at�tic ccvc�oP��tsr
Planning Commission of the City of Pasco, Washington
C/o Pasco City Planner David I. McDonald
Re: SP 10-005 Sikh Temple
7505 W. Court street
Pasco, WA
Gentlemen,
I own a residential building lot at 5 Jasper Court in the Ivy Glades development and wish to express the
following comments and concerns to the granting of a Special Permit allowing the establishment of the
referenced Temple on the residentially zoned property, in an existing house at 7505 W. Court Street. My
property is 2 lots east of the Ivy Glades entrance.
1. There are two (2) entrances to the Temple property from Court St. The Easterly entrance/exit is
directly across Court from the main entrance to Ivy Glades. There are approximately 160 households in
Ivy Glades most of which have at least 2 vehicles. I request that you consider limiting entrance and exit
to the subject property to their West entrance to mitigate interference with the existing vehicle traffic
from Ivy Glades. There are 3 additional churches in the immediate vicinity and on Sundays there is a lot
of turning traffic onto Court.
2. The existing trees and vegetation along Court on the Temple property is a beautiful and effective
screen to the existing building and would also screen the parking lot from the residences directly across
Court. I request that the Temple keep and maintain the current vegetation.
3. Logic tells me that sooner or later the Temple will need to make an addition to the current building. I
request that a public hearing be held priorto granting a permit for any expansion or remodeling of the
existing building.
4. I request that the Temple not be allowed to erect any sign higher than eye level so that the existing
residents will have their current light level and not have additional light shining into their yards and
houses.
In addition, as a procedural matter, when an entire development or group of properties is affected by a
Special Use requirement, the properly in question should be posted so that everyone is notified. Most
people do not read the legal notices in the paper, and even though I believe my property I within 300
feet of the Temple property, I was not notified.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
P-'O'
Kay Sp c5 AIA
10305 Chapel Hill Bhrd.
Pasco, WA 99301
Exhibit# 2 - Letter from Mike Garrett
RECEIVED
P Ivy Glades homeowners Association FEB 17 2010
6
mss; www mygfades.org
Board of Directors ♦ PO Box 4083 # Pasco WA 99302 CoMMUNmt&EcDNnMiC l7EVEtQPM
City of Pasco Planning Commission
525 North 3`a Avenue
Pasco,WA 99301
Re: Special permit to locate a temple at 7505 W. Court St
Commission Members:
On behalf of the Ivy Glades Homeowners Association Board of Directors, I am writing this letter of
concern regarding the request for a special permit to locate a temple at 7505 W.Court Street, directly
across Court Street from the Ivy Glades development.
The Ivy Glades HOA Board of Directors represents the 175 property owners in the development located
south of Court Street to the Columbia River,west of Road 72,and east of Road 76.
The areas of greatest concern for the requested special land use permit are:
• Safe ingress/egress for both Ivy Glades residents and future temple patrons.
The current east entrance to the proposed temple property at 7505 W.Court St. is directly across
from the main entrance to Ivy Glades, This entrance includes a designated turn lane for
westbound traffic entering Ivy Glades. Temple patrons using the east entry for ingress/egress
would be required to cross directly through the Ivy Glades turn lane,causing a serious traffic flow
problem. We strongly recommend the east entrance to the proposed temple property be
eliminated,and all ingress/egress be through the west entrance to the property.
• Proposed 30' high,lighted sign should not be allowed.
The 30' height of the lighted sign is not conducive to a residential setting. The potential for
excessive illumination will impact neighboring homeowners,and the esthetic appearance would
be industrial in nature. A ground-level, low wattage sign, similar to the neighboring Nazarene
Church sign,would be much more appropriate for a residential setting.
• No expansion to the existing building at 7505 W. Court should be allowed without a public
hearing and proper notification.
• The attractively Iandscaped green belt on the south side of the property at 7505 W.Court
should be preserved and well maintained.
Thank you for your time and careful consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
IM ,: arrett
Ivy Glades HOA.President
I Lavender Ct
(509) 545-9485
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
2/18/10
A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Sikh Temple in an R-S-20 zone
(Gurdwara Guru Nanak Par. WA) [7505 W.
Court Streetl(MF# SP 10-005)
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff stated that this application is for the location of a Sikh Temple in an R-S-
20 zone at 7505 W. Court Street on a parcel of 2.8 acres. The proposal is to
convert an existing 1,800-square-foot single-family home into a temple. Twenty
parking stalls would be located in the northeast corner of the property. The
maximum seating capacity is 54 and estimated vehicle trips were considered
based on the size of the facility. Two letters from citizens were received with
concerns.
Chairman Samuel called for clarification on the neighboring churches,
particularly whether Faith Assembly and the Nazarene Church were next to
this proposed site.
Staff stated yes that is correct.
Commissioner Cruz asked about the proposed 35 foot tall sign and how does it
fit in with the sign code.
Staff stated if it is a sign it does not; the sign code limits a 15 foot height limit
for religious signage with a 40 square foot maximum. The sign code does
exempt religious symbols such as crosses, spires, symbols of different sorts
that are much higher than 15 feet; they also do not have wording on the
signage such as hours, etc.
Commissioner Little mentioned that for the special permit approved for a
church on the end of Road 32 and Wernett, the applicant is trying to conform
to City code and it is a slo"7 process, and the neighbors are not happy due to
the slow process and would like to see a condition that would ensure the
modifications are made in a timely manner.
Chairman Samuel asked Mr. White if one would be able to see the facility from
the road due to the landscaping.
Mr. White stated it is not invisible however the landscaping does screen the
property.
Raj Bhandal, 5204 Dundis Lane, Pasco, WA represented the Sikh community
and stated that they are a very small community without a Sikh Temple. There
are approximately 10-15 families who attend this Temple. During the past 5
years they have held services at members' homes rotating locations once a
week. They have not had any negative feedback from neighbors during their
services. They will not have a sign but will have a symbol on the top of a flag
pole. During the intermission a neighbor asked if any lighting would be
installed and Mr. Bhandal said no.
Chairman Samuel asked when they would hold services and the length of those
services.
Mr. Bhandal stated they would meet once a week from 9 a.m. to 12 noon.
Chairman Samuel asked if they would hold services outside of that timeframe
for weddings or any other festival-type activities, and how often would that
happen.
Mr. Bhandal stated they currently do not have any services planned and if in
the future 9 service would be scheduled there would be less than 51/o of the
congregation in attendance.
Chairman Samuel asked if they would have outdoor activities.
Mr. Bhandal stated if there was a wedding, it would be a combination of both;
such as the wedding ceremony indoors and the dinner or reception would be
held outside.
Commissioner Cruz asked the applicant if he understood that if in the future
he wanted to expand his operations he would need to apply for a special permit
review.
Mr. Bhandal stated they do not anticipate any modifications and they will
accommodate all recommendations set forth by the City.
Chairman Samuel asked if they had any issues with the City's
recommendations.
Mr. Bhandal stated they did not have any issues but would need sufficient time
to conform to the City recommendations.
