Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.07.02 Council Meeting PacketAGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. July 2, 2012 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Councilmembers or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. (a) Approval of Minutes: 1. Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated June 18, 2012. (b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance Manager's office.) To approve General Claims in the amount of $988,292.59 ($146,859.14 in the form of Electronic Fund Transfer Nos. 10381, 10429 and 10430; and $841,433.45 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 1213, 1214, 1219, 1220 and 1221; and Claim Warrants numbered 188324 through 188495). 2. To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of $3,027,772.54, Voucher Nos. 44093 through 44353 and 80160 through 80169; and EFT Deposit Nos. 30052346 through 30053206. (c) Resolution No. 3408, a Resolution of the City of Pasco, Washington calling upon state and federal lawmakers to resolve conflicts between state and federal law concerning the possession of marijuana. 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated June 20, 2012. 2. Proposed Resolution. To approve Resolution No. 3408, calling upon state and federal lawmakers to resolve conflicts between state and federal laws concerning the possession of marijuana. (RC) MOTION:I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: (a) (b) (c) 5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: (a) "Yard of the Month" Awards. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) The following Pasco residents have been invited to attend the Council meeting to receive Certificates of Appreciation from the City Council for "Yard of the Month," June 2012. 1. David and Marianne Ophardt, 10405 Maple Drive 2. Orin and Connie Russell, 324 N. 6`h Avenue 3. Allen Lee, 1740 N. I 51 Avenue 4. David and Marie Schiefelbein, 1015 Christopher Lane (b) "Business of the Month" Appearance Award. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) The following Pasco business has been invited to attend the Council meeting to receive a Certificate of Appreciation from the City Council for "Business of the Month Appearance Award" for June 2012. 1. Maverik, 5505 Road 68 (c) Presentation of Proclamation for "Parks & Recreation Month, July 2012." Mayor Matt Watkins to present Proclamation to Nolan Harper, Lead Recreation Specialist. Regular Meeting 2 July 2, 2012 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers (b) (c) HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: Q *(a) Special Permit Appeal (MF# SP2012 -007) Expanding the Capacity of a Preschool in an R -S- 20 Zone. 1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planner dated June 26, 2012.. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Proposed Resolution. 4. Binder Containing the Hearing Record (Council packets only; copies available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the City's webpage at www.nasco- wa eov /citycouncilrenorts). CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and approving a special permit to expand the capacity of a permitted preschool at 1800 Road 72. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _, approving a special permit for the expansion of a preschool in an existing church at 1800 Road 72 as recommended by the Planning Commission. (b) Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2013 -2018. 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director dated June 19, 2012. 2. Proposed Plan. 3. Resolution. 4. Map. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING Resolution No. , a Resolution adopting the revised and extended Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs for the City of Pasco. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution thereby adopting the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan for 2013 -2018. 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: Q *(a) Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and approving a special permit for the expansion of the Franklin County Courthouse and Correctional Facility. 1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated June 26, 2012. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Proposed Resolution. 4. Report to Planning Commission. 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 5/17/12 and 6/21/12. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _, approving a special permit to expand the Courthouse and Correctional Facility as recommended by the Planning Commission. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) 10. NEW BUSINESS: *(a) Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Heritage Railspur Project: 1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director dated June 27, 2012. 2. Professional Services Agreement. 3. Vicinity Map. MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, hic., authorizing engineering services on a time and material basis not to exceed $53,612.00 for the Heritage Railspur Project and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Regular Meeting 3 July 2, 2012 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) Lease of Real Estate (b) (c) 13. ADJOURNMENT. (RC) Roll Call Vote Required * Item not previously discussed MF# "Master File #...:. Q Quasi - Judicial Matter 1. 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, July 4 — Pasco's Grand Old 4 °i of July Parade. (Check in at registration table at 40' & Marie at 9:00 a.m.) (MAYOR MATT WATKINS, COUNCILMEMBERS BOB HOFFMANN, TOM LARSEN and SAUL MARTINEZ) 2. 9:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 4, Dust Devils Stadium — Pasco's 4'h of July Fireworks Celebration. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS) (ALL COUNCILMEMBERS INVITED TO ATTEND) * City Hall will be closed on Wednesday, July 4 in honor of the 4`h of July Holiday * MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 18, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Rebecca Francik, Mike Garrison, Robert Hoffmann, Tom Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney. Staff present: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director; Mike Pawlak, City Engineer; Bob Metzger, 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 June 4, 2012. (b) Bills and Communications: To approve General Claims in the amount of $1,971,790.06 ($9,368.79 in the form of Electronic Fund Transfer Nos. 10241, 10271, 10273, and 10301 through 10302; and $1,962,421.27 in the form of Wire Transfer Nos. 1216 through 1217; and Claim Warrants numbered 188109 through 188323). 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 $249,737.84 and, of that amount, authorize $177,604.99 be turned over for collection. (c) Appointment to Pasco Public Facilities District Board: To reappoint Mark Morrissette to Position No. 2 (expiration date 7/14/2016) on the Public Facilities District Board. (d) Legislative Consultant Agreement: To approve the agreement with Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs for state legislative consultant services and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Removed from Consent Agenda and moved to Item 10(b) — New Business. (e) Final Plat (MF #FP2012 -003) Desert Estates Three, Phase 9: To approve the final plat for Desert Estates Three, Phase 9. (f) Resolution No. 3406, a Resolution requiring medical/dental premium co -pay by all participating non - represented employees. To approve Resolution No. 3406, amending the medical /dental premium co -pay policy. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. 3(a).1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 18, 2012 PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Mayor Watkins presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Jim Hay, retiring Planning Commission Member. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Mac Miller, Boise Idaho, addressed Council concerning a rock in Volunteer Park. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS: Mr. Yenney attended the Benton Franklin Council of Governments meeting. Mr. Hoffmann reported on the Tri -Mats Policy Advisory Committee meeting. Ms. Francik attended the Juneteenth Parade and the Regional Public Facilities District Board meeting. Mayor Watkins attended the Ben - Franklin Transit Board meeting, the Regional Public Facilities District Board meeting and the Juneteenth Parade. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: Street Vacation: Portion of East Clark Street (Rivera) (MF# VAC2012 -003). Mr. White explained the details of the proposed vacation. MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED VACATION. FOLLOWING THREE CALLS FOR COMMENTS, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, AND THERE BEING NONE, MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Ordinance No. 4062, an Ordinance vacating a portion of East Clark Street. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4062, vacating a portion of East Clark Street and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS: Ordinance No. 4063, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending PMC 9.48 "Park Code" regarding enforcement officers. Mr. Terway explained the details of the proposed code amendment. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4063, amending PMC 9.48 "Park Code" regarding enforcement officers and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 3407, a Resolution accepting a ten percent annexation petition, providing a determination on the territory to be annexed and whether simultaneous zoning and the assumption of bonded indebtedness will be required. Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed annexation. Mr. Jeff Hendler, 3016 Road 56, requested more information from all parties and urged Council to proceed slowly. 2 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 18, 2012 Mr. Bill Venema, 8517 W. Court St., believes annexation is the most effective way to provide services to the residents. Mr. Brad Peck, Chairman, Franklin County Board of Commissioners, clarified that Franklin County's position on the annexation is "neutral." Mr. Mark MacFarlan, 6208 W. Argent Rd., urged Council not to proceed with the annexation. Mr. John Bykonen, 931 W. Margaret St., noted Council's obligation is to the residents of the City. Ms. Pam Kelly, 8414 Bell St., disagrees with the water agreement annexation process. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3407, accepting the ten percent petition for annexation of Riverview Area #2. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Yes — Francik, Watkins, Garrison, Martinez. No — Larsen, Yenney, Hoffmann. NEW BUSINESS: Rail Project Management Agreement with Port of Pasco: Council and staff discussed the proposed agreement. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the rail projects management agreement with the Port of Pasco and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Legislative Consultant Agreement: Council and staff discussed the proposed agreement. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the agreement with Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs for state legislative consultant services and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried 6 -1. No — Larsen. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Council adjourned to Executive Session at 8:38 p.m. for approximately 30 minutes to discuss Collective Bargaining Strategy and Proposals with the City Manager. Mayor Watkins called the meeting back to order at 9:01 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. APPROVED: Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 2 "d day of July, 2012. CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: July 2, 2012 Accounts Payable Approved The City Council City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington undersigned, do hereb certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished, the s rendered or t or�rformed as described herein and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid bligation aga nst the ci and that we are authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. �ele Maso , Finance Services ManagerMaso , Finance Services Manager We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this 2nd day of July, 2012 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received: Check Numbers and 188324 - 188495 In The Amount Of: $841,433.45 Electronic Funds Transfers: 1213, 1214, 1219, 1220,1221 Electronic Funds Transfers: (Journal Entries) Councilmember 10381,10429 10430 GENERALFUND: Legislative Judicial Executive Police Fire Administration & Community Services Community Development Engineering Non - Departmental Library TOTAL GENERAL FUND: STREET ARTERIAL STREET STREET OVERLAY C. D. BLOCK GRANT HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT NSP GRANT KING COMMUNITY CENTER AMBULANCE SERVICE CEMETERY ATHLETIC PROGRAMS GOLF COURSE SENIOR CENTER OPERATING MULTI MODAL FACILITY RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING LITTER CONTROL REVOLVING ABATEMENT PARKS ECONOMIC DEV & INFRASTRUCT STADIUM /CONVENTION CENTER GENERAL CAP PROJ CONSTRUCTION In The Amount Of: $ 146,859.14 Combined total of $988,292.59 Councilmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: WATER /SEWER EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE CENTRALSTORES PAYROLL. CLEARING LID CONSTRUCTION PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST TRI CITY ANIMAL CONTROL SENIOR CENTER ASSOCIATION GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: 465.45 7,338.06 357, 3,706.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,965.99 9,217.82 49,537.08 194,501.38 26,683.42 131.94 165.23 48.88 178,923.44 0.00 36,872.74 0.00 0.00 50,771.16 0.00 $ 988,292.59 3(b).1 CITY OF PASCO Payroll Approval The City Council City of Pasco Franklin County, Washington The folloy/ing iS a sumry of proll claims against the City of Pasco for the month of June 2012 whi are'present d herewith for your review and approval. Council Meeting of: July 2, 2012 `Z, a�e,� Rick Ten ay, Administrative Vlommunity Services Director i We, the undersigned City Council members of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify that the services represented by the below expenditures have been received and that payroll voucher No's. 44093 through 44353 and 80160 through 80169 and EFT deposit No's. 30052346 through 30053206 and City contributions in the aggregate amount of $3,027,772.54 are approved for payment on this 2nd day of July .2012. Councilmember Councilmember SUMMARY OF PAYROLL BY FUND GENERALFUND: 55,954.96 Legislative $ 11,804.99 Judicial 114,838.71 Executive 94,878.06 Police 846,499.86 Fire 401,834.80 Administrative & Community Services 472,810.95 Community Development 122,440.22 Engineering 127,978.48 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 2,193,086.07 CITY STREET 55,954.96 BLOCK GRANT 7,955.16 HOME CONSORTIUM 2,550.78 NSP 428.25 MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND CEMETERY ATHLETIC FUND SENIOR CENTER STADIUM OPERATIONS MULTI -MODAL FACILITY BOAT BASIN REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND TASKFORCE WATER /SEWER EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING OLD FIRE PENSION FUND GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS Payroll Summary Net Payroll Employee Deductions Gross Payroll City of Pasco Contributions Total Payroll 8,384.20 237,201.91 24,448.82 4,812.62 20,291.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 425,159.58 40,077.48 7,421.12 3,027,772.54 1,478,846.23 860,483.33 2,339,329.56 688,442.98 $ 3,027,772.54 3(b).2 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City TO: Gary Crutch ity Manager FROM: Stan Strebel, D uty City Manage SUBJECT: Medical Marijuana I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Resolution June 20, 2012 Workshop Mtg.: 6/25/12 Regular Mtg.: 7/2/12 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 6/25: Discussion 7/2: MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution No. A , calling upon state and federal lawmakers to resolve conflicts between state and federal laws concerning the possession of marijuana. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) Council addressed the issue of collective gardens for medical marijuana at the meeting of June 4 by passage of an ordinance repealing the city's moratorium on such uses and amending the zoning code to specifically prohibit uses which are in violation of any "local, state or federal laws, regulations, codes, and /or ordinances." B) During deliberations, Councilmembers expressed frustration at the current situation which places citizens and cities caught between conflicting laws of higher jurisdictions. The attached resolution is offered as an expression of this sentiment while authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to communicate this position to legislators at state and federal levels. X0 RESOLUTION NO. 3Z " A RESOLUTION of the City of Pasco, Washington, Calling upon State and Federal Lawmakers to Resolve Conflicts between State and Federal Law Concerning the Possession of Marijuana. WHEREAS, possession of marijuana, including for medicinal purposes, is contrary to the Federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA) thus pre - empting state or local legislation purporting to legalize marijuana; and WHEREAS, in 1998 Washington State Voters approved Initiative 692 (codified as Revised Code of Washington 69.51 A) permitting the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes; and WHEREAS, in 2007, the Washington State Legislature determined that a medically authorized person could possess a 60 -day supply of marijuana; and WHEREAS, in 2011, the State Legislature further attempted to define Washington Law regarding the maintenance of collective gardens for the cultivation of marijuana for medicinal use; and WHEREAS, the Pasco City Council holds compassion for those who would benefit medically from limited use of marijuana but desires to remain compliant with conflicting State and Federal Laws; and WHEREAS, it is the inherent responsibility of State and Federal legislators to resolve the legal conundrum caused by the conflicting laws; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. State and Federal Legislators are hereby called upon to work to eliminate the inconsistencies and /or contradictions and resolve the legal conflicts between State and Federal Laws regarding marijuana possession, particularly with respect to marijuana use for medicinal purposes. Section 2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to take appropriate action to communicate the City's concerns as expressed herein. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, as its regular meeting dated this day of July, 2012. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 26, 2012 TO: Gary Crutchfi anager Regular Mtg.: 7/2/12 Rick White, Community & onomic Development Director FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT APPEAL (MF# SP 2012 -007): Expanding the capacity of a preschool in an R -S -20 Zone I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Resolution 3. Binder containing the Hearing Record* * (Council packets only; copies available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the City's webpage at http://www.pasco- wa.gov/generalinfo/citycouncilrepor,ts) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING 7/2: Motion: I move to adopt Resolution No. approving a special permit for the expansion of a preschool in an existing church at 1800 Road 72, as recommended by the Planning Commission. IILFISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Following the conduct of a public hearing on May 17, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended allowing expansion of the capacity of a permitted preschool from 50 to 80 children in an existing church in an R -S -20 Zone at 1800 Road 72 with conditions. B. A neighboring property owner filed a written appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation and Council set July 2nd, 2012 as the date for a Closed Record hearing. IV. DISCUSSION: A. Consideration of an appeal occurs in the form of a "Closed Record Hearing" consisting of the written record of the special permit application, including testimony and the Planning Commission's deliberations. B. At the conclusion of the Closed Record Hearing the City Council has the option of taking one of the following actions: 1. Approve the special permit with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Approve the special permit with additional or different conditions than recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. Deny the special permit. 4. Remand to the Planning Commission with directions to consider specific issues. 7(a) C. Staff recommends the Council approve the special permit as recommended by the Planning Commission. Should the Council decide to take option 2 or 3 in item B above, this item should be tabled until the next regular meeting to allow time to prepare appropriate findings of fact. D. Appellant submitted an appeal on May 24, 2012 wherein he makes several claims concerning harm that he will experience, Planning Commission errors and incorrect information, and inconsistencies with the requirements found in PMC 22.86.060 in relation to the findings of fact. Staff finds the claims made by appellant to be without merit, with the possible exception of Item 4 from page 2 of the appeal. E. Appellant focuses on item 4 of page 2, where, referring to "noise generated from non - traffic activities" (i.e., the children's playground) he notes that "the testimony solicited by Chairman Cruz and placed in the record far exceeded the restricted scope as noticed for that hearing." F. However, according to the official transcript, a witness had offered unsolicited testimony concerning the noise issue and Mr. Cruz was simply clarifying what the witness had said. The transcript makes it clear that Mr. Cruz did not lead a discussion on the playground noise issue. G. The only noise complaint contained in the City's records was made by the appellant and received by the Planning Commission at the April 19, 2012 open record hearing. The issue was addressed by the Commission at both the April 19`h and May 17`h, 2012 meetings. AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 26, 2012 TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Regular Mtg.: 7/2/12 Rick White, Community&Economic Development Director FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT APPEAL (MF# SP 2012-007): Expandin the he capacity of a preschool in an R-S-20 Zone I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Resolution 3. Binder containing the Hearing Record* * (Council packets only; copies available for public review in the Planning office, the Pasco Library or on the City's webpage at http://www.pasco-wa.gov/citycouncikoorts) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING 7/2: Motion: I move to adopt Resolution No. approving a special permit for the expansion of a preschool in an existing church at 1800 Road 72, as recommended by the Planning Commission. III.FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV.HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Following the conduct of a public hearing on May 17, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended allowing expansion of the capacity of a permitted preschool from 50 to 80 children in an existing church in an R-S-20 Zone at 1800 Road 72 with conditions. B. A neighboring property owner filed a written appeal of the Planning Commission recommendation and Council set July 2"a, 2012 as the date for a Closed Record hearing. IV.DISCUSSION: A. Consideration of an appeal occurs in the form of a "Closed Record Hearing" consisting of the written record of the special permit application, including testimony and the Planning Commission's deliberations. B. At the conclusion of the Closed Record Hearing the City Council has the option of taking one of the following actions: 1. Approve the special permit with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Approve the special permit with additional or different conditions than recommended by the Planning Commission. 