Commissioner Little mentioned there would be requirements that need to be
met prior to occupancy, and asked the applicant if he was aware what the cost
would be to accommodate the recommendations.
Mr. Bhandal stated they have not obtained a cost estimate at this time.
Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing.
Mike Garrett, 1 Lavender Ct, Pasco, WA stated that he is the president of the
Ivy Glades Homeowners Association which is directly across the street from
this proposed site. His first concern is regarding the traffic flow; he stated there
is a turn lane into Ivy Glades main entrance which is' a two lane entrance and
it does not match up well with the entrance to the Temple. He feels there is a
traffic flow problem at this site and would like to propose they use the western
entrance versus the eastern entrance to the site. He also said that maintenance
of the greenbelt would be preferred. He also mentioned the proposed sign with
concerns for any type of lighting which would disturb the neighbors.
Chairman Samuel asked Mr. Garrett if he was in favor of this proposal.
Mr. Garrett stated he would be in favor if the traffic issue is addressed, the
greenbelt is maintained and if there would be no illumination allowed for the
pole,
Chairman Samuel asked if he would have a problem if they had a sign similar
to the sign at the Nazarene Church.
Mr. Garrett said no.
Jim Millard, 7305 W. Court Street, Pasco, WA, Pastor of the Church of the
Nazarene is in favor of this proposal with one condition. He stated since the
building is somewhat obscure that any signage or emblems would be far
removed from their facility to prevent confusion for visiting guests.
Richard Manke, 7517 W. Court Street, Pasco, WA, stated he lives adjacent to
the proposed site. He mentioned the 35 foot sign being excessive for such a
small church. He also stated there currently are 3 churches within 600 feet
and asked if the Planning Commission is putting all the churches in the same
area. He said the zoning is for residences and mentioned the possibility for a
school at this site in the future. He stated if the church remains small it would
not affect his residence, but if in the future an expansion is requested it would.
He also mentioned his concern for noise from weddings. He would not like
commercial activities to occur on this site. He asked if it is a permitted use for
someone to live at the site of a church.
Chairman Samuel asked if Mr. Manke was in favor for this proposal.
Mr. Manke stated he is still making up his mind.
Jim Nelson, 7505 W. Court, Pasco, WA, stated he sold this site to the
applicant. He uses both driveways; however he uses the eastern driveway more
than the western driveway. He feels there is adequate room to stack in the turn
lane and does not feel there is a problem with the traffic. He feels this would be
a great addition to the community.
Roger Lenk, 1817 N. Road 76, Pasco, WA, stated the site is a house and the
ingress/egress makes it difficult to leave the site onto Court Street, causing a
safety hazard. He requested restrictions with times for services. He mentioned
he is opposed to the 35 foot sign. He mentioned Commissioner Cruz's issue
with having a person living on the site. He mentioned noise concerns. He is
opposed to this proposal.
Phil, Pasco, WA, stated he spent 40 years in management and mentioned he
heard the applicant state there would not be a sign, as well as no lights. And
he asked if he was in the same meeting. He also did not hear of anyone living
at the site. He is in favor of this proposal.
Mr. Manke asked if when this goes to City Council would there be any public
input.
Chairman Samuel said no, there would be no public input allowed after the
public hearing.
Mr. Manke asked if this item could be addressed with Council Members.
Chairman Samuel stated no.
Mr. Manke asked if any discussion could be made prior to the City Council
with Council Members.
Chairman Samuel stated no and if they did, they would have to recuse
themselves from that item.
Mr, Bhandal stated there would not be a sign but a flag pole with an emblem
on top and it would not be lighted. He mentioned their community consists of
native people from India and said their community would only grow if other
natives located to the Tri-City area.
Commissioner Little asked about the comment made on someone living at the
site.
Mr. Bhandal stated at this time that is not the case; however in the future they
were to hire a priest they would look into the priest living at the site.
Chairman Samuel asked staff if they had any further information or comments
on this proposal.
Staff stated live-in quarters or parsonages have been allowed for this type of
situation. Staff stated a symbol is exempt from the sign code and is allowable.
Chairman Samuel asked if a flagpole with a symbol is considered a sign.
Staff stated no.
Commissioner Cruz asked staff if there are rules for lighting a flagpole.
Staff stater] they do not exist. The concern for the school or expansion would
need a. special permit revision or new application. Based on the structure of the
facility there would be an occupancy limit of 54 people.
Chairman Samuel asked about the occupancy limits for churches.
Staff stated the occupancy limits are set by the building code.
Commissioner Cruz stated this is a fixed location and they are landlocked due
to the size of the lot.
Chairman Samuel asked about the current commercial use permit for this site
and if the permit would transfer between owners.
Staff stated the permit may have been issued in the County prior to
annexation.
Chairman Samuel asked if they would need to resubmit for the commercial use
permit.
Staff stated the commercial use permit is for the well drilling business and that
would not be allowable through a special permit.
Commissioner Anderson asked about the current zoning for this site.
Staff said it is R-S-20.
Commissioner Anderson mentioned that in R-S-20 zones commercial uses are
not permitted.
Chairman Samuel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the
hearing on the proposed location of a church in an R-S-20 zone and initiate
deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions, and a
recommendation to the City Council for the March 18, 2010 meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3/18/10
A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of a Sikh Temple in an R-S-20 Zone
IGurdwara Guru Nanak Par. WA1 17505 W.
Court Street] IMF# SP 10-0051
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Rick White, Community 8, Economic Development Director stated there was
nothing to add other than the conditions 4, 7, 8, and 9 address the
Commissioners discussion and public testimony received at the public hearing.
Commissioner Cruz clarified the approval condition #4 should state 35 inches
instead of the listed 35 feet.
Mr. White stated that is correct it should state 35 inches.
Commissioner Little questioned if the applicant was aware of the conditions.
Mr. White stated he has not personally discussed the conditions however he is
aware of the sewer and water connections were present in the staff report.
Commissioner Little questioned if the applicant was aware they were not to
occupy the building until the modifications were made.
Mr. White stated yes they were aware.
Chairman Samuel questioned if the condition #4 regarding the pole height and
whether it may be lit.
Mr. White stated it is not unique and is unaware of any symbols that are lit.
Mr. McDonald, City Planner mentioned the cross at Faith Assembly is lit.
Chairman Samuel questioned staff on the restriction for lighting the pole.
Mr. White stated the condition was designed to maintain the residential
character of the neighborhood.
Chairman Samuel questioned condition #8 referencing the City approved
barricade to be installed for the east entrance and wanted to know if it would
be an eyesore.
Mr. White stated it could be a cable with reflective symbols and does not need
to be a permanent barricade.
Commissioner Cruz moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 18, 2010
staff report.
COMMiSsioner Cruz further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson,
based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council approve a special permit for the
location of a Church (Sikh Temple) and parsonage with a pole-mounted
religious symbol at 7505 W. Court Street, with the conditions as listed in the
March 18, 2010 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City COLU1CH March 30, 2010
TO: Gary Crutchfield�� anger Regular Mtg.: 4/5/10
Rick White,
Community & Konomic Development Director
FROM: David McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (MF# SP10-002) Location of an Elementary School in a R-1
Zone (..Pasco School District)
1. REFERENCES):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Report to Planning Corrunission
4. Planning Conunission Minutes: Dated 2/1S/10 and 3/18/10
11. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4/5: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _.., approving a
special permit for an elementary school at the northwest corner
of Sandifer Parkway and Road 60.
111. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A_ On February 18, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for the
location of a new elementary school at the northwest corner of Sandifer Parkway
and Road 60.
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 new elementary school.
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)
4-
Item: Elementary School in R- 1 Zone
Vic*n*t
1 ly • •A licant: Pasco School
Map
Fil 4T 4T S-P • • •IV'2-
Rk
Mir
.40 MIN
i
j
V n v
_ • ' � 1 Y 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
THE LOCATION OF AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
WHFRFAS, Pasco School District, submitted an application for the location of
an elementary school at the northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60 (Tax
Parcel 116-240-072); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 18,
2010 to review the proposed elementary school; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on March 18, 201.0 the Planning
Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the proposed elementary
school 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 Pasco School District for the location of
an elementary school in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) District under Master
File # SP 10-002 with the following conditions:
a) The Special Permit shall be personal to the applicant.
b) The elementary school and school site shall be developed in substantial
confonnity with the site plan and building elevations submitted with the
special permit application.
c) No driveway on Road 60 may be located closer than 270 feet from the
center of the intersection of Road 60 and Sandifur. Parkway.
d) One driveway will be permitted on Sandifur Parkway. The driveway shall
not be located closer than 350 feet from the center of the intersection of
Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway. This driveway shall be an exit only.
e) Road 60 abutting the school property shall be improved to arterial street
standards meeting all applicable regulations and construction standards of
the City Engineer, Improvements shall include but not be limited to curb,
gutter, sidewalk and street lighting along the school side of the street.
f) The complete road width for Road 60 shall be 48 feet; the Pasco School
District shall be responsible for constructing the full road width, including
the intersection of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60, from Sandifur Parkway
north to the first school driveway. Full road width shall 'include curb and
gutter and any required storm water retention facilities on the east side. A
minimum of 28 feet of road width shall be constructed for the remaining
portion of Road 60,
1
g) Sidewalks shall be off-set to match surrounding subdivisions on Road 60
and Sandifur Parkway.
h) The planting strip between the curb and the off-set sidewalk must be
planted in lawn and trees at 50-foot intervals. The type of trees and
landscaping plan must be approved by the city prior to installation.
i) All costs associated with speed reduction/modification including but not
limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors, safety and
crosswalks shall be paid for by the School District.
j) All street/roadway signage abutting the property and offsite is to be
provided by the school district and must be per the most current MUTCD
& City of Pasco construction standards.
k) The School District shall identify and provide all necessary
accommodations for pedestrian school routes along Sandifur Parkway and
Road 60.
l) No mid-block crosswalks will be permitted.
m) The School District shall pay the traffic initigatiori fee in effect at the time
a building permit is issued.
n) The School District shall prepare a dust control mitigation plan to be
submitted with the building permit application.
o) All utilities, storm water facilities, and infrastructure improvements shall
be designed and constructed to meet the standard specifications of the City
Engineer. The School District shall be responsible for extending the 12
inch water line north in Road 60 to the edge of the school site.
p) The School District shall install a 12 inch irrigation line along the length
of the school site in Road 60.
n) The School District shall dedicate the east 10 feet of the site for additional
Road 60 right-of-way.
r) No sports field lighting shall be permitted.
S) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been
obtained by May, 2012.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 5th day of April, 2010.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr,City Attorney
2
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP-10-002 APPLICANT: Pasco School District #1
HEARING DATE: 2/18/ 10 1215 W Lewis St
ACTION DATE: 3/18/ 10 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of an Elementary School in a R-1
Zone (Sandifur Parkway 8, Road 60)
L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The easterly 564' of the southerly 846' of the southeast 1/4 of the
northwest 1/4 of Sec 10, T 9 N, R 29 E, W.M., except that portion
lying southerly of the north right-of-way line of Sandifur
Parkway.
General Location: Northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60
Property Size: Approximately 8 acres
2, ACCESS: The site is adjacent to Sandifur Parkway and Road 60.
3. UTILITIES: A 12" water line is located to the south in Sandifur Parkway
and to the east in Road 60. The water line in Road 60 extends about 125
feet north of Sandifur Parkway. Sewer service for the site has been
extended east in an easement from Coppercap Mountain Lane to the city
park site to the north. The water line will need to be extended in Road 60
to coincide with the construction of the proposed elementary school.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-i (Low Density
Residential) and is vacant. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as
follows:
NORTH- R-1 Vacant future park site
SOUTH- R-1 Single-Family
EAST- R-S-20 County-Residential
WEST- R-1 Single-Family
S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for low-density residential. Goal CF-5 suggests adequate provisions
should be made for educational facilities located throughout the urban
growth area. Policy CF-5-A encourages the appropriate location and
design of schools throughout the community. Goal TR-1 encourages the
creation and maintenance of an effective and convenient street system.
Other transportation policies (TR-1-E 8U TR-1-F) discourage through
I
traffic in residential neighborhoods and encourage the disbursement of
traffic through an interconnected network of streets. Various utility
goals and policies encourage the extension of water and sewer service in
the Urban Growth Area (UF-1, UF-lA 8s OF-1-E). OF-D-1 suggests
irrigation distribution lines be distributed with development where there
are irrigation districts. The City now maintains and operates an
irrigation system in the general area around the proposed school site.
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 dcvelopment 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 site in question was identified during the preliminary plat process for the
Three Rivers Crossing development as a future school location. To ensure the
site would remain available for a school at some future date the School District
purchased the property in 2004.
Schools are conditional uses and may be permitted within the R-1 zoning
district only after review through the special permit process. Even though the
School District purchased the property in question 6 years ago the proposed
school is required by the Municipal Code to be reviewed through the special
permit hearing process.
Pasco currently has eleven elementary schools (the School District has one
additional elementary school [Edwin Markham] outside the Pasco UGA), With
the recent growth in population (Pasco's population has more than doubled in
size since 1997) and student enrollment, the School District needs to construct
another elementary school. Elementary school enrollment in Pasco has
increased by an average of about 365 new students per year for the last
decade. This year the elementary enrollment increased by over 400 new
students. The State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
estimates Pasco's elementary enrollment will increase by 2,500 students over
the next 5 years. This continued growth in school enrollment will create the
need for additional elementary schools.
To address part of the need for additional school space the District is proposing
to develop the site in question with a 69,330 square foot elementary school
similar to Maya Angelou and Virgie Robinson. The two story building will have
2
classroom space for 730 students. The site will contain public parking and bus
loading off Road 60. The school site is the same size (8 acres) as the Maya
Angelou site. A future neighborhood park will be developed immediately to the
north of the school site, and will help provide necessary open space for student
use.
The proposed site is not fully improved with necessary infrastructure. City
codes require concurrent development of street, sidewalks and utilities
whenever a new building is constructed. In the case of the proposed elementary
school site, this would involve improvements on Road 60 and Sandifur
Parkway. These improvements will include street construction and paving,
installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, handicapped ramps,
signage, lane striping, street drainage, utilities, fire hydrants and any
necessary speed-reduction modifications needed by the School District.
Modifications to the sidewalks may be needed along Sandifur Parkway. The
PUD overhead power lines bordering the site will need to be placed
underground. Hayden Homes, the developer of the Three Rivers subdivision,
previously undergrounded most of the overhead power lines along Sandifur
Parkway. The School District is responsible for undergrounding the portion
that remains overhead.
With respect to traffic-related issues a signal warrant test will be needed to
determine when a signal should be installed at Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway.
The I-192 Subarea Transportation Plan identifies the proposed school but the
plan does not identify a need for a traffic signal at Road 60 and Sandifur
Parkway. The Regional Transportation Analysis model used by the Regional
Council does not include elementary schools in the data used to identify future
traffic impacts because elementary schools do not impact the peak hour traffic
conditions in the way other land uses do. Based on the Institute of Traffic
Engineers Trip Generation Manual (7th Edition) an elementary school with 730
students on average can be expected to generate about 941 vehicle trips per
day. That would amount to $40,463 in traffic impact fees. If the site was fully
developed with single-family homes about 300 vehicle trips could be expected
per day,
Most of the schools in Pasco including the Pasco High School and Chiawana
High School are located in residential zoning districts. An on-line search of the
Franklin County Assessors records (February, 2010) revealed that many of the
residential properties located near the existing Maya Angelou Elementary
School have increased in value since the school was built. The Maya Angelou
neighborhood was not fully developed until after the school was built. This
provides a good indication that elementary schools do not discourage the
development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity of a school or
3
impair the value thereof. Recent development around the McGee Elementary
School also provides another example of a residential neighborhood that
developed after a school was constructed.
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 located in an R-1 zone.
2. The site was identified during the preliminary platting process as a
location for a future elementary school.
3. The Pasco School District purchased the site in 2004 for a future
elementary school.
4. Schools are conditional land uses in the R--1 zone and require review
through the special permit process prior to permitting for construction.
5. The site is within the city limits of Pasco.
6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low-density residential
uses.
7. The site is currently vacant.
8. Comprehensive Plan Goal OF-5 suggests that adequate provisions should
be made for the location of educational facilities throughout the urban
growth area.
9. Various utility goals and policies (UF-1, OF-1A, UP-1E & OF-D-1) within
the Comprehensive Plan encourage the extension of water, sewer and
irrigation lines within the UGA.
10. Water service is located in Sandifur Parkway.
11. Water service extends north on Road 60 approximately 125 feet northerly
of Sandifur parkway.
12. Road 60 is not completely developed with standard street improvements.
13. Road 60 lacks the necessary right-of-way for a fully developed street.
14. Overhead power lines are located along the southern and eastern edge of
the site.
15. City development standards require off-site street and utility (sewer,
M7ater, irrigation & etc) improvements to be constructed or installed
concurrently with site development.
16. Off-site street improvements include but are not limited to street
construction and paving, installation of curb gutter and sidewalk (7'
wide), street lights, handicapped ramps, signage, lane striping, street
drainage, speed-reduction modifications, fire hydrants and the
undergrounding of overhead power lines.
4
17. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual
(7Lh Edition) a 730 student elementary school will generate about 941
vehicle trips per day.
18, if developed with single family homes the site would generate about 300
vehicle trips per day.
19. The Pasco School District enrollment has grown from 8,048 in 1997 to
14,437 in the 2009-2010 school year.
20. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction estimates Pasco's
elementary school enrollment will increase by another 2,500 by 2015.
21. Residential development near the existing Maya Angelou Elementary
School indicates elementary schools do not negatively impact the value of
surrounding homes or the intended development of residential
neighborhoods.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must draw its conclusion from the findings of fact based upon the
criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed conclusions are
as follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The proposed use supports the following plan goal CF-5 that suggests adequate
provisions be made for educational facilities throughout the Urban Growth
Area. Transportation and utility policies support city standards that require
the extension of streets and utilities in conjunction with development. To be in
accord with the Comprehensive Plan the proposed elementary school
development would also need to include the development of utilities through
the length of the site and development of corresponding street improvements.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
Development activities within the City are required to install or improve all
necessary public infrastructure concurrent with development. Construction of
the proposed elementary school will require street improvements, street
lighting, sidewalks, fire hydrants, street drainage, signage, the installation of
water lines and all other items required in the standard specification of the
City. Required improvements will enhance public infrastructure facilities in the
area around the proposed school site. The proposed school will generate about
600 more vehicle trips per day than if the site was fully developed with homes.
However, the operations of elementary schools do not fully correspond with
5
surrounding peak hour traffic. The sewer system was designed with a stub
specifically to service the proposed school,
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The proposed elementary school has been designed to complement the existing
and future neighborhood by providing generous yard setbacks, landscaping,
screening of mechanical equipment and a pitched roof line to moderate the
school's height in keeping with typical pitched roofs of residential homes.
Elementary schools are typically located in or near residential neighborhoods
and are an accepted part of the character of residential areas,
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 construction of schools in residential neighborhoods often encourages
development of nearby properties. Residential development around the Maya
Angelou and McGee schools was not completed until after the schools were in
place. An on-line search of the Franklin County Assessors records (Februaxy,
2010) revealed that values of many residential properties located near the
existing Maya Angelou Elementary School have increased since the school was
built.
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?
Experience has shown that schools within Pasco generate few complaints from
neighbors. Elementary schools typically are not a source of dust, fumes,
vibrations or flashing lights. The proposed school could generate up to 940
vehicle trips per day. During weekends, the summer break, and other break
periods very little traffic will be generated.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The elementary school will be constructed to meet all requirements of the
International Building Code, the fire code, the plumbing code, all other
construction codes and state regulations pertaining to elementary school
construction. The building will be required to have fire-rated corridors, area
6
separation walls, sufficient exiting and fire sprinkler systems to ensure the
safety of the public. The construction of sidewalks and street improvements
will address pedestrian and traffic safety issues.
Schools have a long history of being accepted in residential neighborhoods. In
most communities schools, including elementary schools, are located in or near
residential neighborhoods.
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1. The special permit shall be personal to the applicant.
2. The elementary school and school site shall be developed in substantial
conformity with the site plan and building elevations submitted with the
special permit application.
J. No driveway on Road 60 may be located closer than 270 feet from the
center of the intersection of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway.
4. One driveway will be permitted on Sandifur Parkway. The driveway shall
not be located closer than 350 feet from the center of the intersection of
Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway. This driveway shall be an exit only.
5. Road 60 abutting the school property shall be improved to arterial street
standards meeting all applicable regulations and construction standards
of the City Engineer. Improvements shall include but not be limited to
curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lighting along the school side of the
street.
6. The complete road width for Road 60 shall be 48 feet; the Pasco School
District shall be responsible for constructing the full road width,
including the intersection of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60, from
Sandifur Parkway north to the first school driveway. Full road width
shall include curb and gutter and any required storm water retention
facilities on the east side. Minimum of 28 feet of road width shall be
constructed for the remaining portion of Road 60.