3. Deny the special permit. 4. Remand to the Planning Commission with directions to consider specific issues. C. Staff recommends the Council approve the special permit as recommended by the Planning Commission. Should the Council decide to take option 2 or 3 in item B above, this item should be tabled until the next regular meeting to allow time to prepare appropriate findings of fact. D. Appellant submitted an appeal on May 24, 2012 wherein he makes several claims concerning harm that he will experience, Planning Commission errors and incorrect information, and inconsistencies with the requirements found in PMC 22.86.060 in relation to the findings of fact. Staff finds the claims made by appellant to be without merit, with the possible exception of Item 4 from page 2 of the appeal. E. Appellant focuses on item 4 of page 2, where, referring to "noise generated from non-traffic activities" (i.e., the children's playground) he notes that "the testimony solicited by Chairman Cruz and placed in the record far exceeded the restricted scope as noticed for that hearing." F. However, according to the official transcript, a witness had offered unsolicited testimony concerning the noise issue and Mr. Cruz was simply clarifying what the witness had said. The transcript makes it clear that Mr. Cruz did not lead a discussion on the playground noise issue. G. The only noise complaint contained in the City's records was made by the appellant and received by the Planning Commission at the April 19, 2012 open record hearing. The issue was addressed by the Commission at both the April 19th and May 17th, 2012 meetings. FEE: $300.00 CITY OF PASCO APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT (FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY) FILE NO: SP 2-o t 2. — ()'1 DATE: 3— Z'S , The undersigned hereby apply for a special permit: l Applicant: `i_ �(�� Z � �;�,J li t'' ni-e' .5 � 1 Applicant's Address: _ Applicants Phone Numbers: (home/work, cellular, fax) `�bN Mtk LANE Applicant's E-mail address: TV-Ac. +F �-ct►rC �ct�� .oF- -! Property Owner's Name (if different than Applicant): �jl *Must have Property Owner's notarized signature on page 3 General location of property (street address or other description): Legal description of property (attach separate sheet if necessary): Lot(s) Block Subdivision THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A COMPLETE APPLICATION TO REVIEW: 1. Present use of the land and structure(s) if any: i 2. If vacant, check here: ❑ DocumentView 1 FEE: $300.00 3. Please describe any existing violations of any portion of the zoning ordinance upon the property: 4. Give a detailed description of the proposed use that requires a special permit (attach separate sheet if more space is necessary . `�y e ����y�;�r o.,n P(��era }-� ��� y�Ck�u�c h ab� ��►a� r kAe. belae r a-- Q ra n,� - (,IAA rk I - 4" o►� , M d� fL�btit j +o dudlyp >L C k C* I vFsT : tNC(Z��F P,V<C,A-(LC- C L-k L L-D CA PA --t rio r 1, =30 Tv �_ c ti L&-tx-E 1v. 5. A site map/plan, drawn neatly and to scale, showing the following: (a) Exterior property lines and any adjacent public street or alley rights- of-way; (b) Existing and proposed buildings and other structures; (c) Existing and proposed points of ingress and egress, drives, driveways, and circulation pattern; (d) The location of existing and proposed parking areas with each parking space shown; (e) Existing and proposed open spaces and landscape areas. NOTE: Provide a variance report giving a list and mailing address of owners of all property within 300 feet of the applicant's property, as shown by a local title company OR payment of $80.00 which shall be utilized by the City to obtain a current list of property owners of all properties within 300 feet of the applicant's property. Fee for Special Permit - $300.00 Environmental Checklist - $100.00 Radius Notification - 80.00 (or provide Variance report in lieu of$80.00) $480.00 DocumentView 2 FEE: $300.00 Signature pf Applicant *No a ize �Iature of Property Owner State of Washington ) ss. County of Franklin ) On this ,'/ Jr day of 61Y , Zo jZ, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned an sworn, personally appeared )D4-RR L L _7-30-/�'S being duly sworn on his/her oath that he/she has prepared and read the foregoing statements and has acknowledged to me that the recitations contained therein are true, and has signed this instrument as his/her free and voluntary act and deed for the purposes therein mentioned. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 'day of /l,2 c-/Y,oll(" Notary Public in and for the State of V ashipn :? Residing at %�_- ,, /} , �► o T ,q.•:`o • �1r My Commission expires —/—� `��•••• '�;,�� DocumentView 3 111J1 114 t 1078 107A 1 N 147 \� ( v v" 125 13W 131 r 209 210 212 211 103 13M Losaf i00 127 130A 208 214 ANW M 2DI IM03 206 202 1�I11l�E 9294 129 MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR vvvV Loh, �- y 0 _ I a I RI + .. a _ d st lil I HIM f x Q � � � I w I � t — K a' yksOL' �x O U s I 7 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2012-007 APPLICANT: Imagination Studios Academy Preschool HEARING DATE: 04/19/2012 1800 Road 72 ACTION DATE: 05/17/2012 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Expanding the capacity of a permitted preschool from 50 to 80 children in an existing church in an R-S-20 Zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Leal: The Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M. General Location: 1800 Road 72 Property Size: Approximately 10 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Road 72. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-S-20 (Suburban) and contains the Pasco Faith Assembly of God Church. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North: R-S-20 - Single Family Residence (largely vacant land) South: R-S-20 - Single Family Residences East: R-S-20 - (County) Single Family Residences West: R-S-12 - Single Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential uses. Goal LU-3-A encourages the location of school facilities in each residential neighborhood. 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 Faith Assembly of God Church has been located on Road 72 for over 20 years. In September of 2002 the church was granted a special permit by the City for a major expansion. Following the completion of the new addition in 2004 the Faith Assembly Christian Center applied to the State and received a child day care center license. Since that time the Church has operated a child care center/preschool in the original portion of the Church building. The original preschool application was approved by the Planning Commission, appealed, and finally approved by the City Council on March 15, 2010 with the following conditions: a. The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; b. The special permit shall be for a preschool only; c. The preschool attendance shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) children on site at any given time; d. The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; e. The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; f. The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; g. The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by April 1, 2010. There is little outward appearance that indicates there is a preschool in the church. There is a fenced playground area directly behind the church that is difficult to see from Road 72. The nearest house is located 418 feet west of the playground across the Church parking lot. The 70,107 square foot church facility contains 18,650 square feet of classroom space, a kitchen, bathrooms and a playground available to preschool activities. The ages of the children served range from 3 to 5 years. The preschool is open from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday. Since receiving the Special Permit to operate a preschool the student count has increased to 44 at peak times, and is projected to reach up to 72 by 2013, according to enrollment figures submitted by the preschool. These figures have been entered into a table (see below) which uses the Institute of transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual multipliers to calculate average, minimum, and maximum projected traffic flows to the site for different traffic conditions (7- 9:00 AM, 4-6 PM, peak AM and peak PM). Added to these estimates is a conceptual maximum based on the Special Permit request for up to 80 students. According to the ITE Manual it is estimated that an enrollment of 80 students could generate up to approximately 143 vehicle trips per day. By way of comparison, if the site were developed with single-family homes under the current zoning, it is estimated that the 10 acre site would generate up to 160 vehicle trips per day (16 homes x 10 vehicle trips per day). The previous Special Permit conditions limited the student population to 50 students on-site at any given time, with the intent of keeping traffic flows comparable to those which might occur if the property were to have been developed with single-family residential units in accordance with current RS-20 zoning. Traffic to and from the proposed preschool will typically coincide with the morning and afternoon peak traffic through the neighborhood. 2 The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A preschool facility with an enrollment of 80 students and 8 staff members requires about 22 parking stalls. Dayare/Preschools Study#1--Students?--9AM Weekday Year Days Time Students Avg Trips Min Trips Max Trips 2012/13* MWF 9:00 am-12:00 62 49.6 24.18 110.36 2012/13* TTh 9:00 am-12:00 52 41.6 20.28 92.56 Max Enrollment 80 64 31.2 142.4 Study#2--Students 4-6 PM Weekday 2012/13* M-F 1 1:00 pm-4:00 10 8.2 2.4 17.2 Max Enrollment 80 65.6 19.2 137.6 Study#3--Students Peak AM Weekday 2012/13* MWF 9:00 am-12:00 62 50.84 24.18 110.36 2012/13* TTh 9:00 am-12:00 52 42.64 20.28 92.56 Max Enrollment 80 64 31.2 142.4 Study#4--Students Peak PM Weekdays 2012/13* M-F 1 1:00 pm-4:00 10 8.5 3.9 17.2 Max Enrollment 80 68 31.2 137.6 *Projected Enrollments for2013 Preschools are defined as community service facilities and as such are required to obtain a special permit before locating anywhere within the city. Preschools are often located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. School activities in residential neighborhoods typically do not generate complaints from neighbors. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis 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 R-S-20 (Suburban). 2. All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 3. Preschools are Conditional Uses in the RS-20 zone (PMC 25.22.040(5). 4. Conditional Uses require Special Permit approval prior to establishment. 5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 6. The site proposed for a children's preschool currently contains a church. 3 7. The proposed preschool could generate up to 143 vehicle trips per day (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual). 8. The applicant indicated a maximum capacity of 80 children for the preschool. 9. The preschool will accommodate children ages 3-5 years. 10. With a maximum capacity of 80 children the preschool could have up to 8 staff members. 11. The site contains over 500 on-site parking stalls. 12. The preschool received a Special Permit in March of 2010 and has been in operation at the church since that time. 13. The city has not received complaints about the preschool in the church. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL 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 site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. The proposed preschool supports Plan Goal LU-3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The church has a permitted occupancy load in the main sanctuary of over 1,000 people and has a parking lot with over 500 parking stalls. The weekday use of the building for 80 preschool aged children will have a negligible impact on public infrastructure. No infrastructure modifications would be required for the preschool. 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 neighborhood is suburban residential. Typically, schools and or preschool facilities are located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 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 preschool school is located in an existing church which previously received a special permit and building permit from the City of Pasco. The County Assessor's records indicate the value of the adjoining residential properties 4 have increased over the past four years, and no evidence is apparent that permitted uses in the vicinity have been discouraged by the existing preschool. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The preschool school was permitted in March of 2010 and has been operating on the site without generating objectionable amounts of noise, dust, traffic or other conditions. The city has not received any complaints about the preschool since receiving a Special Permit. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Preschools are commonly located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods where they are generally not viewed as a nuisance. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS a) The special permit shall be for Franklin County Tax Parcels #118491062 and #118491044; b) The special permit shall be for a preschool only; c) The preschool attendance shall be limited to no more than eighty (80) children on site at any given time, and not more than 80 in any 24-hour period; d) The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; e) The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; fl The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; g) The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by September 1, 2012. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed preschool and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 17, 2012 meeting. 5 Jeff Adams Subject: FW: Imagination Studios Academy Preschool Current Enrollment I have a spreadsheet that I believe was used when we applied for the permit that showed enrollment history through the 2009/2010 school year. I am not sure if you still have that on file. Here is the 2010/2011 enrollment, current enrollment and the projected enrollment for the 2012/2013 school year. 2010/2011: 9am-12pm Mon. Wed. Fri Students: 48 Teachers: 5 Cars dropping off(approx.): 45 9am-12pm Tues.Thurs. Students 28 Teachers: 3 Cars dropping off(approx.) 26 fpm-4pm Mon through Friday Students: 9 Teachers: 1 Cars dropping off(approx.) 7 2011/2012: 9am-12pm Mon. Wed. Fri. Students: 44 Teachers: 5 Cars dropping off(approx.) 42 9am-12pm Tues.Thurs. Students: 31 Teachers:4 Cars dropping off(approx.) 30 No afternoon classes 2012/2013 projected: 9am-12pm Mon. Wed. Fri. Students: 62 Teachers: 7 Cars dropping off(approx.) 58 9am-12pm Tues.Thurs. Students: 52 Teachers: 7 Cars dropping off(approx.)48 fpm-3:30pm Mon through Fri. Students: 10 Teachers: 1 Cars dropping off(approx.) 10 I hope this is what you need. Let me know if there is something more that would be helpful. Thanks, Tracy Colon 509-547-5773 509-521-3340 1 Item: Special Permit - Preschool Vicinity Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 2012-007 Qb�,: A it Q - . - ; . I J`ACO'B'SaLN � BUTLTERNUT`CIR'C'LE —_ , r Cti SILVERC.REST CT -� MAVE s EK CT r N ' Ilr r yATE TERIRAY�CT _. . T S I T E - F ` � 1 1lgry yI I9t� } + — _ 111 i I i� � �I►. I RUBY ' IL �' _ •, �� --- <. �.�� �" �.,I�t•,« t � ',. � � Y Qom•,^ _ �� v.t4i6r -.:- ! if �s:-. �� . ql - - d Z l fl .u,Lt LL WF CITY LIMITS - �.. BLUE-STAR = 11,cr, e, ITT IVY L-411 -� L; - Land Item: p S ecial Permit - Preschool Use Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 2012-007 W WERNE-T-T-RD G O JAOBS=LNG BUTTERNUT1IRCLE S F D U 's E - SILVERCREST-C-T (County) MAY 0 4 R SECREEK CT PEARL-ST AT_E_ T CT SITE SFDU 's =RAY SFDU s �a (County) RUBY CT i o0 '4 Church o a v Z z CIT-Y-LIM1IT C- �� a 0. BLUE-STAR m �N Item: Special Permit - Preschool Zoning Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 2012-007 W01 I �WWERNE-T--T-RD m G O RS-20 BUTTERNUT�IRCLE (County) _ -T RS 2O SILVERCREST C kM MAVE 0 4 R S-ECREE CT PEARL-ST RS=20 AT_E_ T C o u n t CO -=RAY CT S ITE y 0 r RS- 12 RU RS-20 a o z I RAJmTv_,qw=mm6-. o N W\ BLU-E-STAR RS-20 R=S= 1 /PUD R Z CA ® ® ,Y I I s I 190 X 164 i 71 F Lee i i i i i I J4 4 I X ® i fnl,-,.r rl I y i b 4a x bq �j ---- ------------ -------------------- ROAD 72 1121 °li2C 11m 114 .. 1 7t1�l8 I(OOA v 107 1YO , u N7 vl� 9 125 1 131 a 2100 210 212 213 103 137A 130 1 too 12 i311k 21 214 AVO 205 204 206 202 The 1211 12.9 MAIN FLOOR SE ND FLOOR 4 R4 �' Looking North 1 7 AND ,;L Looking Northe -2tt .. lwVy,_ - T +R 7 r ) } r - _ :-.: ; � �,x"�' s�s'.� a*tz�°#n"d `'�`t.ter-.'d-�'• �:�,_ t qKl i 4 t C t� , � �� °t�. -•` ,. mac+ -t aT- "' s ifti u` H 4e n aye :� r:ki '1..1.•F +rte ��'". .. � •� vn_.......f , r. �_ �"�e �'�., v,:_.'_�f'f�>� rW. y J ' Y"-`... ts!..� "t^"`�'•sfi`RS�"'.!W4•'+`•°A�••71 -�ferr'+lte :- y � -. r � - _ - t K �, i �•+,.y `� r�T _ � t13�w '.yt.h, — �a ..e 63 a _ _ .✓^Y�d,1 �'n spa.. • _- �lam'- �- _ -• _ _ - - -. - Y''• - Looking East ,a e. �• '- . �r� ti4�i 4 �T' "•may y� f =F':' 't'sT,�.i .;i+�J�'r'• -� Y.y,Otis -��v4.��,,y,, 'f,Ya ^¢. "'�s. 2`'� �'• s' -�i s - •`y "l�.ryi' '$t_. nrk u.`� .r•��• � :.� =� •r�s�-�.� t �'"r�v�F.�i��^�y �t��.e r �� �.� ��.-t�,{ .-�. T y r � �. � ♦�.,K 75 �r� i 1-� .�r�5 - y-� s �� i'�f a+,�� i,s-£ a� i , 'l 4r i � #.-K�°� '}g _•Y P k.�"� ro ty 'l, ;3` ,� JS�,:E ♦ rt'y�.Y.. � Y � �;'1 - _. g Lookin Southeast 7 i f p�C �i i���•n� �sd %1A MR, � � , wnft _ � Ap It je � N- Qo � I •'A Tv - , .3p--ri• Y-t,l�,1 t f .b 4 St � �h4. +�}1A7`J� p•�.�Y J *)�� v` J t a •1�F, ty}� Y^ 4 t , �t P�yyy,, M ) a*F _ 17 , +�I 'x � r!•tb y�r �r.., � +,�N� e>' t'.y o.�rt -.,�,µ1 " I Y4 .'� s.;{ h. ��✓ -s+t+`� t M �" J�I�� � f r 41,Y p i �`�..-Y�. t�. � lh.t� ��n�� 'ir-.�k�,.l I ,.,.��YY"•C�'�la 4l �'��������'9t i� ,�FS Au`1 t. 5�'�=_,.f f�}�i�� �g,1nl?��,{` fi� .n 7�y�f�.�t �'",���♦ �{ � , � �,. r '� iF � .f,..4 1� -.;�r .1�':� t >'7 -.e ,�• 1 - Y r r" t.4; _ , `'I�G.t 1 t ..a i p J N r rh J.•' _ Af M .?r mow' Y 'R } 1 ➢ r. 1 1,\ `,YSK' •, ,- R 1'S � i� � �� t ✓. ;; r f{. �4.t � ',��t r^H 7 titi� - r A !fit yy w1 �r � `1 � i� r � .•' � f' �'� t „ - �"•�� t �f` � .�' !' dp� r t I n h•' �4y1`R" n^.t S�F rf't r�i�xtkAf,, i r,:k.. ._ _ ..I ` i ' 4 }}..,.• a >_ -'� � \ � � p. 7 °-h' yr. t, � s .- f .- `�'A'-+i Y'° M1. mss'`. ti !'' •.,�,°' .. �. Looking West a R f \� v Looking AM s r . <�t f . � r Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 April 19, 2012 VIA EMAIL City of Pasco Planning Commission 525 N. Third Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 Re: SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Honorable Members of The Planning Commission: Below you will find information related to SP2012-007. Please incorporate this correspondence into the open hearing record, and include a copy in each Planning Commissioner's package for the April 19, 2012 meeting. Planning Commission Members are requested to recuse themselves from consideration of this matter should they: 1) have ties to Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios, 2) have talked to parties associated with Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios concerning this or other. associated zoning matters; or 3) have relatives with any association with Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios. As a matter of law, Planning Commission Members should err on the side of recusal in order to ensure the "appearance of fairness"in this land use issue. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY On July 25, 2002, this body held an Open Record for MF# SP02-88. The purpose of that hearing was to take testimony related to a Special Permit for expansion of Applicant's facility. During that hearing, Applicant's representative was questioned about the potential of school use and facility rental at the expansion. Applicant's response was "No, that is an incompatible use of facilities. and the Church itself' (see Exhibit 1, pages 13 and 14). After the expanded facility was complete, Applicant immediately commenced with commercial preschool operations, and facility rentals, and did not seek appropriate permits for either. On December 17, 2009, after an Open Record Hearing process, this body approved for recommendation to City Council a day care center at Faith Assembly Christian Center for up to 18 students under MF# SP09-008 (see Exhibit 2, page 3). The City Council remanded the matter back to the Planning Commission upon appeal. Re: SPECIAL PERMIT— CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Page: 2 On remand from City Council,the Planning Commission increased the number of allowable students from 18 to 50 in any session (see Exhibit 3, page 6). This recommendation was approved by City Council on March 15, 2010 (see Exhibit 4, page 4). Unlike any other private business operation in the City, during the entire approval proceedings, the applicant was able to continue its un-permitted day care activities. At no time has the City taken any action to resolve issues related to facility rental (see Exhibit 5) which is inconsistent with Special Permit #02-88 and PMC 5.25 which requires and administrative permit for concerts and alike. Exhibit 6 shows that the City has provided its administrative blessing to such un- permitted activities subject to PMC 5.25. This history herein does not include Applicants several special permits for Corn Maizes, nor illegal farming and code enforcement issues. ISSUES WITH APRIL 19, 2012 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Traffic Impacts The staff report indicates that "The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A preschool facility with an enrollment of 80 students and 8 staff members requires about. 22 parking stalls." All traffic counts are limited to times and day of pre-school activities and based on ITE Traffic Generation Manual, not actual data or use. The traffic counts do not include site impacts associated with the ecumenical activities which fill those 500 parking stalls, youth activities, special events, concerts, meetings, and the wide array of money generating activities conducted by Applicant. In order to assess the total impact, the facility has on the adjoining neighbors and sub-standard roads which service said facility, a. complete traffic analysis must be completed by a professional traffic engineer prior to this body's. review. Neighbors are extremely tired of the high level of traffic generated by Applicant's facility, traffic speeds, inattentive driving, and the general associated nuisances. Please note in the photos provided by staff the substandard nature of the roads which service applicants property. Applicant's Application And Site Plans Page five(5) of Applicant's Application for Special Permit notes a 652 x 272 Youth Building. I hope that Applicant does not wish to gain covert approval of such a facility by way of this application. Noise Generated From Day Care Activities Staff does not include information related to noise generated from the outside activities related to the daycare function. The outdoor play area is located in a amphitheater like setting with large amplifying walls surrounding. The noise generated by the gleeful children is amplified and radiated out into the surrounding neighborhood, and is an extreme annoyance throughout the day. INCONSISTENCIES WITH P.M.C. 25.86.060 Upon conclusion of the open record pre-decision hearing, the Planning Commission shall make and enter findings from the record and conclusions thereof as to whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan; Re: SPECIAL PERMIT— CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Page: 3 (2) The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure; (3) The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity; (4) The location and height of proposed structures and the site design will discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof, (5) The operations in connection with the proposal will be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district; and (6) The proposal will endanger the public health, or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district. Below you will find responses to the questions outlined in the Staff Report: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? SP2012-007 deviates and is inconsistent with goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan. According to the State of Washington Department of Early Learning, Imagination Studios Pre-School is already the largest in terms of size and enrollment in Franklin and Benton Counties. This information shows that the proposed expanded use is "detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment" in accordance with the restrictions of P.M.C. 25.22.010. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? SP2012-007 does not fully or adequately consider the negative impacts on neighbors including heavy traffic on unimproved, substandard and unmaintained roads; infrastructure damage and collateral damage to vehicles and property; and excessive noise, both traffic and children; and dust control on unimproved/substandard roads as a result of the proposed expansion. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the ,general vicinity? See the two preceding paragraphs. P.M.C. 25.22.010 provides that "Certain public facilities and institutions may also be permitted, provided their nature and location are not detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment." Expanding the largest day care center in Franklin and Benton Counties which resides in a rural, unmaintained county area will is certainly inconsistent with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. (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? (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? Yes. Documented well herein. the operations in connection with the proposed preschool will be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, vibrations, dust, and traffic than would be the operation oaf any permitted uses within the district due to the 477% higher use than estimated (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where, proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Yes. Documented well herein. Re: SPECIAL PERMIT– CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Page: 4 SUMMARY Just like the frog slowly boiled to death in a pot of water by slowly raising the water temperature, Applicant has taken its original Special Permit from July 25, 2002 and over time, seen fit to expand and engage in a variety of unrelated for profit and other activities which are extremely harmful to the local traffic, rural environment, and inconsistent with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and R-S-20 Rural Suburban District. It is recommended that the Planning Commission retain current enrollment levels as approved by City Council on March 15, 2010. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Best Regards, Qro,1�04U—0 qqftww Roger E. Lenk Exhibit 1 –July 25, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting Transcript Exhibit 2–December 17, 2009 Report to Planning Commission Exhibit 3 –February 18, 2010 Imagination Studios Preschool Remand Exhibit 4–March 5, 2010 City Council Agenda Report Exhibit 5–August 9, 2010 Emails and Materials Concerning Commercial Concerts at Applicant's Facility Exhibit 6– City Code Enforcement's August 12, 2010 Response to Exhibit 5 EXHIBIT I CITY OF PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MASTER FILE NO. 02-88-SP FAITH ASSEMBLY CHRISTIAN CENTER Public Hearing July 25, 2002 7:00 p. m. Pasco City Hall Pasco, Washington ATTACHMENT A FAITH ASSEMBLY CHRISTIAN CENTER HEARING On Thursday July 25, 2002 the Pasco Planning Commission held a special meeting at the hour of 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers. One of the items on the agenda for that meeting was a Special Permit Hearing for the expansion of a church (Faith Assembly Christian Center) at 1800 Road 72. The following proceedings took place: CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: The next item is Number "D" on the agenda this is a church expansion, a Special Permit Master File 02-88- SP. DAVID LITTLE: Mr. Chairman being a member of the church I probably should be dismissed. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: We will excuse you from this action. DAVID MCDONALD: For the record Mr. Chairman, Commission members, staff caused notice of this hearing to be published in the Tri City Herald notifying the public of this hearing. This hearing was scheduled for last Thursday, evening and as you know, due to the lack of a quorum the meeting had to be continued until this evening. This request involves an expansion—a rather large expansion--of the Faith Assembly of God Church on Road 72. That church has been located there for fifteen/sixteen plus years. It is just a short distance off Court Street. Court Street is located to the south, Road 72 on the east and through the block to the west is Road 76. The church property extends from Wernett all the way to Court Street. The general area is Low Density Suburban, residential development on very large lots with some perhaps hobby farms. There's a small vineyards directly to the east of the church property on Road 72. As I said the church has been in this location for quite some time. To my knowledge they've been a good neighbor within that particular neighborhood. The proposal is to add a large wing to the existing structure which is located here (pointing to a over head film). The proposed auditorium/sanctuary will be located to the southwest of the existing building. The church also plans to add significant parking to accommodate those that attend the church. Parking is now contained primarily in this area (pointing to the overhead) where it is sufficient for existing chapel and services but will not provide the needs for the new expansion. The proposal is to add 500 parking spaces to serve the needs of the church. In reviewing the size of the building, and the parking configuration the number of parking stalls with the zoning regulations, staff believes the 500 space parking lot would be sufficient to providing seating up to 2,000 people within the auditorium. So that should satisfy the demands of parking. We've provided in your report a list of findings of fact that address the concerns that are identified in the municipal code related to special permits. We've also provided a set of recommended conditions related to approval of this proposed expansion. Because the expansion is considerable and there will be a large parking lot at times when church begins and when church lets out or when there are activities during the week on Wednesday evenings there will be some peak traffic concerns at the corner Road 72 and Court and perhaps on 72 with cars coming and going. As a result of that the City Engineer is recommending that left turn lanes be installed on Court Street for a distance of 200 feet on either side of Road 72 to provide stacking space to allow cars to turn onto 72 and allow traffic on Court Street to flow freely. Also on 72 he (City Engineer) is recommending that there be a turn lane for the same purposes to allow traffic to free flow on 72 and allow church people to turn off. As far as access is concerned this property is located conveniently to Court Street. 2 Court Street is a major arterial. Road 72 provides access to Court but, also provide access north to Argent which would allow traffic to flow north to Argent and then to Road 68 intersection and on up to the freeway. So there are connecting street within the neighborhood that would provide for traffic in and out of the site. As I mentioned, traffic more than likely be concentrated on a few days during the week unlike an Elementary school or McLaughlin Junior High School which has traffic every day. This facility will be limited to Wednesdays on a few' other nights and on Sunday. And typically Sunday the surrounding traffic is not what it is the other times of the week. To help perhaps mitigate some of the concerns of neighbors within the neighborhood relative to the large size of this facility, staff is recommending all parking lights-lighting- be shielded so it doesn't encroach on adjoining properties. We had a request last week from an adjoining property owner who is not here this evening, Mrs. Billie Ross, who lives directly across the street. She was concerned about lighting on the side of the building. Apparently either the Nazarene Church which is right beside this church or the Faith Assembly Church has lights on the sides of the building that shine into her home and she would like some consideration on shielding and lighting on the building if there's going to be any. That maybe a question you may want to ask the applicant. We are recommending a solid fence on the western side of the property as a buffer and a shield particularly for car headlights onto adjoining properties. All garbage dumpsters should be enclosed for aesthetic reasons. Landscaping should follow the landscaping provisions that are required on homes a that 50% of front yard areas are required to be live vegetation and those areas within the parking lot are also required to be at least 50% live vegetation. With that I guess I would refer you to the comments and direction provided in the written staff report and would open it up to any questions you might have. 3 CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Questions? JAMES HAY: Has there been any correspondence? DAVID McDONALD: Oh,- excuse me, yes there has been. At the last meeting, I did provide a letter which was submitted from an adjoining property owner, Roger Link and his wife, that expressed a number of concerns related to the size of the building the parking lot lighting, commotion and various activities that would occur in the building. One concern they had was whether or not it was going to be a commercial business in the church, namely a cafe. There was a newspaper article recently and the Tri-City Business Journal mentioned a cafe inside of this church. There isn't a cafe in the church and the applicant indicated to me upon questioning that they don't plan to have a cafe in the church. There is an espresso stand that's operated Sunday mornings to I guess provide coffee to patrons of the church, but it's basically not open to people to walk in off the street to buy coffee and then leave. That letter should be incorporated as part of the record of this hearing this evening and I believe there are some copies on the bench there before you. I did have a couple of gentlemen that lives in the neighborhood visit with me this week that expressed some concern relatively to the size of the proposed addition and the proposed parking lot that may be the noise associated with that. Those gentlemen are here this evening I'm sure they will speak to those matters. We didn't receive any other calls did we Larry. LARRY PETERSON: We did not. CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: We will now open the public comment portion for this item a special permit for the church expansion. Is there 4 anyone who wishes to speak for this item? Please come forward, state your name and address for the record. ROGER LENK: Good evening, my name is Roger Lenk, my wife, son and I, reside at 1817 North Road 76 in Pasco. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you on this important issue. You may be aware, I think that Dave said the area surrounding Faith Assembly is quite, rural, consisting mostly of single-family residents on large lots, small agricultural uses and two small churches. Excuse the terminology the applicant is proposing an aggressive expansion consisting of 35,000 sq. ft. 2,000 seat multi-purpose auditorium, numerous classrooms, 5,000 sq. ft. administrative complex, 500 space parking facility (I guess there are some issues as to whether or not a public cafe is included or not). Also, I understand that a sports complex is in the works. Faith Assembly Christian Center maintains a membership of 1,000 and according to the pastor they grow their business by about 36% per year. At that rate their membership will approach approximately 1,500 in a few years. When I arrived home Saturday, June 20th I discovered that the applicant had already started with the construction project they were doing some grading and removing of turf. I made the assumption that this special permit had been approved already. When I contacted Dave, I was told that the applicant had not pulled any permits for the work he performed. Monday, I found that your July 181h public hearing was delayed due to the lack of a quorum. Given that additional time, I decided to walk down the street and up the street to talk with some of my neighbors to see what their thoughts were about the project. Without exception our neighbors are opposed to the aggressive expansion. The neighbors are very concerned that the applicant had made no attempts to talk with them regarding their plans. Very few neighbors received notices due to large lot size of abutting lots. All were very unaware of the aggressive scope of this particular expansion. When I walked the neighborhood, I 5 got fourteen signatures. Everybody that I talked to signed the petition — they were opposed to the expansion. Given the limited time, I didn't have an opportunity to go over to Road 72 over to Court, Wernett or some other locations. I would venture to guess that the response from those neighbors would be very similar. When I talked to the neighbors a number of issues came up and I'm going to,share those with you. The first issue was the increase in activity, the'large number of facility users is very similar to those associated with our regional high school campus or community college, again we are talking about 1,500 members. This will definitely have a detrimental impact on our rural environment. The use is inconsistent and incompatible with the rural use we have there now. The aggressive scope and size of the expansion is not consistent with our quite surrounding, again that includes single-family residential units and small agricultural uses. The additional noise and disruption will have a very negative affect on these surroundings. There is also a great concern about increase traffic volume. The local road infrastructure is not equipped to handle extreme volumes of traffic which will be generated by this aggressive use. Ingress and egress between Court and adjoining roads currently there is already difficult at best. The additional traffic will create further safety issues and accidents especially along Road 72 and 76 which are designed for heavy usage. We are also concerned about the increased noise. Local environment is extremely quite given the mix of uses that are existing. A 2,000 seat auditorium and 500 car parking facility will significantly increase the level of noise we have in our rural environment. We are also concerned about commercial activities it is clear that a 2,000 seat auditorium will not be limited to Sundays. The applicant will need to utilize this facility daily to pay for the significant investment. Renting out the facility will be required to support the building and operational costs. The public cafeteria, again there is some controversy over that, but that's also evidence of a commercial nature of this particular use. The negative 6 environmental impact, a significant portion of the complex is currently unimproved. This area is a haven for quail, pheasants, geese and other wildlife. Aggressive expansion will devour the entire footprint of the entire complex and significantly disrupt the calm environment which attracts birds and other wildlife. Light pollution: The neighbors are extremely concerned about the glare of light pollution which will be created by automobile head lights as well as lighting associated with parking lots, buildings and landscaping. Decrease in safety and security: As you are all aware large and unattended parking lots are havens for illicit activity. The neighbors are not interested in introducing such problems in our quite atmosphere. It could be a detriment to the safety of the local residents. Increased traffic speed: Road 72 and 76 will increase traffic speeds as people race to and from the 2,000 seat auditorium. These roads are small and designed for minimal usage and speed associated with single-family residences. A number of names were also concerned about decrease property values. This is an incompatible conflicting use it is going to cause a decrease in property values compared to what the rural environment now provides. In closing I would like to highlight a final point according to the Pasco Municipal Code Section 25.22.010 churches may be permitted in our residential area provided their nature and location are not detrimental to the intended residential environment. This aggressive expansion does not meet the city's own criteria for approval as it will have a significant detrimental impact on the residential environment. In some way the proposed expansion is in conflict with existing surroundings, is incompatible, inconsistent and detrimental to the intended local residential environment. Pasco municipal code does not support the aggressive expansion proposed by Faith Assembly Christian Center. The neighbors are opposed by this expansion. The only finding the Planning Commission can make is to deny the requested permit. 7 I thank you for the opportunity to address you and will be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: Questions from the Commission-- comments? Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this item? Please come forward and state your name and address. RICHARD MANKE: Richard Manke, 7517 West Court, I'm about 600/700 feet from the corner of this property. I think our concerns are the size of the project, 2,000 seat auditorium and what really is a very suburban setting out there. It's a fair impact. The impact is going to show up primarily to us in traffic but if you look at Road 72 and the intersection with Court you realize that Court is a two lane street a narrow unimproved two lane street I would call it, I guess at that point. You're dumping 300 cars over a fairly short period of time onto Court Street that's assuming a full load 'on that parking lot and part of them going north to Argent which again takes them up a portion of Road 72 which is narrow and unimproved. The area in front of the church is a fairly wide and approved street, but it tapers down further up. This kind of traffic on those kinds of streets seems a little out of line a turn lane might help — still they are pulling across Court Street and no turn lane will really help them coming on to Court. I think that it's probably a little too much. I think that there is a concern of cars moving around in the parking lot there at night. I'm not too sure that their parking lots shouldn't be fenced off so that they are not accessible at night for people could get out and try out their cars and see what kind of shanghais they can pull in the parking lot. I guess those are our primary concerns, but we don't feel that its particularly compatible with our neighborhood and the neighborhood we try to maintain out there. This is simply a large expansion in a fairly suburban setting. Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Thank you. Any comments or questions from this gentlemen? Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this item? CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: State your name and address for the record please. WAYNE BURKE: Wayne Burke, 8700 Whipple Avenue, Pasco, 99301: I'm the advocate for Faith Assembly Christian Center. I am a member of the congregation as well and speaking on behalf of the board and the building committee that has started this process. We understand that there are some folks that are obviously opposed and feel very negatively about the things we are planning to do. But we have a business to take care of and that is the ministry that the Faith Assembly has been given and acquired for a long time. They acquired this property a long time ago. Some twenty years ago they built the existing facility in the late 80's and the congregation has continued to grow right now we are operating three services per week. On Sunday morning just to accommodate we need more space. There are objections to the size of our expansion and that has been a major concern of the church body as well. We've been working on the plans for this trying to figure out what size we should make it for probably two - two and one half years. Looking at the growth, looking at what Faith Assembly really should be all about and we have chosen this particular size. It would be silly to try to build a building that would accommodate the increase the size of the congregation that we are presently serving because we have gone to three services and it just unattainable. We would like to have back down to one and maybe two at the most. So we have chosen this size yes, there are a lot of thing to be considered we are particularly sensitive to things like light shielding and trying to be a good neighbor. Lots to do. We are going to have to do some street improvements and no we have not 9 started construction at all. We are anticipating that something will be done. We have four acres - three and one half acres of sod that needs to be eventually replaced with a parking lot. And so right now we are just displacing that sod to members and other people in the community and the youth are working on that project right now. Ultimately the sod will be torn down we are assuming that there will be a fair and favorable approval based on our application. But no permits have been pulled for any kind of construction. We are in the process now of doing sewer and water plans those have been reviewed by the City and so with everything falls together yes we will be under construction with sewer and water within probably three weeks. There is a lot of work to be done before we - the building probably won't be built - we will not pull a building permit for at least six months maybe a year but right now there is much other work to be done in preparation for that. Lots of things to be put underground, lots of things to be planned, and lots of things to get ready. So that we are ready for the building when it is underway or when it reaches completion we will be ready to take care of our people. I have nothing else to add to what already been said, but I'll gladly respond to questions. DAVID HATHAWAY: You have three services on Sunday so in a typical week tell the commission what other activities are going to be going on. WAYNE BURKE: Sunday night there is a senior service and Wednesday night there is a regular worship service. Those are the things that are planned on a routine basis every week. There are meeting that go on, certain studies - educational studies that go on for small groups that only deal with five to ten percent at the most, most of the meetings really occur in the homes throughout the week. So like Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays there is nothing regularly planned there, once in a while there might be something special like a Thanksgiving service or some matter. 