7. Sidewalks shall be off-set to match surrounding subdivisions on Road 60
and Sandifur Parkway
8. The planting strip between the curb and the off-set sidewalk must be
planted in lawn and trees at 50-foot intervals. The type of trees and
landscaping plan must be approved by the city prior to installation.
9. All costs associated with speed reduction/modification including but not
limited to flashing lights, signage, pedestrian sensors, safety and
crosswalks shall be paid for by the School District.
7
10. All street/roadway signage abutting the property and offsite is to be
provided by the school district and must be per the most current MUTCD
& City of Pasco construction standards.
11. The School District shall identify and provide all necessary
accommodations for pedestrian school routes along Sandifur Parkway
and Road 60.
12. No mid-block crosswalks will be permitted.
13. The School District shall pay the traffic mitigation fee in effect at the time
a building permit is issued.
14. The School District shall prepare a dust control mitigation plan to be
submitted with the building permit application.
15. All utilities, storm water facilities, and infrastructure improvements shall
be designed and constructed to meet the standard specifications of the
City Engineer. The School District shall be responsible for extending the
12 inch water line north in Road 60 to the edge of the school site
16. The School District shall install a 12 inch irrigation line along the length
of the school site in Road 60.
17. The School District shall dedicate the east 10 feet of the site for
additional Road 60 right-of-way.
18. No sports field lighting shall be permitted.
19. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not
been obtained by May, 2012.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact
and conclusions there from as contained in the March 18, 2010
staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings
of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco
School District for the location of an elementary school at the
northwest corner of Sandifur Parkway & Road 60 (parcel #s 116-
240-072 & 116-240-067) with conditions as listed in the March
18, 2010 staff report.
8
Item: Elementary Vicinity
School
Applicant:
Map
File #-. SP 10-002
lot
- r
4 �-• _may � � y r ;.� .,� � l r`
�,+ , � �.�. •�.� Yom. � f � "t - �- _
rot : Imo- ,� - •r 0.
r:
WE`s 7 -• - I
W .aim T
�°� f •qty �'
`
.i
wy
ion
BRIAN IL
Land Item: Elementary School in R- 1 Zone
Use Applicant: Pasco School District x Ma File #: SP 10-002
Faul'i ing
THREE RIVERS DR
O _
2
DAMON POINT DR /3e Vac
W O
t_ Q CL
ALPINE LAKES DR SFDU's
CL
� W _
� b
0 –0
a. 0 I-
Uj o SFDU's
SITE
(County)
I i I L )
ENZIAN FALLS DR
SANDIFUR PKWY
X ROBINS- DR RI L T J
if :E110
SFDU's
} COMISKEY DR JOHNS
Item: Elementary School in R- 1 Zone
Zon'ng
Applicant: Pasco School District, N
Map File #: SP 10-002
RT
THREE RIVERS DR
Ln
DAMON POINT DR y� z co
2 `n Q
ALPINE LAKES DR RS=20
..j I i
o OF °N Rmf . SITE (County)W ��O�-
EN IAN FALLS DR
i
SANDIFUR PKWY
i T
1 !
ROBINSON DR OR R
=-13
_ - R-1 -,
COMISKEY DR JO N
A � �\, 1• '���_—__._.._3Nti+"I WV1Nr10W db'�Pl�ddd'J '�-�.
A�k
/ICJ --- ----r---,-- ---r---- -�_ .���_`
g
,
n , I
5 CP
----------,- -------�
ii
r �� -. -----_. - -- m.w wwwwwnwwa raalr�w mom
ra■rawwrwranarrrrrraraanrrarrrwwn�n:a�P
/ ir�T,r�wwwwwra.arw.warrwrwaawaww��aawwwwwwwarrrawrrwrrrwwaw^
` 'F• 1■ aw r
r♦ a ■ j#f
� � i`•,'""''�', r'.:� *�;�� iii
aaawrwaaaararrarr.......m. !-♦ :•. . ,T�+
da
MEMO
noun
posse
..1111Ruur ulllullull���� zr. :A elf■lElli, � -
{' ,■ullalel,
soon fE ■■ l� Y 3•• On 116
no
■lr�.4 { 777waaRi■lll■E,.
■ .w .:.'4 -♦' �, 'ii 9sa;{y, ss+ ;.,�7.:' .r +'�:'•♦,��1*l■ll�nr■rlr\llw}lflllll�.lwi.ar_
�' ~ +ti.z. �e, �. •. '" .. �fi�t!��■ ■lflllE■■■ ■■lull■E■■SIME
�{~�� '� ,,/yy'b, �� `, 1 <. f' Y Ski<��� !i-'•wf�° 4' 1
♦ ♦<�� J•2,,`7'< 5 4ei �Y1�' r I r 1 +r'y S ; ;53) �C J S t�� f � �
< +, ,.r ^,S Lf p♦,,��•�.4�'77�'� h IJ , r a sy�i��I�ra "4��''y1C�i.�f 7��,.iy 3 ¢�, ;4-�q i�
�` �A l..i♦�♦•�•<e�" fi.:r.`.'S+J+�'�h'rl'.�'z',<.6rw♦� r<,44i.>a'+.:?"�'i':Fr'+,r�r���r��-v5`�e•M�+ � y�,�'f� ���r���' I ..'
�r4���lA'1� � � YY •■�rl■ '•+r i ♦"r'{� aelsy��,yfr/•. � .� , �
�'1- rrarratrtlarrrr ifflff�l �a�•�t..::.[�.`-':.�1♦�'`a{.r 'J,r,a�.,7e},''�'Lsff:.sM+S- ■'
,..........A�iiw,r�iiiwrr.rs.r llllll ,.-•Yr ■.
;. ■rs.A rrwYiiloi�oiiiallallfl�■SrfE�ail�t�ll�� ��� '�If�_ ■
f _ rrll-■\\--iMifiiaR
MUM
,Ifs' ;� 7
- \■■■
■ Mla
■i
^aiYay��aaala ararrrarrrrr wwwrretwrrae�
■
� r
��a�r��r.artiiw��ry�i �� •r
•
moll
- ......._.. _^ -
-..._ ... __. _.. ... ,�.
_.
._.�•'-dlf �7 � � dl sb �! �!! � �! d! ! !� �f' � �b� is �f i ,�, � O �-..�_..� �.._ . +.
o..... . ...........
-—- iir
pia!� vai •-._.._. o:ii \v r� C<� I '
� 'i ti4 1i 'p. •
■
I
r
-'p/- `yam r■ y��{� - - _
IN KIM
e+ � YS '!0 .4#®IG .y4®.�--LR ��. i�`sl3 �•' I �LSI3�
miwf tom'^_
IfffamaNt look
Rr
��x.,� � +..xr ���'� .R� ■,�a. : �N�ro'+�iiiri��'� �:'s.l� •�ri`�`•oivi�� I $iT•anx�:��� `x. � �° �- _ � �g
D o 0 0&0 ♦ O U o
au ' i _'. . �r A
r 1 7 I J I
Exhibit# 1 - 2117/10 E-Mail from Humann
Sophia Aquarius
From: TRUDY HUMANN [trudygil @q.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:29 PM
To: Sophia Aquarius
Subject: Pasco School District Public Hearing
Hi,
We recently received a 'Notice of Public Hearing' letter stating that the Pasco School District has filed an
application(MF#SP 10-002) requesting a special permit to build an elementary school on a piece of
property located on Rd 60 & Sandifur Parkway.