10 We had a marriage seminar it was kind of a retreat thing that happened about six months ago and that occurred on Friday night and all day Saturday and something like that goes on but those are very sporadic. This is not going to be a full-fledged college campus activity - type of activity. We are not going to have that type of thing. We don't have the people to support that. I mean even if everybody wanted to come - somebody's got to run those things and that takes too much time. But from the things that we see on a routine basis those are the nights and the days that are regularly scheduled. Right now on Sunday morning we deal with about 1,200 people on a Sunday morning. Thank you. JIM HAY: I see it shows in your drawing here a featured youth center/gymnasium. That means you are going to be expanding further other than just what you are asking for tonight is that correct? WAYNE BURKE: From a facility standpoint yes we could use those facilities right now. It's a matter of having the funds to be able to take care of those. So we are including that kind of activity and that kind of use in this application. We don't anticipate - we don't see that that's going to necessarily increase the membership and who knows what will happen. I can't guarantee that when we build that we won't another 100 youth come in. I don't know. We're taking care of the Junior and Senior High Youths right now in the neighborhood of 350 and we take of those with our present facilities. But sometimes we have to go elsewhere because we don't have those kinds of- that particular kind of facility on site now. JIM HAY: I guess I see the potential for church with basketball/volleyball tournaments and things like that to occur - something like this you have a nice parking lighted - nice facility I guess 11 I see the potential there for a lot more involvement with people than maybe just being shown here. WAYNE BURKE: Those are generally - if I may be so bold. Those are generally associated with schools - school activities we are not having a school activity here. JIM HAY: I realize that but my church. WAYNE BURKE: There is recreation activity - there is recreation functions that go on or would go on if we had such a thing. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Comments or questions? DAVID MCDONALD: I have one question Wayne. Just for clarification you have two or three Sunday services now because you don't have enough room in the building. Is that correct? WAYNE BURKE: Yes. DAVID MCDONALD: And you want to expand the building and I thought I heard you say the number of services would then be fewer but, you would accommodate more people. So instead of having three services on a Sunday you would have two or you would have one. WAYNE BURKE: The desire of everybody right now - cause we went from one to two services about five or six years ago and the congregation says you know it would be nice if we could all be there at once because we're missing some of the people that we don't get to see on the other services. That happens at every church and our plan would be to get back to one service and yet at the rate that we are growing we know we will 12 accommodate more people. I can't deny that. It isn't economical feasible to build a building that is half the size and take care of our expansion for two or three years and say OK gee we didn't well now we got to do it again. We love to try and phase a building and after considerable discussion with construction management and contractors and I know that some people have done that in the past at other places. There is considerable costs involved so we've decided that this is where we're going to go. DAVE MCDONALD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Any other questions? Yes. RICHARD MANKE: Could I ask a couple of questions from the floor. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Yes you may. RICHARD MANKE: Is there a future school site in question. I noticed on the site plan there was something on that. There are future classes rooms. Are they only for future Sunday school use. WAYNE BURKE: Ya we are short of space right now. A school was started by this church some time ago and its existing down the street and now its going to go out on Road 100 and Argent. RICHARD MANKE: You are not asking for that. WAYNE BURKE: No that is an incompatible use the facilities with the church itself. In some places it worked but it just didn't work there - there were a lot of folks were opposed to it was doing so well and decided lets move out there and they did. 13 RAY ROSE: What about rental office space? WAYNE BURKE: Rental? RICHARD MANKE: Do you see the church being rented for use by large groups. WAYNE BURKE: No because you're talking about a management situation and you are letting your facilities being impacted and controlled by others. It's done in a public situation but that's not something on our agenda. RICHARD MANKE: If you went to a single service - would that not intensify the traffic tremendously on the roads? WAYNE BURKE: We know that we are going to impact the traffic there is no question about that. We're put into a position (if I may preach a bit). The Lord has brought all kinds of folks to us and its getting bigger and bigger. We've got a 12 step program dealing with all kinds of people who really had a lot of trouble in their lives and we've seen tremendous growth there and tremendous things have happened. We've affected a lot of people and turned so many things - lives around that its hard for us to ignore that. And for us to shut our doors because right now for us to say no we can't do anymore they are going to come anyway and we've just been pus'-led to the limit and said we got to have more space. RICHARD MANKE: Another thing I noticed that tax exemptions are for five acre sites and your site is almost 10 acres. WAYNE BURKE: I can't speak to that 14 DAVE MCDONALD: Maybe we can have Mr. Hathaway answer that, I don't know all of the rules but, there are some restrictions on acreage but, I don't know if there is a value restriction either. Do you know DJ? DAVID HATAWAY: That is something you would have to contact the Department of Revenue on. All the Assessor's Office does is get the determination letters from the state we don't make the rules. We don't say who can and who can't be exempt. RICHARD MANKE: I thought that churches and the five acres they sat on were exempt. DAVID HATAWAY: Like I said that determination comes from the Department of Revenue. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this issue? Is there anyone else who wishes to comment on the special permit for the Church expansion? Last call, is there anyone else who wishes to speak on the special permit for the church expansion? Seeing none, hearing none, we will close the public comment portion on this item and open it for Commission comments, questions and actions. JEFF BURCKHARD: I've got a question, the gentlemen I believe Mr. Lenk had quoted one of the city codes regarding to detrimental - using that term- I can't remember the exact number on that code but, how or how is that detrimental in this case defined? DAVE McDONALD: That's why we have a Planning Commission and that's one of the reasons we hold public hearings for activities that 15 require a special permits. As you know, churches come in all different sizes and shapes. Some are small congregations. The one you postponed this evening is located on a third of an acre. These folks are locating on eight acres and so through the public hearing process you determine that (what is detrimental) through public input, through listening to the staff, reading staff reports, receiving correspondence from neighbors and so forth. Through the process if there are problems associated with a use such as increased traffic, you have the opportunity to come up with mitigating measures that may soften those impacts somewhat. Another example would be the lighting that would ---- as Roger said-- would increase light pollution in the neighborhood. You have the opportunity through this process to place restrictions or conditions on the special permit for the church to shield those lights not only on the parking lot but, also on the building if they have any. You have the opportunity to require additional lanes on the street out front or on Court to accommodate traffic to try to mitigate some of these issues. I am not totally answering you question but really through the process if there are problems with the proposal there is an opportunity to address those through mitigation measures and I guess if it comes right down to it you don't feel that there are opportunities for those mitigation measures and that there would be a detriment to the neighborhood you have the option of recommending it or not recommending it. JEFF BURCKHARD: I guess the other question I have if anyone can answer it is approximately how many households surround the church in the closest proximity do we have an idea? DAVID McDONALD: Mr. Manke could probably answer that better than I, but the lots around the church are very large. They are few in number, that's why not that many people received notices as Mr. Lenk mentioned, Mr. Manke. 16 RICHARD MANKE: There's only about 15, perhaps 15 houses located around the church's ground. So there is a fairly large chunk. Most of the houses around here on five acres, there is a couple on two and some on ten. These are fairly good size chunks of ground. A lot of them have pastures and various animals. You are in a suburban setting. DAVID HATAWAY: I guess going back to that suburban setting with larger acreages there's going to be somewhat of a buffer and what I'm getting from the tax payers is the traffic issue period. RICHARD MANKE: Not soley. I think there are a variety of issues. ROGER LENK: Just because we have large lots don't mean that we have a buffer. They are going to be building the parking lot right against my lot. There is no buffer. There is a parking lot adjoining my property. We have a lot of large residential uses and we have a giant coming that is going to dominate the character of our neighborhood. This is no different than a shopping center or any other large use. This is very-- I like churches in the neighborhood they are quite and good to get along with. This is a mega facility. This is like the facility over in Kennewick. The Baptist church that had the big plant growing around it. This is a different use than we have. This is not the small church constituted as a third of the acre church. Those would be very compatible uses in our area. This is not. This is completely out character with the area. DAVE McDONALD: Maybe just one comment about the buffer - Mr. Lenk's property is in this general area right here (pointing to the overhead and most of the parking lot will be abutted up to his lot. There is a landscape strip between the parking lot and fence that is proposed to be built. That area can be landscaped with shrubbery and trees whether 17 its is a buffer Mr. Lenk would like or not but its still provides an opportunity for a buffer. RAY ROSE: Dave how wide of buffer is that — that you have planned there now? DAVID McDONALD: 20 feet? WAYNE BURKE: It's a tapered stripe that runs 15 to 18 to 19 feet. DAVID HATHAWAY: I guess what I would like to say is I would like to add I guess this buffer and I'm probably not expressing it well. When I was talking about a buffer you face Road 76 and I am assuming you would have pasture all the way up to their parking lot. ROGER LENK: No it is all grass. DAVID HATHAWAY: How big a lot do you have? ROGER LENK: Three acres. It is all grass and ornamental things. DAVID HATHAWAY: How far off 76 are you? ROGER LENK: We are back about an acre. So we are really in the middle of the lot. So it is going to be pretty close to us. WAYNE BURKE: May I speak to this issue. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Yes. 1s WAYNE BURKE: The details that we are discussing, I don't plan to get into that, but the site plan has been submitted to the city and won't be under consideration of course until that they can actually take it into advisement from here. The recommendation from staff is we would have a solid fence along the west side and that would be in my estimation no more than 6-feet tall just because that would be noncompatible or incompatible. We also plan also a fairly heavy tree buffer there, if you want to call it that, but we have plans for flowering, pear and Australian willow. In addition to there are others scattering three or four trees along there exist there now are fairly good size, but we want to fill that in and add that to that but we also plan to add grass around the base of all the trees. With a fence there will be some shrubs but for the most part we are looking at trees to take care any buffering, but we are talking about a substantial amount of trees. The south portion of that parking lot adjacent the Nazarene church already has a clear defining line of existing trees that have been there for some time. We are going to let those trees tell us when take those down and replace them. They are established and in fairly good health well need to trim them up some and that won't change much. But from there clear around to --- there is an established trees in this area right (pointing to the overheacl that we are going to try to enhance those get water to them and do something about those and scattering a few trees along here I think there is three or four. This is the area we plan to landscape. That was in the plans even though Mr. Lenk said he wants that we want it too so that's already in the works. Also, I might add along this plant row here there will be two trees per island here as well as down this way so also it will be shielding the building in this area as well. Now we're talking --- right now the recommendation is those will be flowering and pear right here (pointing to the overhead. CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: Is there other questions or comments from the Commission? Action: 19 DAVID HATHAWAY: Dave has the City Engineer looked at this? DAVID McDONALD: Yes he has. They've discussed several times with the applicant problems and questions related to water and sewer and the requiring of this church to extend the 12" waterline down Rd 72 from Court Street. I believe they are going to have to loop the line around the church for fire flow. Which will satisfy that provision. The engineers look at it with respect to traffic that's why we have the recommendation for the turn lanes on Court Street and also on 72 and he (the Enginee� felt that was sufficient. There is adequate right of way on Court Street for that turn lane and the free flowing lanes also. With the Final Plat of Ivy Glades we will be able to obtain more right of way on the south side of the street if we need to enlarge the pavement width and so forth. DAVID McDONALD: One of the options you may want to consider to perhaps soften the impact of such an expensive parking lot is require more trees in the parking lot itself. Wayne mentioned flowing pear trees along the isle way immediately north and west of the church. Perhaps the isle ways at the back end of --the west end of the parking lot and the very north end of the parking lot could have trees included in it which would help break the parking lot up a little. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: What is the wish of the Commission? JEFF BURCKHARD: I would like to move that the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in this report. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: There has been a motion is there a second. RAY ROSE: Second 20 CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: It's been moved and second that we adopt the findings of fact as contained in this report. Is there any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying Aye. (The Chairman was unable to hear the Commissioner responses) CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: All those in favor signify by raising your right hand. (The Commissioners raised their hands.) Those opposed. Motion carried. JEFF BURCKHARD: I move based on the findings of fact as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Faith Assembly Christian Center to expand a church at 1800 road 72 with the conditions included in the staff report. I would also like to include, I don't know how to say this, but if there is any building lighting that that be shielded as well and I like Dave's recommendation of adding more trees in the back which I think will help shield the property in the back somewhat. And I would also like to include as a matter of record the letter from Mr. Lenk that he provided we received on July 11, 2002. CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: Are you recommending that that letter be included in the conditions? JEFF BURCKHARD: Not in the conditions. DAVID McDONALD: It will be part of the record. JEFF BURCKHARD: It will be. OK. 21 CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: Its been moved and seconded that we approve granting a special permit with the additional conditions. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Commissioner said aye.)Those opposed. Motion is carried. DAVID McDONALD: What the Planning Commission has done is made a recommendation; they haven't actually granted this special permit to the church. That's an action that can only be taken by the City Council. They will act on this matter at the next regular meeting which will be August 5th unless an appeal is filed. If that's the case a closed record hearing would have to be held before the City Council. A closed record hearing is a hearing that is based only on the testimony and information that was generated at this hearing. So the tape would be transcribed, Mr. Lenk's letter and other information that he provided will be a part of that record. As for those who have questions about that you will need to get a hold of Larry or myself here at the City Hall. ROGER LENK: What is the timeframe for an appeal. DAVID McDONALD: Timeframe is within ten days for appeal and there is a fee that is involved with that I believe there is a $500 -- $100 plus cost of the transcript. The last one we did was around $500 for the deposit from the appellant and all $500 was basically eaten up in the cost of doing the transcript and compiling information for the closed record. So if you have questions give us a call. RICHARD MANKE: Is there be another hearing by the City Council? DAVID McDONALD: No there won't be unless someone appeals and if someone appeals there will be what we call a closed record hearing. There's a hearing where the City Council will discuss the item amongst 22 them, there will be no interaction like we had this evening with the applicant or the neighbors, they will have to base their decision just like a judge on the record that was generated in this meeting. That's the way it's done after the regulatory form laws that were enacted many years ago or several years ago. RICHARD MANKE: Will it go before a workshop. DAVID McDONALD: No it can't go before a workshop if it was appealed. It would have to go right to a public hearing - a closed record public hearing. I guess that's a bad term because the public cannot actually speak in it. ROGER LENK: If it is not appealed it goes on the consent agenda DAVID McDONALD: They put it on the regular agenda rather than the consent. Typically they're on the regular agenda and then they can vote to approve just as the Planning Commission recommended. If they want to do something different then they would have to on their own motion set a closed record hearing occasionally that happens. In fact that happened just last month. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a church in the downtown area and a couple of the Council members disagreed with that and they set their own closed record hearing which will be held on August 19th There was no appeal filed by any property owner. If the Council does it, there is no cost. There is still a cost, but no one has to write a check. Does that answer - are we all clear? Gary McCollum: Thank you. 23 EXHIBIT 2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 09-008 APPLICANT: Faith Assembly Church HEARING DATE: 11/19/2009 1800 Road 72 ACTION DATE: 12/17/2009 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Children's Daycare/Pre-School in an existing church in an R-S-20 Zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. General Location: 1800 Road 72 Property Approximately 10 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Road 72. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-S-20 (Suburban) and contains the Pasco Faith Assembly of God Church. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North: R-S-20 - Single Family Residence (largely vacant land) South: R-S-20 - Single Family Residences East: R-S-20 - (County) Single Family Residences West: R-S-12 - Single Family Residences S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential uses. Goal LU-3-A encourages the location of daycare facilities in each residential neighborhood. 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 Faith Assembly of God Church has been located on Road 72 for over 20 years. In September of 2002 the church was granted a special permit by the City for a major expansion. Following the completion of the new addition in 2004 the Faith Assembly Christian Center applied to the State and received a child day care center license. Since that time the Church has operated a child care center/preschool in the original portion of the Church building. Day care centers and preschools are required to obtain a special permit prior to locating anywhere within the city. The Faith Assembly of God Church did not receive a special permit when they received a child care license from the state. As a result of the hearing process for the recent corn maze application (on church property) staff became aware of the preschool in the church. Upon learning of the need for a special permit, the Church submitted an application. The preschool/daycare has been located in the church for 5 years without any complaints from the neighborhood about noise, traffic or related activities. There is little outward appearance that indicates there is a preschool in the church. There is a fenced playground area directly behind the church that is difficult to see from Road 72. The nearest house is located 418 feet west of the playground across the Church parking lot. Faith Assembly was initially licensed by the State to care for up to 18 children. In 2005 the church changed their care program to a preschool which does not need a State license. However they still provide services to about 18 children split between the morning and afternoon classes. The 70,107 square foot church facility contains 18,650 square feet of classroom space, a kitchen, bathrooms and a playground available to daycare/preschool activities. The ages of the children served range from 3 to 5 years. The preschool is open from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday. Traffic to and from the proposed daycare/pre-school will typically coincide with the morning and afternoon peak traffic through the neighborhood. The ITE Trip Generation Manual (Volume 7) indicates a pre-school/daycare the size of the Imagination Studio could generate up to 80 vehicle trips per day. By way of comparison, if the site were developed with homes under the current zoning, it is estimated that 160 vehicle trips per day would be generated by the 10 acre site (16 homes x 10 vehicle trips per day). The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A daycare facility of this size requires about 9 parking stalls. Daycares/nursery schools are defined as community service facilities and as such are required to obtain a special permit before locating anywhere within the city. Daycare facilities and schools are often located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Daycare and school activities in residential neighborhoods typically do not generate complaints from neighbors. The daycare has currently been operational for approximately five years and no complaints have been received from the neighbors. 2 INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis 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 R-S-20 (Suburban). 2. All municipal utilities currently serve the site. (sewer service is located at the intersection of Court St. and Rd 72. The church uses a pressure line to connect with the Court St. sewer line) 3. Daycares/nursery schools are Conditional Uses in the RS-20 zone (PMC 25.22.040(5). 4. Conditional Uses require Special Permit approval prior to establishment. 5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 6. The site proposed for a children's daycare/pre-school currently contains a church. 7. The proposed daycare/pre-school could generate up to approximately 80 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 8. The applicant indicated a maximum capacity of 18 children for the daycare/pre-school. 9. The daycare/pre-school will accommodate children ages 3-5 years. 10. The daycare/pre-school will have up to 6 staff members. 11. The site contains over 500 on-site parking stalls. 12. The requested daycare has been operating in the church for approximately 5 years. 13. The city has not received complaints about the daycare/preschool in the church. 14. Public testimony at the open record hearing on November 19, 2009 did not indicate that any adverse impacts are experienced by the neighborhood as a result of the operation of the daycare/pre-school. 3 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL 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 site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. The proposed daycare/pre-school supports Plan Goal LU-3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The church has a permitted occupancy load in the main sanctuary of over 1,000 people and has a parking lot with over 500 parking stalls. The weekday use of the building for 18 preschool aged children will have a negligible impact on public infrastructure. No infrastructure modifications would be required for the preschool. 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 neighborhood is suburban residential. Typically, schools and or preschool facilities are located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 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 daycare/preschool school is located in an existing church which previously received a special permit and building permit from the City of Pasco. The County Assessor's records indicate the value of the adjoining residential properties have increased over the past four years. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The daycare/preschool school has been operating on the site for 5 years without generating any noise, dust, traffic or other conditions that would be 4 objectionable to the neighborhood. The city has not received any complaints about the preschool in the last five years. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Daycares are similar to schools, which are commonly located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods where they are generally not viewed as a nuisance. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the December 17, 2009 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions there from the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Faith Assembly of God Church for the location of the Imagination Studios Preschool with the following approval conditions: APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The special permit shall be for a day care and or preschool only; 3) The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; 4) The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; 5) The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; 6) The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by April 1, 2010. 5 'CI nity Item: Special Permit - Preschool V Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 09-008 — 1 �/��,���.qq}} 'I`` mr W WERIVETT RC] — -- �. �. �/__ ra 6U 171ERNUT C4Ft LG Sp r Y J � L 2 F ' F r k" � V C£iEST�GT I I,, firs fir. IVIF'�V:E . . " ----• arc' E3 �, ECF2EEfK CT - r - Crt `'tim`it T ` .TT -tgi fAY:CT SITE - - TTTTTTTT� A. - - City Limit �COURT ST .-- Q �d BLUE STAR r-, m i`� � '•.. - . � ❑ ,� ,, ! lVY Ltd � � � .-rte - � Land Item: Special Permit - Preschool Use Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 09-008 7 Ci'ty-Li'm'It W WERNETT RD Q SFDU 's m BUTTERNUT CIRCLE F-- SILVERCREST-C-T MAVE. SFDU 's Q LEEK CT O 74-ity-bimi-t- --TE-ST TSITE ER_R A e SFDU 's Ys� a� Church v o 0 COURT ST z o J-City-L-im'it J �o o� 'U a BL.U:E-STAR m , O IV x Y-L'N SFDU s �GOLO� v L�j Item: Special Permit - Preschool Zoning Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 09-008 �tr Li I-M.'it W WERNETT RD Ci Q Q O RS-20 BUTTERNUT CIRCLE (County) RS-20 -- -CT 2O SILVERCRES T MAVE. 0 o RO'SECREEK CT O F- 71aity-L-Iffill RS=20 AGATE ST (Count y TER_RAY CT SITE ��eYS RS- 12 CO RS-20 N 0 o a o o' COURT ST z z-City-L-iM- it J mTL L.U:E-STAR RS-20 R=S= 11PUD R-2 C- 1 �,��� 7 i 9 J ��Q EXHIBIT 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 18, 2010 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: Imagination Studios Preschool Remand The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council for approval of a preschool (Imagination Studios) in the Faith Assembly of God Church on Road 72 was appealed by an adjoining property owner. Upon considering the appeal the City Council remanded the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review. In their remand the City Council specifically directed the Planning Commission to consider traffic impacts related to the estimated number of students enrolled in the preschool and any applicable limitations on the number of students or school operations that may be necessary to address the impacts. The Planning Commission was also charged with developing appropriate findings of fact dealing with student enrollment and related impacts. The Council's remand centered on the issue of student enrollment and the conflict between the information provided with the applicant's application and testimony provided at the open record hearing. The application materials indicated there were 18 children enrolled in the preschool. However, the Assistant Pastor for the Church explained in his testimony that there were about 85 children enrolled in the program. The original findings did not reflect the testimony provided by the Pastor. The appeal highlighted this discrepancy. To clarify the Pastor's comments on enrollment and classroom periods, staff asked the preschool operators to clarify the enrollment numbers submitted at the open record hearing. Staff can report that the preschool currently has a total of 85 students enrolled. However, there are never 85 students on the church grounds at any one time. Classes are split between a morning and afternoon session in three hour blocks. There are morning and afternoon classes on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and separate classes on Tuesday and Thursday. Enrollment varies per day of the week and between morning and afternoon sessions. The morning classes on Monday, Wednesday and Friday have a total of 44 students. The afternoon classes only have 10 I students. The Tuesday and Thursday morning classes hold 37 students and the afternoon classes have 9 students. The clarified enrollment numbers will give the Planning Commission a better indication of the traffic generated by the preschool. Traffic will be heaviest on Monday, Wednesday and Friday mornings and afternoons. According to the ITE Manual the Monday, Wednesday and Friday morning session could generate up to 197 vehicle trips per day. The afternoon sessions would generate about 44 vehicle trips per day. The Tuesday and Thursday morning classes would generate about 166 vehicle trips per day with an additional 40 trips per day generated from the afternoon classes. The afternoon traffic would be leaving the site at 4 P.M., 20 to 25 minutes before the start of the P.M. peak for traffic congestion. Both morning and afternoon preschool sessions would generate an estimated 237 trips per day on Monday, Wednesday and Friday using current enrollment figures. By way of comparison, as pointed out in the 12/ 17/09 report to the Planning Commission if the site was developed with homes under the current zoning, it is estimated that 160 vehicle trips per day would be generated by the 10 acre site (16 homes x 10 vehicle trips/day). The church parking lot contains over 500 parking spaces. The preschool requires about 22 parking spaces. The Planning Commission also needs to determine what, if any, limits need to be considered for enrollment. Increases in enrollment will have corresponding effects on traffic generation. For every additional student there is the potential for 2.4 new vehicle trips per day. Given the size of the church building (70,100 ft2) the preschool has the potential to grow to the size of a small elementary school. To avoid increasing neighborhood traffic beyond an acceptable level the Planning Commission should consider limiting the enrollment size. Limiting the preschool to a maximum class size of 50 students in any session may be appropriate. Corrected findings and conclusions reflected in the discussion of this memo are below. The original staff report is attached as Exhibit # 1. Following review of the findings and conclusions the Planning Commission will need to make a recommendation to the City Council. 2 FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are revised findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report, public testimony and clarification by staff. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing. 1. The site is zoned R-S-20 (Suburban). 2. All municipal utilities currently serve the site, (sewer service is located at the intersection of Court Street and Road 72. The church uses a pressure line to connect with the Court Street sewer line). 3. Nursery schools are Conditional Uses in the RS-20 zone (PMC 25.22.040(5). 4. Conditional Uses require Special Permit approval prior to location within the community. 5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 6. The site proposed for a children's pre-school currently contains a church. A pre-school has been operating within the church for approximately 5 years. 7. The proposed pre-school could generate up to approximately 197 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day for the Monday, Wednesday and Friday morning classes (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 8. The proposed pre-school could generate up to approximately 44 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day for the Monday, Wednesday and Friday afternoon classes (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 9. The proposed pre-school could generate up to approximately 166 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day for the Tuesday and Thursday morning classes (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 10. The proposed pre-school could generate up to approximately 40 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day for the Tuesday and Thursday afternoon classes (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 11. The ITE Trip Generation Manual indicates vehicle trips can range from 2.5 to 7.06 trips per student. The average is 4.48 trips per student. The figures in findings number 7-10 were based on the average of 4.48 trips per student. 3 12. The applicant indicated a current enrollment of 85 children for the pre- school. 13. The pre-school will accommodate children ages 3-5 years. 14. The pre-school has up to 6 staff members. 15. The site contains over 500 on-site parking stalls. 16. The proposed preschool has been operating in the church for approximately 5 years. 17. The city has not received complaints about the preschool activities in the church. 18. Public testimony at the open record hearing on November 19, 2009 did not indicate that any adverse impacts are experienced by the neighborhood as a result of the operation of the pre-school. 19. The Planning Commission made a recommendation for special permit approval on December 17, 2009. 20. The December 17, 2009 recommendation was appealed to City Council. 21. City Council remanded to the Planning Commission on February 2, 2010 with direction to consider traffic impacts related to the estimated number of students and to develop findings of fact dealing with student enrollment and related impacts. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE 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 site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. The proposed pre-school supports Plan Goal LU-3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The church has a permitted occupancy load in the main sanctuary of over 1,000 people and has a parking lot with over 500 parking stalls. The weekday use of the building for 85 preschool aged children in morning and afternoon sessions will have a slight impact on public roads, mostly occurring during non-peak hours. No infrastructure modifications would be required for the preschool. 4 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 neighborhood is suburban residential. Typically, schools and or preschool facilities are located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. To maintain the residential character of the neighborhood a limitation on the number of students at a session at any given time is recommended. 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 preschool school is located in an existing church which previously received a special permit and building permit from the City of Pasco. The County Assessor's records indicate that over the past five years the values of the adjoining residential properties have increased. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise,fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The preschool school has been operating on the site for 5 years without generating any noise, dust, traffic or other conditions that would be objectionable to the neighborhood. The city has not received any complaints about the preschool in the last five years. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Preschools are similar to schools, which are commonly located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods where they are generally not viewed as a nuisance. 5 RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2010 staff memo. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Faith Assembly of God Church for the location of the Imagination Studios Preschool with the following approval conditions: APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The special permit shall be for a preschool only; 3) The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; 4) The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; 5) The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; 6) The preschool is to maintain a maximum class size of fifty (50) students in any session; 7) The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by April 1, 2010. 6 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 09-008 APPLICANT: Faith Assembly Church HEARING DATE: 11/19/2009 1800 North Road 72 ACTION DATE: 12/17/2009 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Children's Daycare/Pre-School in an existing church in an R-S-20 Zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Leal: The Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. General Location: 1800 North Road 72 Property Approximately 10 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Road 72. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-S-20 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential uses. Goal LU-3-A encourages the location of daycare facilities in each residential neighborhood. 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 Faith Assembly of God Church has been located on Road 72 for over 20 years. In September of 2002 the church was granted a special permit by the City of Pasco for a major expansion. Following the completion of the new addition in 2004 the Faith Assembly Christian Center applied to the State and received a child day care center license. Since that time the Church has operated a child care center/preschool in the original portion of the Church building. Day care centers and preschools are required to obtain a special permit prior to locating anywhere within the city. The Faith Assembly of God Church did not receive a special permit when they received a child care license from the state. As a result of the hearing process for the recent corn maze application (on church property) staff became aware of the preschool in the church. Upon learning of the need for a special permit, the Church submitted an application. The preschool/daycare has been located in the church for 5 years without any complaints from the neighborhood about noise, traffic or related activities. There is little outward appearance that indicates there is a preschool in the church. There is a fenced playground area directly behind the church that is difficult to see from Road 72. The nearest house is located 418 feet west of the playground across the Church parking lot. Faith Assembly was initially licensed by the State to care for up to 18 children. In 2005 the church changed their care program to a preschool which does not need a State license. However they still provide services to about 18 children split between the morning and afternoon classes. The 70,107 square foot church facility contains 18,650 square feet of classroom space, a kitchen, bathrooms and a playground available to daycare/preschool activities. The ages of the children served range from 3 to 5 years. The preschool is open from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday. Traffic to and from the proposed daycare/pre-school will typically coincide with the morning and afternoon peak traffic through the neighborhood. The ITE Trip Generation Manual (Volume 7) indicates a pre-school/daycare the size of the Imagination Studio could generate up to 80 vehicle trips per day. By way of comparison, if the site were developed with homes under the current zoning, it is estimated that 160 vehicle trips per day would be generated by the 10 acre site. (16 homes x 10 vehicle trips per day) The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A daycare facility of this size requires about 9 parking stalls. Daycares/nursery schools are defined as community service facilities and as such are required to obtain a special permit before locating anywhere within the city. Daycare facilities and schools are often located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Daycare and school activities in residential neighborhoods typically do not generate complaints from neighbors. The daycare has currently been operational for approximately five years and no complaints have been received from the neighbors. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the 2 result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned R-S-20 (Suburban). 2. All municipal utilities currently serve the site. (sewer service is located at the intersection of Court St. and Rd 72. The church uses a pressure line to connect with the Court St. sewer line) 3. Daycares/nursery schools are Conditional Uses in the RS-20 zone (PMC 25.22.040(5). 4. Conditional Uses require Special Permit approval prior to establishment. 5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 6. The site proposed for a children's daycare/pre-school currently contains a church. 7. The proposed daycare/pre-school could generate up to approximately 80 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 8. The applicant indicated a maximum capacity of 18 children for the daycare/pre-school. 9. The daycare/pre-school will accommodate children ages 3-5 years. 10. The daycare/pre-school will have up to 6 staff members. 11. The site contains over 500 on-site parking stalls. 12. The requested daycare has been operating in the church for approximately 5 years. 13. The city has not received complaints about the daycare/preschool in the church. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL 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 site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. The proposed daycare/pre-school supports Plan Goal LU-3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. 3 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The church has a permitted occupancy load in the main sanctuary of over 1,000 people and has a parking lot with over 500 parking stalls. The weekday use of the building for 18 preschool aged children will have a negligible impact on public infrastructure. No infrastructure modifications would be required for the preschool. 