I can assume the School District will be asking the voters to approve another school bond to pay for this
school.
I would like to know what portion of the cost to build this school are the developers responsible for? As a
taxpayer, here is what I see happening - The land owners sell their land to a developer (Hayden Homes,
Olin, Aho, etc.), the developer builds thousands of family homes, they take their money and have no
further responsibility for the surrounding infrastructure of the community. This includes, maintaining the
roads, fences, landscape, building new schools, etc.
These costs are left to the taxpayer to fund and we feel this is all wrong. If a developer wants to add all
of these houses to an area, they should also be responsible for these costs.
We are currently paying for one school bond and an ongoing levy (that never seems to go away). I have
talked to the Pasco School District and understand the difference between a levy and a bond. I also know
that they cannot request the taxpayers to approve another bond until the existing bond for the new high
school is below what they call their bond breaking point. I am sure at that time, the taxpayers will be
asked to approve anther bond and it will presented in a way to look like we will not be voting on a new
bond, but extending an existing one.
Regardless of this, I feel strongly that the developers should be responsible for the majority of the above
stated costs (if not all of them) and not the taxpayer.
Thank you in advance for listening and a reply to the above concerns would be appreciated,
Trudy & Gil Humann
544-0113
5703 N Rd 60
Pa sco,W A
trud n q,com
i
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
2/18/10
A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of an Elementary School in a R-1
Zone Pasco School District Sandifur
Parkway& Road 601 IMF# SP 10-0021
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff stated the application involved the location of an elementary school at the
northwest corner of Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway. The site was purchased by
the School District in 2004 when the preliminary plat for Three Rivers Crossing
was being prepared. Staff explained schools are listed as conditional uses in
the residential districts and unclassified uses in other districts causing the
need for the special permit review. Most schools in Pasco are located in
residential zoning districts, The School District will be responsible for road
improvements on Road 60 up to the City Park. The building tivill be similar to
the Ellen Ochoa Middle School and the Virgie Robinson Elementary School.
The school will be able to house 730 students. Staff reviewed the balance of the
staff report for the benefit of the Planning Commission.
Chairman Samuel asked if there were any complaints received over noise or
traffic when Maya Angelou was built.
Staff stated there were no complaints to the Planning Office or during the
construction.
Chairman Samuel questioned the traffic impact on Road 68.
Staff stated the traffic generated by elementary schools occurs during off peak
times and is not considered in traffic modeling.
Commissioner Little asked if the students would come from the area east of
Road 68 and north of Burden Boulevard.
Staff stated they believed that would be the case.
Staff also mentioned that Road 60 and Sandifur Parkway are arterial collector
streets.
Staff stated an email was received from a property owner in the vicinity of the
proposed site. Copies of the email were presented prior to the meeting for the
Planning Commission to review.
Kim Marsh, Pasco School District, 1215 W. Lewis Street. was present to speak
in favor of the proposal. Mr. Marsh stated in response to an earlier question
that the School District had not received any complaints from neighbors of
Maya Angelou Elementary. Mr. Marsh stated approximately 10 buses would go
to and from the proposed school. The Pasco School District predicts there will
be approximately 10,000 elementary students and 9,800 secondary students
within the next 5 years. The school will be sized for 730 students. The building
would be built in the same fashion as Virgie Robinson Elementary School,
Phil, address not given except Pasco, WA, asked if the School District would be
more equitable on how they make the boundaries for the school.
Tom Kidwell, 4320 Riverhaven Street, owns neighboring property and is in
favor of the school.
Staff made some additional comments on traffic and stated schools are closed
during the weekends, holidays and during summer vacation.
After three calls, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the
public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and
development of a recommendation for City Council for the March 18, 2010. The
motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3/18/10
A. SPECIAL PERMIT Location of an Elementary School in a R-1
Zone (Pasco School District) (Sandifur
Parkway & Road 601 (MF# SP 10-002)
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff had no comments.
Chairman Samuel asked staff if there would be lighting in the parking lot.
Staff stated all schools in the district have lit parking lots. During the plan
review for permitting the parking lot lighting will be reviewed for compliance
with the code to ensure illumination is directed down towards the parking lot.
Chairman Samuel asked if there were any complaints from residents regarding
balls flying over the fences at other schools.
Staff was not aware of any complaints.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Little, to adopt
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 18, 2010
staff report.
Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Little,
based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Pasco
School District for the location of an elementary school at the northwest corner
of Sandifur Parkway and Road 60 (parcels #'s 116-240-072 & 116-240-067)
with conditions as listed in the March 18, 2010 staff report. The motion passed
unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 31, 2010
TO: Gary Crutchfield, anager Regular Mtg.: 4/5/10
Rick White,
Community& Ecor omic Development Director
FROM: David 1. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (MF# SP 10-001) Location and operation of a gavel mine in
an R-T Zone (Rocky Hills Manai4ement, LLC) (3214 Dent Roadl
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Resolution
3. Report to Planning Commission
4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 2/18/10 and 3/18/10
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4/5: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. approving the
special purmit for the location and operation of a gravel mine
in an R-T Zone.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On February 18, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for a gravel
mining operation adjacent to and north of the existing Central Pre-Mix gravel
aline on Harris Road.
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 gravel mine on Farm Unit# 84.
C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution.
D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been
received.
8(f)
Vicinity Item: Gravel Mining in RT Zone Map
Applicant: Rocky Hills Management N
•
File #: SP 10-001
A
1'
r•7�
S ITE :•e1W` a
=-.
"Ur " r,.1P
�c A T ` Orr
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
A GRAVEL MINT;
WHEREAS, Rocky Hills Management, submitted an application for the
operation of a gravel mine on Farm Unit 4 84 (Tax Parcel 126-160-010); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 18,
2010 to review the proposed gravel mine; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on March 18, 2010 the Planning
Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the gravel mine with certain
conditions; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CI'T'Y COUNCIL OF TIIE CITY OF PASCO:
1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Rocky Hills Management, LP for the
location of a gravel mine in an R-T (Residential Transition) District under Master
File # SP10-001 with the following conditions:
a) The special permit shall apply to Farm Unit# 84;
b) The scope of the approved activities includes sandl'gravel extraction, storage of
gravel and storage of equipment utilized in the extraction process;
c) The applicant shall obtain and maintain all necessary governmental permits for
the operations permitted by this special permit;
d) The gravel mining operation must follow best management practices. Best
-management practices may 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;
• Using covered chutes and covered containers when handling,
transferring, and/or storing PM containing materials;
• Minimizing the freefall 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;
1
• 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 haiil truck travel to control release of
PM;
• Prevent the deposition of particulate matter (PM) onto paved public
roadways;
e) This special pert-nit shall expire on January 1, 2025.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 5th day of April, 2010.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L, Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr; City Attorney
2
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 10-001 APPLICANT: Rocky Hills Management
HEARING DATE: 2/18/ 10 10723 W. Court Street
ACTION DATE: 3/ 18/ 10 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Renewal/Expansion of a Gravel Mining
Permit in an R-T zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Farm Unit # 84
General Location: 3291 Dent Road
Properiy Size: Approx. 143 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Dent Road.