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 neighborhood is suburban residential. Typically, schools and or preschool facilities are located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 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 daycare/preschool school is located in an existing church which previously received a special permit and building permit from the City of Pasco. The County Assessor's records indicate the value of the adjoining residential properties have increased over the past four years. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The daycare/preschool school has been operating on the site for 5 years without generating any noise, dust, traffic or other conditions that would be objectionable to the neighborhood. The city has not received any complaints about the preschool in the last five years. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Daycares are similar to schools, which are commonly located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods where they are generally not viewed as a nuisance. 4 TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The special permit shall be for a day care and or preschool only; 3) The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; 4) The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; 5) The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; 6) The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by April 1, 2010. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed daycare/nursery school and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the December 17, 2009 meeting. 5 'CI nity Item: Special Permit - Preschool V Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 09-008 — 1 �/��,���.qq}} 'I`` mr W WERIVETT RC] — -- �. �. �/__ ra 6U 171ERNUT C4Ft LG Sp r Y J � L 2 F ' F r k" � V C£iEST�GT I I,, firs fir. IVIF'�V:E . . " ----• arc' E3 �, ECF2EEfK CT - r - Crt `'tim`it T ` .TT -tgi fAY:CT SITE - - TTTTTTTT� A. - - City Limit �COURT ST .-- Q �d BLUE STAR r-, m i`� � '•.. - . � ❑ ,� ,, ! lVY Ltd � � � .-rte - � Land Item: Special Permit - Preschool Use Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 09-008 7 Ci'ty-Li'm'It W WERNETT RD Q SFDU 's m BUTTERNUT CIRCLE F-- SILVERCREST-C-T MAVE. SFDU 's Q LEEK CT O 74-ity-bimi-t- --TE-ST TSITE ER_R A e SFDU 's Ys� a� Church v o 0 COURT ST z o J-City-L-im'it J �o o� 'U a BL.U:E-STAR m , O IV x Y-L'N SFDU s �GOLO� v L�j Item: Special Permit - Preschool Zoning Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 09-008 �tr Li I-M.'it W WERNETT RD Ci Q Q O RS-20 BUTTERNUT CIRCLE (County) RS-20 -- -CT 2O SILVERCRES T MAVE. 0 o RO'SECREEK CT O F- 71aity-L-Iffill RS=20 AGATE ST (Count y TER_RAY CT SITE ��eYS RS- 12 CO RS-20 N 0 o a o o' COURT ST z z-City-L-iM- it J mTL L.U:E-STAR RS-20 R=S= 11PUD R-2 C- 1 �,��� 7 i 9 J ��Q EXHIBIT 4 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council March 5, 2010 TO: Gary Crutchfield, Cit r :ger Regular Mtg.: 3115110 Rick White, IZV-4 Community & Economic Development Director FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (APPEAL MF# SP 09-008): Location of a pre-school in an R-S-20 Zone (Faith Assembly Imagination Studios I. REFEIZ EN CE(S): L Vicinity Map 2. Proposed resolution 3. Binder containing the Hearing Record (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning Office, the Pasco Library, or on the City's webpage at httn://www.pasco-wa.g.ov/webapp/cltvcouncilreports ). II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING Motion: I move to approve Resolution No. approving the special permit for the location of a pre-school in the Faith Assembly of God Church at 1800 Road 72 with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF; A.. On November 19, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a public heating to determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for a pre- school in the Faith Assembly Church at 1800 Road 72_ 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 a pre-school at the Faith Assembly Church in an R-S-20 District. C. A neighboring property owner filed a written appeal of the Planning Commission's reconunendation. City Council set a Closed Record Hearing for February 1, 2010. D. At the Closed Record hearing on February 1, 2010 the City Council remanded the item back to the Planning Commission to develop and review findings of fact relating to traffic and student enrollment numbers that reflected testimony which occurred at the open record hearing on November 19, 2009. E. On February 18, 2010 the Planning Commission conducted the remand and adopted findings of fact and conclusions and revised conditions of approval, S(a) relating to traffic and enrollment and recommended that City Council approve the special permit. IV. DISCUSSION: A. Consideration of an appeal occurs in the form of a "Closed Record Hearing" consisting of the written record of the special permit application, including testimony and the Planning Commission's deliberations. B. As requested by Council, the Planning Commission reviewed the record and modified its findings to reflect the public hearing discussion on the :number of students enrolled in the pre-school. As a result of accurately accounting for student enrollment the Planning Commission was then able to fully consider the traffic impacts of the pre-school. C. The findings and conclusions were revised to show a current pre-school enrollment of 85 children which is estimated to produce 237 vehicle trips per day on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Lower traffic generation levels are expected on Tuesdays and Thursdays. D. The Planning Commission has again forwarded the City Council a recommendation for approval of the pre-school application with an additional condition limiting the daily session periods to 50 children at any given tii7ne E. Should the Council decide to take action other than accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, this item should be tabled until the next regular meeting to allow time to prepare appropriate findings of fact and conclusions, conditions and a revised Resolution. Item:, Special Permit, - Preschool 3 0 d Vicinity Ap icant: agination tudios N Map File #: SP 09-008 CAW AA __ --�`d �"_.._ _�. � �' s � R..#, - •1 CAI L 4'�� .5�, Y t Vie, :Y .�W f ono y . ' + 1 1 - , 7• ! .. : L F Ot Ito 44. �} r ��`rte !''v"7' q�, .' - •5v -#<•F_ ._ +.� ,;1 �. .. �."�*� ` ��' :.ri`rs,�- �_ f� ��.Cpr-�`'� •Le :'9,. �' .: '3' r" RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTfNG THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE LOCATION A PRE-SCHOOL IN THE FAITH ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH AT 1800 ROAD 72. WHEREAS, Faith Assembly Church submitted an application for a special permit for locating a pre-school in an existing church at 1800 Road 72 on October 14, 2009; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Conuxtission held a public hearing on November 19, 2009 to review Faith Assembly Church's proposed pre-school facility; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission recommendation was appealed; and, WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a closed record hearing on February 1, 2010 and remanded the item to the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission adopted additional findings and conclusions as a result of the remand and recommended approval of a special permit for the location of a pre- school in the existing Faith Assembly of God Church at 1800 Road 72 with certain conditions; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That a special permit is hereby granted to Faith Assembly of God Church on behalf of Imagination Studios Daycare for the location of a pre-school within the existing church located at 1800 Road 72 with the following conditions: a. The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; h. The special permit shall he for a pre-school only; c. The pre-school attendance shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) children on site at any given time; d. The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; e. The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; f. The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; g. The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by April 1, 2010. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 15"' day of March,2010 Joyce Olson,Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy L. Kenworthy, Deputy City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney EXHIBIT 5 Roger E. Lenk From: Roger E. Lenk <lenk.roger @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 7:40 PM To: 'Mitch Nickolds (nickoldsm @ci.pasco.wa.us)'; 'smarks @co.franklin.wa.us' Subject: Commercial Concert At Faith Assembly Attachments: haase poster.pdf; mens_wild_gam.pdf Howdy. A neighbor let me know about the upcoming commercial concert at Faith Assembly. Attached is the flyer. It does not appear to conform to the Special Permit Provisions (MF 02-88-SP),nor PMC 5.25. It also appears to be a commercial event, totally inconsistent with its exempt property tax status. Earlier this year,the Church sponsored a vendor fair for hunting outfitters (see attachment 2). This was also out of bounds for the use of the facility. Please let me know what the City and county plan to do with this continuing matter. Thank you very much. Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco,Washington 99301-1830 Phone: (509) 542-0489 Email: lenk.roger gmail.com 1 W� zwi %r presents: Gaither Homecoming Artist & Grammy Nominee CONCERTS i , ti You remember Ernie Haase from the Cathedral Quartet. Now come enjoy EHSS perform their HITS as well as a tribute to the songs of the Cathedrals on this great tour! ERNIE HAASE + SIGNATU SOUND -AF— Monday, August 23rd 7 : 30 PM PASCO, WA - Faith Assembly Christian Center CHURCH ADDRESS : 1800 N . Road 72, Pasco, WA 99301 Concert starts at 7:30 PM, Doors Open at 6:30 PM Private Reception and VIP Seating starts at 5:30 PM (Includes Light Refreshments) LOCAL TICKET OUTLETS: Faith Assembly Christian Center - 1800 N. Road 72 - Phone: (509) 547-5773 The Bible Shoppe - in uptown Richland - 1380 Jadwin Ave - Phone: (509) 946-8263 Griggs Department Store, Pasco - Phone: (509) 547-0566 Christian Supply Center - 115 E. Main St. - Walla Walla, WA 99362 - Phone: (509) 529-0810 ADMISSION:Order online, www.imcconcerts.com or by calling (800) 965-9324 ADVANCE GENERAL 11 (children . - ' PRIVATE VIP SEATING and RECEPTION before the concert with EHSSQ: $30.00 Concerts(Ticket holders that purchase the Limited VIP tickets will have the opportunity to attend a special PRIVATL reception with LHSSQ. These receptions have become a highlight of the IMC Concert series. EHSSQ will be spending an hour with guests to visit, take pictures and sign autographs. EHSSQ will also be dedicating time during this reception to do a Question and Answer session. This has become a favorite among all who attend! Hurry, these sell out FAST!!!) IMC • - infooimcconcerts.com WWW . Imcconcerts . com The City Plaza-Wild Game Extravaganza featuring THE DUCK COMMANDER Phil Ro... http://faith.onthecity.org/plaza/events/f4f802f865cfd0091ac52045388f0feb552873fd Search • Show All • Topics • Events • Prayers • Needs • Albums 1 of 4 2/9/20119:38 AM The City Plaza-Wild Game Extravaganza featuring THE DUCK COMMANDER Phil Ro... http://faith.onthecity.org/plaza/events/f4f802f865cfd009lac52045388fOfeb552873fd Wild Game Extravaganza featuring THE DUCK COMMANDER Phil Robertson By Pastor Chris Judd in Faith Assembly 2 months ago 1434 views Link: http://bit.ly/g6vyVR 2 of 4 2/9/20119:38 AM The City Plaza-Wild Game Extravaganza featuring THE DUCK COMMANDER Phil Ro... http://faith.onthecity.org/plaza/events/f4f802f865cfd0091ac52045388f0feb552873fd The Men's Ministry at Faith Assembly will be hosting international duck hunting icon, Phil Robertson (the Duck Commander) on February 19th. Come early for a sportsman's expo including WILD GAME hors d'oeuvres, vendors, MASSIVE door prizes, and raffles!! The Duck Commander will speak at 7 o'clock and will bring his hilarious brand of down home, full-bearded, swamp-lovin', duck callin' goodness to the Tri-Cities. Tickets are $15 for a single ticket, $25 for 2, or$10 a piece for a group of 3 or more. Bring some friends and get here early...Doors open at 5 o'clock! Call Faith Assembly for tickets at: 509-547-5773 i ti 1, � F � a r RSVP using your Facebook account: 3 of 4 2/9/20119:38 AM Events:The Duck Commander http://www.duckcommander.com/events/ Home: Customer Service Login or Join 1.9 WNWa _ r e 02/05/2011 -08/31/2011 Duck Commander Events Speaking Tour, LA Phone: 318-387-0588 For information on how to book a Duckman, contact During the off-season, Phil and the Duckmen travel Missy Robertson at missy @duckcommander.com. For across the country giving duck call demonstrations, details about each of the following events,visit sharing stories about their hunting experiences and www.duckmenlive.com. even doin'a little preaching. Many of these events are sponsored by churches, while some are at 02/12/2011 waterfowl festivals and store promotions. What can Heritage Baptist Church you expect if you attend an event? First, you can Wild Game Dinner meet and get to know the men who chase ducks for Monroe, MI a living, Phil Robertson,lase Robertson,Willie Robert Sermon Phone: 734-735-5398 Robertson,Jep Robertson, and John Godwin.Then, Don't miss this chance to hear Phil Robertson at this wild you will get an opportunity to check out all of the game dinner that is free to the public.There will be Duck Commander products.T-shirts,duck calls, plenty of food and door prizes along with Duck DVDs and CDs, posters, hats, and decals will be Commander merchandise that Phil will be happy to available at each event. Phil and the rest of the autograph for you. Duckmen will also autograph just about anything you want. After you have met and talked hunting 02/17/2011 with the Duckmen, you'll be able to load up on all Leland Chamber of Commerce the hottest waterfowl gear. And, if Phil or Jase is Annual Chamber Banquet there,they will give a very entertaining,yet Stoneville, MS meaningful, message.The Duckmen have a very Stephanie Patton Phone: 662-394-1065 powerful way of spreading the good news about Get your tickets now to hear Jase Robertson give his Jesus. The Duckmen's lives revolve around calling entertaining and highly inspirational speech about duck ducks, eating well, and spreading the Gospel. When hunting and what really motivates him. It's a night you Duck Commander arrives in your area, we hope to won't want to miss! see you there! 02/19/2011 Booking Information Faith Assembly Christian Cente Wild Game Dinner Phil speaks at many events throughout the year Pasco, WA and stays booked fairly far in advance. If you are David Neff Phone: 509-544-6557 planning an event simply check out the events This is a wild game dinner that is in its 3rd year. With page to check for open dates,then send us an Phil as the guest speaker, it's sure to be a success. email or give us a call with details of the event, There will be food,an archery shoot and rifle range along where and when, number of people expected to with booth space for local businesses. attend, etc. and Willie or Kay, Phil's wife, will get back to you with availability and details necessary 02/26/2011 to make it happen. Palestine Baptist Church Wild Game Dinner Email: booking @duckcommander.com Huddleston,VA Phone: (318) 396-1126 or(318) 325-1114 Rodney Dellis Phone: 540-874-8627 After enjoying a wild game dinner, check out the wall of mounts and enter yours for best trophy mount.There will also be plenty of door prizes and entertainment. Phil will give a powerful and entertaining speech,so stick around for that. 02/26/2011 2 of 2 2/9/20119:33 AM Faith Assembly Christian Center Page 1 of 1 i • � Our Mission Ministries Online Giving I Multimedia News and Events News&Events Men's Wild Game Dinner Calendar s Podcast Pheasant stew,sweet&sour pronghorn antelope,barbequed venison steak,buffalo meatloaf,venison chili...Does this menu make your mouth water? If so,we have the event for you: Faith Assembly's Wild Game Dinner. Join us Saturday,February 20 @ 6:00 p.m.(vendor showcase begins at 5:00 p.m.)for a tasty meal,a great speaker,and lots of outdoor adventure vendors. Our guest speaker is Chuck Buck from Buck Knives. Cost is$20 for 1,$35 for 2,and$120 for 8. You won't want to miss it. Tickets available at the church office or lobby. Back,to.eventr Our Mission I Contact Us i Privacy Policy I Terms of Use ©2010 Faith Assembly Christian Center I Site Credits http://www.faithtricities.org/?/news events/entry/mens wild game dinner february20 6... 1/31/2010 EXHIBIT 6 Roger E. Lenk From: Roger E. Lenk <lenk.roger @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:51 PM To: 'Mitch Nickolds' Cc: 'Rick White'; 'Dave McDonald' Subject: RE: Faith Assembly Church- Events Thank you. I understand the TCH is interested in this one. The City's position that "as long as someone else is doing it must be ok" shows a great libertarian mindset at City Hall. I am sure that many of the smaller churches in residential and downtown areas will applaud this ruling. A new source of revenue is always welcome. I assume this would also cover non-for profit owned and union halls. I still believe that this Concert is specifically covered by PMC 5.25.010 however, and does not meet the exemptions under PMC 5.25.015. As such, a special events permit is requisite. Is there an appeal process I may follow? Thank you. Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco,Washington 99301-1830 Phone: (509) 542-0489 Email: lenk.roger( g� mail.com From: Mitch Nickolds fmailto:NICKOLDSM @ pasco-wa.govl Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:04 PM To: lenk.roger gmail.com Cc: Rick White; Dave McDonald Subject: Faith Assembly Church- Events Dear Mr. Lenk, A review of the advertisements you provided finds the Faith Assembly sponsored events listed are not unlike many varieties of events other (or almost all) churches engage in and are consistent with the City's special permit conditions and requirements. Thus, no City enforcement action will be initiated at this time. Thank you, Mitch Nickolds, CBO Inspection Services Manager (509) 545-3441 Ext. 6311 nickoldsm(a)pasco-wa.gov 1 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 CITY OF PASCO 3 4 In Re: Expanding the ) 5 capacity of a preschool ) from 50 to 80 children ) Master File# SP 2012-007 6 in an existing church ) in an R-S-20 Zone ) 7 (Imagination Studios ) Academy Preschool) ) 8 9 10 11 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 12 13 14 TIME: 7 : 00 p.m. , Thursday, April 19, 2012 15 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall 16 Pasco, Washington 17 CALLED BY: City of Pasco 18 REPORTED BY: ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR License No . 2408 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: 3 CHAIRMAN JOE CRUZ COMMISSIONER JAMES L. HAY 4 COMMISSIONER MICHAEL LEVIN COMMISSIONER JANA KEMPF 5 COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY COMMISSIONER ANDY ANDERSON 6 COMMISSIONER PAUL HILLIARD 7 ALSO PRESENT: 8 MR. RICK WHITE 9 MR. DAVID MCDONALD MR. SHANE O'NEILL 10 MS . KRYSTLE SHANKS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 3 1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, April 19, 2012 at 2 7 p.m. , at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, a portion 3 of the Pasco Planning Commission Meeting was taken before 4 ChaRae Kent, Certified Court Reporter and Registered 5 Professional Reporter. The following proceedings took 6 place : 7 8 P R O C E E D I N G S 9 10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Moving on to item number 6B, another 11 special permit expanding the capacity of a preschool from 12 50 to 80 children in an existing church in an R-S-20 zone, 13 Imagination Studios Academy Preschool, Master File Number 14 SP 2012-007 . 15 MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 16 As you mentioned, this is a preschool -- a Special 17 Permit application to expand a preschool at 1800 Road 72 . 18 The property is zoned R-S-20 and it contains the Faith 19 Assembly Church. The church was granted a Special Permit 20 in 2004 to have a child daycare center at that location. 21 And then the commission may remember, in 2009, I believe 22 it was considered by the commission for -- that the 23 preschool that we are now considering expanding, that 24 was -- that recommendation of approval by the commission 25 was appealed. It went to the City Council which remanded ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 4 1 it back to the Planning Commission for additional findings 2 related to traffic impacts, and ultimately approved by 3 City Council in March of 2010 with the conditions that are 4 shown on page 2 in your staff report. 5 The church has now asked for an expansion to upwards 6 of 80 children at the site as opposed to 50 contained in 7 the original approval . The staff report contains and 8 actually focuses on the traffic impacts associated with 9 that request. And on page 3 of your proposal you' ll see 10 of your agenda packet staff report, you' ll see a chart 11 that indicates several different studies from the 12 International Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual 13 that speak to the number of traffic trips per day, both 14 average, minimum and maximum that would occur with an 15 enrollment of 80 kids based on a series of studies . 16 As the commission knows I 'm sure by now, preschools 17 require Special Permit in a zoning district within the 18 city. And prepared with the report are initial staff 19 findings of fact that can, of course, be added to or 20 clarified based on tonight ' s public testimony with 21 conclusions based on the requirements that are needed to 22 approve or deny a Special Permit and a list of tentative 23 approval conditions that may be implemented, assuming that 24 the proposal is recommended for approval . And we would be 25 glad, Mr. Chair, to answer the commission' s questions . ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 5 1 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much, Mr. White. 2 Any questions, comments or concerns on behalf of the 3 Planning Commission before we open the public hearing and 4 invite the applicant to come forward? 5 Okay. At this time we ' ll open the public hearing for 6 this item. If the applicant is here, please come forward 7 at this time and state your name and address for the 8 record. 9 MR. MATTHEW WELK: Matthew Welk, 1908 North Road 72, 10 Pasco, 99301 . 11 And we are applying for this . The preschool has been 12 here for about eight years, as mentioned, in 2004 is when 13 we first started. And we received very positive feedback. 14 We strive to be a very positive influence in the community 15 and especially for the families involved. And much of our 16 families that are involved are outside of the Faith 17 Community, and word of mouth is what has mainly caused us 18 to reach this point where we are feeling like it would be 19 good for us to be able to expand and open up that 20 community for more families to be a part of. 21 And we have more than adequate parking for the 22 application here and see much more traffic on a Sunday and 23 some of our other events . And I know that I can speak to 24 living right next to the children, we just moved there, 25 and my wife is actually pregnant with twins, so we have a ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 6 1 vested interest in seeing cars travel safely on that road. 2 And I am pleased to notice that our parents in the 3 preschool they all travel the speed limit. And typically 4 when we 've seen any kind of speeding or traffic problems 5 issues they tend to be youth. Some of them are from Faith 6 and we try to crack down on them, but usually that takes 7 place after high school hours and whatnot or other high 8 school students cutting up to go to Chiawana and whatnot. 9 But traffic primarily does consist from Court up 72 or 10 from Wernett down 72 . That ' s where most of our families 11 primarily travel there . 12 And we have found that our morning classes are what 13 fill up quicker and what families are interested in; 14 otherwise, we would have expanded to more afternoon stuff. 15 But primarily families like to do the 9 : 00 to noon thing 16 and be able to have the rest of the day with their kids . 17 So we were hoping to expand. 18 And as we noted in our application, we expect really 19 in the next year only to see traffic up by about 13 cars 20 in the morning. And we probably will actually, at least 21 initially, only be expanding to about 15 students, maybe 22 20, depending on what kind of registration we get and 23 whether or not we ' re approved. 24 So, I don' t know, is there any questions? 25 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much, Mr. Welk. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 7 1 Any questions, comments? 2 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: I have a question. This is just 3 Monday through Friday, correct? 4 MR. MATTHEW WELK: Yes, Monday through Friday, 9 : 00 5 to noon. We do, barring registration, also have an 6 afternoon possibility, but that would only be about 15 7 students maybe, at tops . 8 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: And the capacity is up to 80 9 kids about? 10 MR. MATTHEW WELK: Uh-huh, onsite at one given time, 11 yes . 12 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: And you ' re projecting it ' s not 13 going to get filled up? 14 MR. MATTHEW WELK: Yes . Oh, no. Yes, I would say 15 mostly like 65, maybe 70 would be our especially initial 16 years . 17 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All right . Thank you, Mr. Levin. 18 Anyone else, questions or comments? 19 So I 'm going to kind of ask a question. You know, 20 one of the things that staff does a good job of 21 communicating in their staff report that, you know, at 80 22 you are approaching a comparable impact to the full 23 development of the size R-S-20 . And so if the permit is 24 granted, I think one of the things that we ' re concerned 25 about, to protect the neighborhood, is to keep it ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 8 1 comparable to what development would be . And so, you 2 know, we went from 50 . You' re asking for 80 . I think the 3 chances of seeing us be supportive of more start to drop 4 dramatically because then you have an undue impact on the 5 character of the neighborhood. 6 MR. MATTHEW WELK: And we actually don' t want to 7 expand. It falls under my department to ask. This is 8 about the max that I 'm ready to wrangle and oversee . 9 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Any questions, comments, 10 concerns? 11 Okay. Thank you very much. 12 MR. MATTHEW WELK: Thank you. 13 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : So I 'm assuming, based on what we 've 14 already covered, we have a few people who want to speak. 15 And based on the time, let ' s start with 5 or so minutes a 16 person. And then if we get up through everybody who 17 wanted to speak, then we ' ll invite people up for an 18 additional 5 minutes . 19 If anybody wants to come forward at this time, please 20 come on down. 21 MR. ROGER LENK: Good evening. My name is Roger 22 Lenk, 1817 North Road 76, Franklin County, Washington 23 99301 . 24 Honorable members of the Planning Commission, 25 providing you some background and history. July 25th, ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 9 1 2002 -- I don 't know if staff provided you with a copy of 2 the packet that I e-mailed over -- this body held an open 3 record hearing for MF SP02-88 . The purpose of that 4 hearing was to take testimony related to a Special Permit 5 for the expansion of Applicant ' s facility. During that 6 hearing Applicant was questioned about the potential 7 school use and facility rental at the expansion. 8 Applicant' s response is, no, that is incompatible with use 9 of facilities in the church itself. You' ll find that in 10 the exhibit provided. 11 After the expanded facility was complete, Applicant 12 immediately commenced with the commercial preschool 13 operations in 2004 and facility rentals and did not seek 14 appropriate permits for either. December 17th, 2009 after 15 an open record hearing process this body approved for 16 recommendation to City Council a daycare center for up to 17 18 students under Master File SP 09-08 . The City Council 18 remanded the matter back to the Planning Commission upon 19 appeal . 20 Under remand from the Council, the Planning 21 Commission increased the number of allowable students from 22 18 to 50 for any session. This recommendation was 23 approved by City Council on March 5th, 2010 . Unlike any 24 private business operation in the city, during the entire 25 approval proceedings the Applicant was able to continue ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 10 1 with its then permitted daycare activities . 2 At no time has the city taken any action to resolve 3 issues related to facility rentals, that ' s Exhibit 5 in 4 your package, which is inconsistent with Special Permit 5 02-88 and P.M.C . 5 .25 which requires an administrative 6 permit for concerts and the like. 7 Exhibit 6 shows that the city provided its 8 administrative policing to unpermitted activities which 9 are again in PMC 5 .25 . The history I provided does not 10 include Applicant ' s special permits for corn mazes nor 11 illegal farming and code enforcement issues . 12 Some of the issues with staff' s April 19th, 2012, 13 report to the Planning Commission. Traffic impacts . 14 The staff report indicates that the proposed site 15 contains over 500 parking spaces . A preschool facility 16 with an enrollment of 80 students and 8 staff members will 17 require about 22 stalls . All traffic counts are limited 18 to times and days of preschool activities and based on ITE 19 traffic generation manuals, not actual data of use. The 20 traffic count that staff used did not include site impact 21 associated with the ecumenical activities which fill these 22 500 parking stalls for youth activities, special events, 23 concerts, meetings and the wide array of money generating 24 activities conducted by Applicant. 25 In order to assess the total impact the facility has ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 11 1 adjoining neighbors -- and this is the largest complaint 2 we get -- and substandard roads which service the facility 3 -- which service the facility, a complete traffic analysis 4 must be completed by professional traffic engineers prior 5 to this body' s review. Neighbors are extremely tired of 6 the high level of traffic generated by Applicant' s 7 facility, traffic speeds, inattentive driving and general 8 associated nuisances . 9 I was driving by there yesterday to review the lot 10 and a lady had just dropped off her child, was on her cell 11 phone, didn' t stop as she egressed the parking lot of the 12 church facility and almost hit a Ford Explorer in front of 13 me. That kind of traffic activity happens continuously on 14 Road 72 from Applicant ' s facility. 15 Applicant' s application and site plans . I don't see 16 that up there . But Page 5 of Applicant ' s applications for 17 the Special Permit notes a 652 by 272 youth building. 18 There it is (indicated) . I believe that ' s on the 19 southwest -- is that right, Dave? That should be Court 20 and 72 . 21 MR. WHITE: That ' s north. 22 MR. MCDONALD: That ' s the northwest corner . 23 MR. ROGER LENK: Building, field, 652 by 272 . So 24 that should be Road 72 there -- do you think -- and Court 25 Street . Am I correct with that? Because that would be ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 12 1 opposite the parking lot there . See, what I 'm talking 2 about here? Oh, it' s down here (indicated) . Okay. So 3 it ' s up there (indicated) . Okay. I 'm correct . That ' s 4 adjoining my lot . I assume that you' re not going to be 5 considering a youth building facility. That Special 6 Permit went by the wayside in 2003, I believe. 7 MR. MCDONALD: That' s correct. That youth building 8 was on the original Special Permit application. They 9 failed to build it . If they want to build it they have to 10 come back in the future for a new Special Permit. 11 MR. ROGER LENK: Okay. They would be much better off 12 if they put it on Road 72 . 13 Okay. So I wanted to make sure that that wasn ' t 14 trying to get -- gain approval of that. 15 Noise generated from daycare activities . Staff does 16 not include information related to noise generated from 17 outside activities related to the daycare function. The 18 outdoor play area is located in an amphitheater-like 19 setting with large amplifying walls and surroundings . The 20 noise generated by the gleeful children is amplified and 21 radiated out into the surrounding neighborhood and it' s an 22 extreme annoyance throughout the day. 23 As you understand, the body needs to review the six 24 sections under PMC 25 . 86 . 060 to either approve or deny the 25 request. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 13 1 These are some of the responses that neighbors 2 provided to those questions in the staff report. 3 Number 1 : Will the proposed use be in accordance with the 4 goals, policies, objectives and text of the comprehensive 5 plan. The answer would be yes . SP 2012-007 deviates it ' s 6 inconsistent with the goals, policies, objectives, maps 7 and/or narrative of the comprehensive plan. 8 According to the state of Washington, Department of 9 Early Learning, Imagination Studios Preschool is already 10 the largest in terms of size and enrollment in Franklin 11 counties . This information shows the proposed expanded 12 use is detrimental to the intended Suburban Residential 13 Environment in accordance with the restrictions of 14 PMC 25 .22 . 010 . 15 Number 2 : Will the proposed use adversely affect the 16 public infrastructure. SP 2012-007 does not fully or 17 adequately consider the negative impacts on neighbors, 18 including heavy traffic on unimproved, substandard and 19 unmaintained roads, infrastructure damage and collateral 20 damage to vehicles and property and excessive noise, both 21 traffic and children, and dust control on unimproved 22 substandard roads as the result of proposed expansion. 23 Number 3 : Will the proposed use be constructed, 24 maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or 25 intended character of the general facility. See the two ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 14 1 proceeding paragraphs that I just mentioned. PMC 2 25 . 22 . 010 provides that certain public facilities and 3 institutions may also be permitted provided their nature 4 and location are not detrimental to the intended Suburban 5 Residential Environment. Expanding the largest daycare 6 center in Franklin County, which resides in a rural, 7 unmaintained county area, will certainly be inconsistent 8 to the existing or intended character of the general 9 vicinity. 10 Number 5 : Will the operations in connection with the 11 proposal be more objectionable to the nearby properties by 12 reason of noise, fumes, dust, vibration, traffic or 13 flashing lights than would be the operation of any other 14 permitted uses within the district . Yes . Documented well 15 herein, the operation in conjunction with the proposed 16 preschool will be more objectionable to the nearby 17 properties by reason of noise, vibration, dust and traffic 18 than would be the operations of any other permitted uses 19 within the district. 20 Six: Will the proposed use endanger the public 21 health or safety if located and developed where proposed 22 or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the 23 district. Yes . 24 In summary, just like the dog -- or the frog boiled 25 slowly to death in a pot of water slowly by raising the ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 15 1 water temperature, the Applicant has taken the original 2 Special Permit from July 25th, 2002 and over time seen fit 3 to expand and engage in a variety of unrelated for profit 4 and other activities which are extremely harmful to the 5 local traffic rural environment and inconsistent with the 6 existing or intended character of the general vicinity in 7 the R-S-20 Rural Suburban District . 8 It is recommended that the Planning Commission would 9 retain current enrollments levels as approved by the City 10 Council on March 15, 2010 . Thank you in advance for your 11 consideration in this matter. 12 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you, Mr. Lenk. Hang on a 13 second. 14 One of the things I want to understand from the 15 staff, how much of the information regarding the 16 collateral activities like the concerts and stuff is 17 relevant to this application? 18 MR. WHITE: My answer is very little, if any. The 19 application is for the preschool . The church received a 20 Special Permit in 2000 or 2002 . We 've been down this road 21 before . We 've talked about accessory uses common to 22 churches and those kinds of things . Whether a concert is 23 common or not, I don' t know. But certainly weddings are 24 or gatherings or classes . Anything that you would do in 25 your own church is certainly typical out here. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 16 1 If you can imagine the burden upon the Planning 2 Commission and City Council and the taxpayers of the city 3 if a Special Permit application had to be filled out every 4 time a church did an event besides a service . 5 So very little is a short answer, Mr. Chairman. 6 MR. ROGER LENK: We ' re not talking about -- I think I 7 provided in Exhibit 6, or Exhibit 5, large concerts, those 8 really irritate the neighbors because there ' s a huge 9 amount of traffic that goes in beforehand, huge amount of 10 traffic that goes out afterwards . There ' s duck hunter 11 shows and things along that line . These functions have 12 absolutely nothing to do with the church or the expansion 13 related thereto . It was not there for facility rentals . 14 They said that when they came before this body in 2002 . 15 It wasn' t for preschool either but the city saw fit to -- 16 have seen fit to approve that. 17 But the other activities is just -- there is constant 18 traffic. And all you are looking at in front of you today 19 is how does the traffic for this preschool operation 20 compare as if they tore down the church and put up a bunch 21 of houses there . You aren't looking at the whole picture . 22 You are not looking at the traffic that ' s generated by the 23 ecumenical activities . You are not looking at the traffic 24 that ' s generated by concerts . You are not looking at the 25 traffic that ' s generated by the game hunter attendance and ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 17 1 those sorts of things . You are only looking at the 2 traffic as what would be there if there was houses, how 3 much is this generated. It ' s not a fair comparison. You 4 need to look at the totality of the traffic that 72 5 supports on substandard roads in support of this facility. 6 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Again, I hear your passion for this 7 issue and we've seen you before. That' s not the matter at 8 hand. The matter at hand is the preschool . The Special 9 Permit for the church and their uses of the facility under 10 this Special Permit is not. 11 And so I appreciate your concerns . We 've discussed 12 -- we put a lot of time into this, but this is not what ' s 13 on the agenda for tonight . 14 Any questions or comments on behalf of the Planning 15 Commission for Mr. Lenk? 16 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: I have a question. I 'm just 17 curious : You live on Road 76, correct? 18 MR. ROGER LENK: Correct . 19 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: If I 'm not mistaken the church 20 is on Road 72 . 21 MR. ROGER LENK: Correct. 22 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: So -- and I 'm trying to picture 23 the area. So where you live in relation to where the 24 church is -- and I 'm just talking about the traffic on 25 Sunday morning or whatever the events are going on. It ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 18 1 really impacts you? I mean, you really feel the impact of 2 the traffic going up Road 72 or it ' s on your street or -- 3 MR. ROGER LENK: Some of it comes over to my street . 4 I use 72 . My neighbors use 72 . My neighbors asked me to 5 come down to represent them because they know you guys 6 like me more than they may like them so . . . I come down on 7 their behalf so . . . The folks on 72 absolutely hate the 8 amount of activity that is generated. 9 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: I take it there ' s no one here 10 that lives on 72 . Your friends there, they don ' t live on 11 72? 12 MR. ROGER LENK: No. 13 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: So you are representing those 14 folks, too? 15 MR. ROGER LENK: Yes . 16 COMMISSIONER LEVIN: Okay. Just curious . Thank you. 17 MR. ROGER LENK: But we do definitely get the noise 18 from the traffic . We definitely do get the noise from the 19 amplified -- again, the kids are in an area that is 20 basically -- well, you are familiar if you are going to 21 the church -- little amphitheater area. So it does 22 amplify out quite a bit when they' re out there doing what 23 kids do. Okay. Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much, Mr. Lenk. 25 Anybody else in the audience who would like to speak ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 19 1 on behalf or against this item? 2 Okay. Going once for public comment. 3 Going twice for public comment . 4 Okay. Public hearing on this item is now closed. 5 Any other thoughts, comments, concerns, questions on 6 behalf of the Planning Commission? 7 Hang on. Mr. Lenk, in the future if you put together 8 a pretty comprehensive packet, it would be helpful if you 9 sent them a week prior to so we can read it with the rest 10 of the information that ' s provided on behalf of the staff. 11 I don' t know if that ' s -- think about how the packets 12 come, but this is a lot to choke down right before the 13 meeting. 14 MR. ROGER LENK: I typically do. Unfortunately I 15 was -- 16 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : I figured you did. I just wanted to 17 throw that out. This is good participation. We just want 18 due time to consider it going forward. 19 MR. ROGER LENK: I appreciate that . 20 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : I don' t want your effort to be 21 wasted. 22 Okay. Sorry about that, Mr. Anderson . 23 MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chair, I move to close the hearing 24 on the proposed preschool and initiate deliberations and 25 schedule adoptions of findings of fact, conclusions and ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 20 1 recommendation to the City Council for the May 17th, 2012 2 meeting. 3 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Second. 4 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Moved by Commissioner Anderson. 5 Seconded by Commissioner Greenaway. All those in favor 6 say aye. 7 COMMISSIONERS (in unison) : Aye. 8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All opposed? 9 Let the record show the motion passed. 10 Staff, where is this one headed? 11 MR. WHITE: To the May 7th -- I 'm sorry, to the May 12 -- well, the Planning Commission meeting in May, whatever 13 that date is . We ' ll bring back the final tentative list 14 of findings and recommendations and the Planning 15 Commission will decide from there . 16 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All right . Thank you very much. 17 Moving on to item number 6C, Special Permit, 18 development of a school recreational field in an RS-12 . 19 20 21 (CONCLUDED. ) 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 21 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS . 3 COUNTY OF BENTON ) 4 This is to certify that I, ChaRae Kent, the 5 undersigned Washington Certified Court Reporter, residing 6 at Pasco, reported the within and foregoing Planning 7 Commission Meeting on the date herein set forth; that said 8 examination was taken by me in shorthand and thereafter 9 transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of 10 the testimony. 11 I further certify that I am not a relative or 12 employee or attorney or counsel of any the parties, nor am 13 I financially interested in the outcome of the cause . 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 15 affixed my Washington State CCR number this day 16 of , 2012 . 17 18 19 CHARAE KENT, RPR, CCR 20 CCR NO. 2408 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2012-007 APPLICANT: Imagination Studios Academy Preschool HEARING DATE: 04/19/2012 1800 Road 72 ACTION DATE: 05/17/2012 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Expanding the capacity of a permitted preschool from 50 to 80 children in an existing church in an R-S-20 Zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Leal: The Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M. General Location: 1800 Road 72 Property Size: Approximately 10 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Road 72. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-S-20 (Suburban) and contains the Pasco Faith Assembly of God Church. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North: R-S-20 - Single Family Residence (largely vacant land) South: R-S-20 - Single Family Residences East: R-S-20 - (County) Single Family Residences West: R-S-12 - Single Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential uses. Goal LU-3-A encourages the location of school facilities in each residential neighborhood. 