3. UTILITIES: Power is available to the site. No water or sewer
service is available to the site
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is zoned RT (Residential
Transition) and contains a farm, a single-family dwelling. Site has
been partially mined for gravel. Surrounding properties are zoned
and developed as follows:
NORTH: COUNTY-R-S-40 8s RC-5 - Farm land and vacant land
SOUTH: RT-CenCral Pre-Mix gravel pit and related operations
EAST: RT-Vacant land
WEST: COUNTY RT—Farm land
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates
this area for Single Family Residential development. However, the
Resource Lands Chapter of Vol. II designates the property as
resource lands. The Comprehensive Plan points out that mineral
resource lands should be protected for the extraction of minerals
(RCW 36.79A.060 (1) (a),
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the
lead agency for this project. Based on the State Environmental
Policv 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
Gravel mines and quarries are listed as unclassified uses in PMC
Chapter 25.86 and as such are required to be reviewed through the
special permit process before locating anywhere in the City. The
property in question has been issued special permits in the past by both
the City and County for gravel mining operations. The property is
currently under two different permits, 73 acres is covered by a City
special permit that expires in the year 2028 and the balance is under a
County special permit that expires in 2014. The applicant is requesting
that all of the property be consolidated under one special permit. Only
about 25 acres of the site has been mined.
The Rocky Hills property (formerly the Wilson property) is designated
under the Resource Lands Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan as a
mineral resource area. The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires each
city and county in the state to designate mineral resource lands that are
not characterized by urban development and which have long term
commercial significance for mineral extraction (RCW 36.70A.170). The
GMA requires communities to protect mineral resource lands for mineral
extraction once the lands have been so designated.
Gravel mining has occurred in the general location of the Rocky Hills site
since the 1950's. The adjoining property to the south and east (owned by
Dale Adams) has been granted special permits for sand and gravel
mining. The property is under lease to Central Pre-Mix who has been
operating a gravel pit on the property since 1956. Prior to that time gold
was mined on the property. Central Pre-Mix produces various types of
crushed rock, gravel products and ready mix concrete from gravel that is
or has been mined on both the Rocky Hills property and Mr, Adam's
property. In 2009 Central Pre-Mix was granted a special permit to also
operate a hot mix asphalt plant.
The Central Pre-Mix gravel mining facility is only one of three major
functioning gravel pits within the Tri-Cities area. However, the Acme pit
in Richland is basically depleted and will no longer provide significant
amounts of gravel. Because gravel products are a critical component for
construction they therefore have an impact on the economy of the
community. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes this and suggests there
is a need to protect the lands around the Central Pre-Mix mining
operation for future mineral production.
Due to the lack of infrastructure in the area, current development
potential of the property in question is limited to land intensive uses.
This proposal does not need the types of infrastructure that support
2
residential or commercial development. The site is located a mile west of
the Broadmoor Boulevard/Road 100 Interchange and considering the
lack of infrastructure and the development planned between Road 68
and Broadmoor Boulevard, it is unlikely the Rocky Hills property will
develop in the near future. If changing economic conditions warrant a
change in land use, the applicant can simply not utilize the special
permit and develop his land with permitted uses.
In 2009 the City Council adopted the Broadmoor Concept Plan that
identifies development 'issues and opportunities for the Broadmoor area
west of Broadmoor Boulevard. In addition to explaining development
constraints created by gravel mining operations in the area, the plan also
discusses river oriented development opportunities for the expired gravel
pit areas. While gravel mining operations will continue for at least 15
more years, perhaps longer depending on the pace of extraction, further
discussions will be needed with the property owners and Central Pre-Mix
to refine development objectives and solutions to development
constraints for the area.
The special permit, if granted by the City, regulates land use only.
Several other governmental agencies monitor sand/gravel extraction
activities to assure compliance with associated environmental
regulations. Mining permits are required by the Department of Natural
Resources and an air source permit and a storm water discharge permit
are required from the Department of Ecology. A reclamation plan is also
required by the Department of Natural Resources which regulates the
closure of gravel pits.
Given the quality of the aggregate found on the applicant's property and
the lack of other mineable sites in the urban area the applicant has
requested that a special permit be granted to allow gravel mining until
the year 2035. The applicant feels that a permit with such a time frame
would help insure the availability of the gravel resource without it being
lost to other land uses. Past gravel mining special permits (Wilson &
Central Pre-Mix) have been granted for a period of 30 years. The
applicant is seeking a permit for 25 years which is seven years beyond
the current permit on the property and 10 years beyond the Central Pre-
Mix permit. For consistency and to avoid confusion over the various
gravel mining special permits it may be appropriate to grant the new
Rocky Hills permit only to the year 2025. The applicant has the option of
requesting further review of the special permit in ten or fifteen years if
additional time is needed for extracting gravel.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
3
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 located in an RT zone.
2. The site is within the Urban Growth Boundary
3. The Resource Lands Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
designates the property as a resource land area.
4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the property in question as
lands containing one of the best gravel deposits in Franklin
County.
5. The GMA requires mineral resource lands to be protected for the
extraction of minerals (RCW 36.79A.O60 (1) (a).
6. In the past the property has been granted special permits from
both the City and County for gravel mining.
7. Part of the site has been mined by Central Pre-Mix,
8. The site is being farmed and contains one farm house.
9. The site is not served by water and sewer service.
10. Surrounding lands to the west, north and east are vacant or are
being farmed.
11 . The Central Pre-Mix gravel pit, rock crusher, ready-mix plant and
related facilities are located directly south of the site.
12. Central Pre-Mix was granted a special permit in 2009 to operate a
hot mix asphalt plant to the south of the Rocky Hill property. That
special permit expires in 2025.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON 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:
YJ Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The "Resource Lands" of the Comprehensive Plan identifies the property
in question as mineral resource land containing one of the best gravel
deposits in Franklin County. The Plan also suggests these lands should
be protected for mineral extraction. Mining gravel on the applicant's
property would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
4
The proposed land use does not require sewer and water service.
Municipal utilities would interfere with the proposed gravel mining
process.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general
vicinity?
The surrounding properties are vacant, being farmed or mined for gravel
and sand. The proposed mining operation will be consistent with
mining operations to the south and the special permits issued for mining
on the adjoining lands. According to the Comprehensive Plan and the
Broadmoor Concept Plan the ultimate use of the property will be
primarily low density single-family residential once the mining
operations have finished. Portions of the site near the Central Pre-Mix pit
area will be devoted to mixed residential and commercial uses.
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 be identical to previously special permitted uses on the property
and adjoining properties.
SJ Will the operations in connection. ujith 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?
Nearby properties are being mined, farmed or are vacant and under lease
to be mined. The nearby farming operations, rock crusher, and concrete
batch plant presently create as much or more dust, noise and odor as
does the proposed use. The property to the south has been granted
special permits for the operation of a hot mix asphalt plant and for
graveling mining and related activities. These special permits expire in
2025. Central Pre-Mix has the option of requesting further review of their
special permits if additional time is need to retrieve gravel. Drawing
comparisons between permitted uses in the RT zone is difficult because
only farming and large lot residential (5 acres) development is permitted
in the zone.
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?
5
The proposal will make available a needed resource to the community in
general which is important for continued growth and welfare of the
community. The present mining operations nearby by do not endanger
public health. This proposal will allow the continuation of the existing
mining operation and will not be a nuisance to the existing Central Pre-
Mix operations permitted by special permit. The site is designated as a
mineral resource area and is to be protected for the extraction of
minerals. Permitted uses such as housing will not occur until the
mineral extraction is completed.
Recommended Approval Conditions
1) The special permit shall apply to Farm Unit # 84;
3) The scope of the approved activities includes sand/gravel
extraction, storage of gravel and storage of equipment
utilized in the extraction process;
4) The applicant shall obtain and maintain all necessary
governmental permits for the operations permitted by this
special permit;
5) The gravel mining operation must follow best management
practices. Best management practices may 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;
• Using covered chutes and covered containers when
handling, transferring, and/or storing PM containing
materials;
• 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.;
a Managing vehicle loads with potential of release of PM
with appropriate covers or freeboard consistent with
applicable laws;
6
• 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 particulate matter (PM) onto
paved public roadways;
6) This special permit shall expire on January 1, 2025.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions there from as containcd in the
March 18, 2010 staff report,
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council grant a special
permit to Rocky Hills Management for the location and
operation of a gravel mine on Farm Unit # 84 with
conditions as listed in the March 18, 2010 staff report.
7
Item: Gravel Mini g in RT Zone
il
Vicinity
Applicant: Rocky Is Management
Map
Ir Zr
Me-
w
Land Item: Gravel Extraction in RT Zone �
Use Applicant: Rocky Hills Management - N -
Map File # : SP 10-001 `
Farming
Farmin
9
I I SITE Vacant
\, ��� Gravel
� Extraction
Item : Gravel Extraction in RT Zone A
Zoning Applicant: Rocky Hills Management - N
Map File #: SP 10-001 `
- - RS-40 (County)
RT
o (County) SITE ��
RT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
2/ 18/10
A. SPECIAL PERMIT Renewal Expansion of Gravel Mining
operation in a R-T Zone (Rocky Hills
Management, LP) 13921 Dent Road) (MF# SP
10-00
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff stated the applicant was seeking to consolidate and renew the special
permits that were previously granted for gravel mining on the property. Staff
explained the property was covered by both City and County permits. The
County permit was issued prior to annexation and is set to expire in 2014.
Staff explained the site was identified as a mineral resource area in the
Comprehensive Plan and was appropriate for gravel mining. Staff reviewed the
written report and suggested an additional condition should be considered
dealing with best management practices.
Commissioner Cruz asked if the recommended permit condition expiration date
for this permit was coincident with the Central Pre-Mix special permit.
Staff stated yes the Central Pre-Mix special permit expires in 2025.
Commissioner Little asked if the permit involved the extraction of minerals and
other activities.
Staff stated it would also allow for storage of mined gravel and the storage of
equipment. The rock crushing and the creation of asphalt would occur to the
south of the site.
David Wilson, Rocky Hills Management, 10723 W. Court Street, stated the site
contained 140 acres and the original mining on the site started in the mid-
1970's. He was seeking to combine the existing special permits on his property
into one special permit. He stated the condition related to best practice
management would be agreeable.
Commissioner Little asked if irrigation water would be affected due to the
mining.
Mr. Wilson stated he does not believe the irrigation water would be affected
since the irrigation water for the South Columbia Irrigation District was from
canals and the Franklin County Irrigation District pulls water from the river.
Chairman Samuel asked Mr. Wilson if he reviewed the recommended approval
conditions.
Mr. Wilson stated he had reviewed the conditions and had no issues.
The public hearing was opened for public comment and after three calls and no
answer, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Cruz asked staff if they would clarify the special conditions for
the special permit for the asphalt plant.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, outlined a series of
conditions related to best management practices.
Commissioner Little, seconded by Commissioner Cruz, moved to close the
public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and
development of a recommendation for City Council for the March 18, 2010. The
motion passed unanimously,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
3/ 18/10
A. SPECIAL PERMIT Renewal/ENpansion of Gravel Mining
operation in a R-T Zone (Rocky Hills
Management, LP) 13921 Dent Road) (MF# SP
10-001
Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff had no additional comments.
Commissioner Hay moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 18, 2010
staff report.
Commissioner Hay- further moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based
on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Rocky Hills Management
for the location and operation on Farm Unit 484 with conditions as listed in the
March 18, 2010 staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT NO. 5
FOR: City Council March 31, 2010
TO: Gary Crutch w ,Manager
Robert Alberts b Works Director
FROM: Michael McShane, City Engineer Regular Mtg.: 04/05/10
SUBJECT: Award Road 68 Improvements, Project #10-3-02
1. RE, FERENCE(S):
1. Vicinity Map
2. Rid Summary
It. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
04105: MOTION: 1 move to award the low bid for the Road 68 Improvements,
Project #10-3-02 to Granite Northwest, Inc. in the amount of
$310,292.30, and further, authorize the Mayor to sign the
contract documents.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Arterial Street Fund
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) On March 31, 2010, staff received three (3) bids for the Road 68 Improvements,
Project 910-3-02. The low bid was received from Granite Northwest, Inc. in the
amount of$310,292.30. The second lowest bid received was from Inland Asphalt
Company in the amount of$329,845.60. The Engineer's Estimate for the project
is $270,000. One bid was irregular and deemed non-responsive.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) This project involves the widening of existing pavement, removal and
replacement of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, removal and relocation of
existing traffic signal poles and equipment and installation of new street lighting.
The end product will be an additional South-hound lane on Rd 68 south of Burden
Blvd and a double left-turn lane for North-bound to West-bound cars on Rd 68 to
Burden Blvd. "these changes are intended to move cars through the intersection
more efficiently, thus reducing the congestion and associated waiting times.
Staft'recommends award of the contract to Granite Northwest, Inc.
10(a)
o
Rao 41 D
/ RoAn
o
�O
Rpnn 8t / Co y �I
I;
r C
z I y
ROAD 68
Lj
T �
N 1 1
13, ROAD44
� O �
f m
b
f
o FT-1
Jill
2 Ay£
i
City of Pasco
Road 68 Improvements
Project No. 10-3-02
March 31, 2010
BID SUMMARY
Total
1 . Granite Northwest, Inc. $310,292.30
2. Inland Asphalt Company $329,845.60
Engineer's Estimate $270,000.00