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 Faith Assembly of God Church has been located on Road 72 for over 20 years. In September of 2002 the church was granted a special permit by the City for a major expansion. Following the completion of the new addition in 2004 the Faith Assembly Christian Center applied to the State and received a child day care center license. Since that time the Church has operated a child care center/preschool in the original portion of the Church building. The original preschool application was approved by the Planning Commission, appealed, and finally approved by the City Council on March 15, 2010 with the following conditions: a. The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; b. The special permit shall be for a preschool only; c. The preschool attendance shall be limited to no more than fifty (50) children on site at any given time; d. The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; e. The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; f. The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; g. The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by April 1, 2010. There is little outward appearance that indicates there is a preschool in the church. There is a fenced playground area directly behind the church that is difficult to see from Road 72. The nearest house is located 418 feet west of the playground across the Church parking lot. The 70,107 square foot church facility contains 18,650 square feet of classroom space, a kitchen, bathrooms and a playground available to preschool activities. The ages of the children served range from 3 to 5 years. The preschool is open from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday. In order to be consistent with the previous (2010) Special Permit application staff has used the same Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) case study and multipliers to calculate estimated trips' generation for the site during an average weekday. These average estimates have been augmented with minimum and maximum trip estimates from the same study. Since receiving the Special Permit to operate a preschool the student count has increased to 44 at peak times, and is projected to reach up to 72 by 2013, according to enrollment figures submitted by the preschool. These figures have been entered into a table (see below). Added to these estimates is a conceptual maximum based on the Special Permit request for up to 80 students. According to the ITE Manual it is estimated that an enrollment of 80 students could generate between 200 and 565 vehicle trips per day, with an average of 358. By way of comparison, if the site were developed with single-family homes under the current zoning, it is estimated that the 10 acre site would generate between 69 and 350 vehicle trips per day, with an average of 153 (16 homes x approximately 9.57 vehicle trips per day). ' A"trip"is defined by the ITE manual as"a single or one-direction vehicle movement with either the origin or the destination(exiting or entering)inside a study site.For trip generation purposes,the total trip ends for a land use over a given period of time are the total of all trips entering plus all trips exiting a site during a designated time period"(P. 9,"Trip Generation:An ITE Informational Report" 2 The previous Special Permit conditions limited the student population to 50 students on-site at any given time, with the intent of keeping traffic flows comparable to those which might occur if the property were to have been developed with single-family residential units in accordance with current RS-20 zoning. Dayare/Preschools Students on a Weekday Year Days Time Students Avg Trips Min Trips Max Trips 2012/13* MWF 9:00 am-12:00 62 277.76 155 437.72 2012/13* TTh 9:00 am-12:00 52 232.96 130 367.12 2012/13* M-F 1:00 pm-4:00 10 44.8 25 70.6 Max Enrollment 80 358.4 200 564.8 *Projected Enrollments for 2013 SFDU Dwelling Units on a Weekday Year Days Time Units Avg Trips Min Trips Max Trips 9:00 am-5:00 2012 M-F pm 16 153.12 68.96 349.6 Traffic to and from the proposed preschool will generally not coincide with peak AM traffic except for a brief overlap with AM peak through the neighborhood. The school closes before the onset of the PM peak. The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A preschool facility with an enrollment of 80 students and 8 staff members requires about 22 parking stalls. Preschools are defined as community service facilities and as such are required to obtain a special permit before locating anywhere within the city. Preschools are often located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. School activities in residential neighborhoods typically do not generate complaints from neighbors. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis 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. The hearing will be reopened to consider a narrow scope of supplemental information regarding traffic impacts, then closed again. During this limited public hearing, the opportunity will be given to refute the traffic impact clarifications only. 3 1. The site is zoned R-S-20 (Suburban). 2. All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 3. Preschools are Conditional Uses in the RS-20 zone (PMC 25.22.040(5). 4. Conditional Uses require Special Permit approval prior to establishment. 5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 6. The site proposed for a children's preschool currently contains a church. 7. The proposed preschool expansion could generate between 200 and 565 vehicle trips per day, with an average estimate of approximately 359 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual). 8. A single-family neighborhood of the same size and built out to current zoning standards is estimated to generate between 69 and 350 vehicle trips per day, with an average of 153 trips. 9. The section of Road 72 from Court Street to the north property line of the proposed preschool expansion site is built mostly to City standards; however the section north of this is built to County rather than City of Pasco standards. 10. The applicant indicated a maximum capacity of 80 children for the preschool. 11. The preschool will accommodate children ages 3-5 years. 12. With a maximum capacity of 80 children the preschool could have up to 8 staff members. 13. The site contains over 500 on-site parking stalls. 14. The preschool received a Special Permit in March of 2010 and has been in operation at the church since that time. 15. The city has received one written complaint dated 4/19/2012, containing a memo and copies of past planning commission packets and other documents about the preschool in the church from a neighbor living west of the site. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL 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? 4 The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. The proposed preschool supports Plan Goal LU-3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The church has a permitted occupancy load in the main sanctuary of over 1,000 people and has a parking lot with over 500 parking stalls. The weekday use of the building for 80 preschool-aged children could generate mostly non- peak traffic above that estimated for a single-family subdivision built out to current zoning standards. The section of Road 72 from Court Street to the north property line of the proposed preschool expansion site is built mostly to City standards; however the section north of this is built to County rather than City of Pasco standards. 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 neighborhood is suburban residential. Typically, schools and preschool facilities are located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The proposed expansion of the preschool to 80 students will have minimal impacts on the character of the existing 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? The preschool is located in an existing church which previously received a special permit and building permit from the City of Pasco. The County Assessor's records indicate the value of the adjoining residential properties have increased over the past four years, and no evidence is apparent that permitted uses in the vicinity have been discouraged by the existing preschool. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The preschool school was permitted in March of 2010 and has been operating on the site without generating objectionable amounts of noise, dust, traffic or other conditions. A written complaint dated April 19, 2012 was submitted prior to the Planning Commission hearing by a neighbor to the west of the site objecting to the noise generated by the playground. Staff is not aware of any noise complaints relating to the preschool prior to April 19, 2012. Preschool director Tracy Colon has indicated via e-mail that outdoor play times are from 10:20-11:15 am, and when afternoon sessions are held, between 2:30 to about 2:50 pm. The traffic associated with preschool occurs mostly during non-peak hours and does not exceed the capacity of the adjacent road system. 5 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Preschools are commonly located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods where they are generally not viewed as a nuisance. TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS a) The special permit shall be for Franklin County Tax Parcels #118491062 and #118491044; b) The special permit shall be for a preschool only; c) The preschool attendance shall be limited to no more than eighty (80) children on site at any given time, and not more than 80 in any 24-hour period; d) The preschool shall only operate during weekdays (Monday-Friday); e) The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; fl The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; g) The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall be located in the parking area and not in the public right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the May 17, 2012 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to Imagination Studios Academy Preschool for the expansion of its existing preschool operation at 1800 Road 72, with conditions as listed in the May17, 2012 staff report. 6 Item: Special Permit - Preschool Vicinity Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 2012-007 Qb�,: A it Q - . - ; . I J`ACO'B'SaLN � BUTLTERNUT`CIR'C'LE —_ , r Cti SILVERC.REST CT -� MAVE s EK CT r N ' Ilr r yATE TERIRAY�CT _. . T S I T E - F ` � 1 1lgry yI I9t� } + — _ 111 i I i� � �I►. I RUBY ' IL �' _ •, �� --- <. �.�� �" �.,I�t•,« t � ',. � � Y Qom•,^ _ �� v.t4i6r -.:- ! if �s:-. �� . ql - - d Z l fl .u,Lt LL WF CITY LIMITS - �.. BLUE-STAR = 11,cr, e, ITT IVY L-411 -� L; - Land Item: p S ecial Permit - Preschool Use Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 2012-007 W WERNE-T-T-RD G O JAOBS=LNG BUTTERNUT1IRCLE S F D U 's E - SILVERCREST-C-T (County) MAY 0 4 R SECREEK CT PEARL-ST AT_E_ T CT SITE SFDU 's =RAY SFDU s �a (County) RUBY CT i o0 '4 Church o a v Z z CIT-Y-LIM1IT C- �� a 0. BLUE-STAR m �N Item: Special Permit - Preschool Zoning Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 2012-007 W01 I �WWERNE-T--T-RD m G O RS-20 BUTTERNUT�IRCLE (County) _ -T RS 2O SILVERCREST C kM MAVE 0 4 R S-ECREE CT PEARL-ST RS=20 AT_E_ T C o u n t CO -=RAY CT S ITE y 0 r RS- 12 RU RS-20 a o z I RAJmTv_,qw=mm6-. o N W\ BLU-E-STAR RS-20 R=S= 1 /PUD R Z CA ® ® ,Y I I s I 190 X 164 i 71 F Lee i i i i i I J4 4 I X ® i fnl,-,.r rl I y i b 4a x bq �j ---- ------------ -------------------- ROAD 72 1121 °li2C 11m 114 .. 1 7t1�l8 I(OOA v 107 1YO , u N7 vl� 9 125 1 131 a 2100 210 212 213 103 137A 130 1 too 12 i311k 21 214 AVO 205 204 206 202 The 1211 12.9 MAIN FLOOR SE ND FLOOR 4 R4 �' Looking North 1 7 AND ,;L Looking Northe -2tt .. lwVy,_ - T +R 7 r ) } r - _ :-.: ; � �,x"�' s�s'.� a*tz�°#n"d `'�`t.ter-.'d-�'• �:�,_ t qKl i 4 t C t� , � �� °t�. -•` ,. mac+ -t aT- "' s ifti u` H 4e n aye :� r:ki '1..1.•F +rte ��'". .. � •� vn_.......f , r. �_ �"�e �'�., v,:_.'_�f'f�>� rW. y J ' Y"-`... ts!..� "t^"`�'•sfi`RS�"'.!W4•'+`•°A�••71 -�ferr'+lte :- y � -. r � - _ - t K �, i �•+,.y `� r�T _ � t13�w '.yt.h, — �a ..e 63 a _ _ .✓^Y�d,1 �'n spa.. • _- �lam'- �- _ -• _ _ - - -. - Y''• - Looking East ,a e. �• '- . �r� ti4�i 4 �T' "•may y� f =F':' 't'sT,�.i .;i+�J�'r'• -� Y.y,Otis -��v4.��,,y,, 'f,Ya ^¢. "'�s. 2`'� �'• s' -�i s - •`y "l�.ryi' '$t_. nrk u.`� .r•��• � :.� =� •r�s�-�.� t �'"r�v�F.�i��^�y �t��.e r �� �.� ��.-t�,{ .-�. T y r � �. � ♦�.,K 75 �r� i 1-� .�r�5 - y-� s �� i'�f a+,�� i,s-£ a� i , 'l 4r i � #.-K�°� '}g _•Y P k.�"� ro ty 'l, ;3` ,� JS�,:E ♦ rt'y�.Y.. � Y � �;'1 - _. g Lookin Southeast 7 i f p�C �i i���•n� �sd %1A MR, � � , wnft _ � Ap It je � N- Qo � I •'A Tv - , .3p--ri• Y-t,l�,1 t f .b 4 St � �h4. +�}1A7`J� p•�.�Y J *)�� v` J t a •1�F, ty}� Y^ 4 t , �t P�yyy,, M ) a*F _ 17 , +�I 'x � r!•tb y�r �r.., � +,�N� e>' t'.y o.�rt -.,�,µ1 " I Y4 .'� s.;{ h. ��✓ -s+t+`� t M �" J�I�� � f r 41,Y p i �`�..-Y�. t�. � lh.t� ��n�� 'ir-.�k�,.l I ,.,.��YY"•C�'�la 4l �'��������'9t i� ,�FS Au`1 t. 5�'�=_,.f f�}�i�� �g,1nl?��,{` fi� .n 7�y�f�.�t �'",���♦ �{ � , � �,. r '� iF � .f,..4 1� -.;�r .1�':� t >'7 -.e ,�• 1 - Y r r" t.4; _ , `'I�G.t 1 t ..a i p J N r rh J.•' _ Af M .?r mow' Y 'R } 1 ➢ r. 1 1,\ `,YSK' •, ,- R 1'S � i� � �� t ✓. ;; r f{. �4.t � ',��t r^H 7 titi� - r A !fit yy w1 �r � `1 � i� r � .•' � f' �'� t „ - �"•�� t �f` � .�' !' dp� r t I n h•' �4y1`R" n^.t S�F rf't r�i�xtkAf,, i r,:k.. ._ _ ..I ` i ' 4 }}..,.• a >_ -'� � \ � � p. 7 °-h' yr. t, � s .- f .- `�'A'-+i Y'° M1. mss'`. ti !'' •.,�,°' .. �. Looking West a R f \� v Looking AM s r . <�t f . � r Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 May 16, 2012 VIA EMAIL City of Pasco Planning Commission 525 N. Third Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 Re: SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Honorable Members of The Planning Commission: Below you will find additional information related to SP2012-007, and serves as a follow-up to my April 19, 2012 letter and public hearing testimony related thereto. Please incorporate this correspondence into the open hearing record, and include a copy in each Planning Commissioner's package for the May 17, 2012 meeting. In accordance with RCW 42.36 et. seq. and specifically RCW 42.36.0801 hereby disqualify Commissioner Micheal Levin, from participation in this matter based on his membership at Faith Assembly Christian Center which is noted by his admission in the April 19, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes. Other members are requested to recuse themselves from consideration of this matter should they: 1 have ties to Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios; 2) have talked to parties associated with Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios concerning this or other associated zoning_ matters; or 3) have relatives with any association with Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios. As a matter of law, Planning Commission Members should err on the side of recusal in order to ensure the "appearance of fairness"in this land use issue. INCORRECT APRIL 19, 2012 MEETING MINUTES First, it should be noted that the April 19, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes are inaccurate. The Minutes indicate that "Rick White, Community& Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application and provided background history on the previous special permit that permitted the preschool in the Faith Assembly Church. The Church was originally granted a special permit in 2004 for a child daycare center. In 2010 following an appeal the City Council approved the existing preschool. Mr. Rick White indicated that the Applicant was granted a Special Permit for a Daycare". Mr. White's statement was incorrect. Re: SPECIAL PERMIT— CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Page: 2 In actuality, Applicant ran the day care without a special permit between 2004 and 2010. Applicant submitted its first request for a Special Permit for hearing before the Planning Commission at its November 19, 2009 meeting. Said Special Permit, MF# SP 09-008 was granted by City Council on March 15, 2010. ISSUES WITH MAY 17, 2012 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Traffic Impacts The staff report indicates that "The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A preschool facility with an enrollment of 80 students and 8 staff members requires about. 22 parking stalls." All traffic counts are limited to times and day of pre-school activities and based on ITE Traffic Generation Manual, not actual data or use. The traffic counts do not include site impacts associated with the ecumenical activities which fill those 500 parking stalls, youth activities, special events, concerts, meetings, and the wide array of money generating activities conducted by Applicant. In order to assess the total impact. the facility has on the adjoining neighbors and sub-standard roads which service said facility, an. actual, not theoretical, traffic analysis must be completed by a professional traffic engineer prior to this body's review. Neighbors are extremely tired of the high level of traffic generated by Applicant's facility, traffic speeds, inattentive driving, and the general associated nuisances. Please note in the photos provided by staff the substandard nature of the roads which service applicants property. In addition, staff indicates that the proposed use will generate between 200 and 565 vehicle trips per day, with the average being:358, not including the traffic generated by activities noted in the above paragraph. Staff indicates that were the site developed with single family homes, the traffic generated would be between 69 and 350 vehicle trips per day, with the average being 153. Using this methodology, no additional traffic would be generated as a result of the current additional on-site activities (ecumenical, facility rentals, etc), which are not included in staff s calculations of the pre-school above. As a result, the additional traffic resulting only from the pre-school/day care activity alone are 233%_ greater than the traffic that would be generated by housing alone. Please recall the the R-S-20 district is a suburban housing district, not a district for high traffic generating uses. INCONSISTENCIES WITH P.M.C. 25.86.060 Upon conclusion of the open record pre-decision hearing, the Planning Commission shall make and enter findings from the record and conclusions thereof as to whether or not the proposal is consistent with P.M.C. 25.86.060. Below you will find responses to the questions outlined in the Staff Report: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? SP2012-007 deviates and is inconsistent with goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan. According to the State of Washington Department of Early Learning, Imagination Studios Pre-School is already the largest in terms of size and enrollment in Franklin and Benton Counties. This Re: SPECIAL PERMIT– CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Page: 3 information shows that the proposed expanded use is "detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment" in accordance with the restrictions of P.M.C. 25.22.010. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? SP2012-007 does not fully or adequately consider the negative impacts on neighbors including heavy traffic on unimproved, substandard and unmaintained roads; infrastructure damage and collateral damage to vehicles and property; and excessive noise, both traffic and children; and dust control on unimproved/substandard roads as a result of the proposed expansion. The proposed use (not including all other traffic generated by the current use) will generate 233% more traffic that single family housing units alone. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the ,general vicinity? See the two preceding paragraphs. P.M.C. 25.22.010 provides that "Certain public facilities and institutions may also be permitted, provided their nature and location are not detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment." Expanding the largest day care center in Franklin and Benton Counties which resides in a rural, unmaintained county area will is certainly inconsistent with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. (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? (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 my permitted uses within the district? Yes. Documented well herein. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Yes. Documented well herein. Increases in the already high traffic volumes are will endanger the public health and safety of local residents. SUMMARY Applicant has taken its original Special Permit from July 25, 2002 and over time, seen fit to expand and engage in a variety of unrelated for profit and other activities which are extremely harmful to the local traffic, rural environment, and inconsistent with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and R-S-20 Rural Suburban District. It is recommended that the Planning Commission retain current enrollment levels as approved by City Council on March 15, 2010. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Best Regards, Qrol�04U—0 Roger E. Lenk 1 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 CITY OF PASCO 3 4 In Re: Expanding the ) 5 capacity of a preschool ) from 50 to 80 children ) Master File# SP 2012-007 6 in an existing church ) in an R-S-20 Zone ) 7 (Imagination Studios ) Academy Preschool) ) 8 9 10 11 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 12 13 14 TIME: 7 : 00 p.m. , Thursday, May 17, 2012 15 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall 16 Pasco, Washington 17 CALLED BY: City of Pasco 18 REPORTED BY: ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR License No . 2408 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 2 1 APPEARANCES 2 FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: 3 CHAIRMAN JOE CRUZ COMMISSIONER JANA KEMPF 4 COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY COMMISSIONER ANDY ANDERSON 5 COMMISSIONER PAUL HILLIARD COMMISSIONER ZAHRA KHAN 6 ALSO PRESENT: 7 MR. RICK WHITE 8 MR. DAVID MCDONALD MR. SHANE O'NEILL 9 MS . KRYSTLE SHANKS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 3 1 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 2 7 p.m. , at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, a portion 3 of the Pasco Planning Commission Meeting was taken before 4 ChaRae Kent, Certified Court Reporter and Registered 5 Professional Reporter. The following proceedings took 6 place : 7 8 P R O C E E D I N G S 9 10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Moving to item number 6, which are 11 public hearings, these are a request of various types . 12 We ' ll start off with item number 6A which is a Special 13 Permit . It ' s a reopen of a public hearing for expanding 14 the capacity of a preschool from 50 to 80 children in an 15 existing church in an R-S-20 zone . The Applicant is 16 Imagination Studios Academy Preschool, Master File Number 17 SP 2012-007 . 18 Mr. White? 19 MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and Commission. 20 This item has been considered by the Planning 21 Commission last month but the hearing was advertised 22 again. The neighbors were notified and it ' s recommended 23 that it be reopened because we had to introduce new 24 evidence containing the traffic counts that were presented 25 to the Commission at the last meeting. Those traffic ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 4 1 count were inconsistent with the method used for the 2010 2 Special Permit for the school to get from -- to get to 3 their original 50 student capacity. So we went back, we 4 used the exact same methods and came up with a different 5 table . If you recall it looks the same but the numbers 6 are quite different. And it has, again, the times of the 7 proposed classroom schedules, the number of students that 8 they expect, and then the theoretical maximum enrollment 9 of 80 and gives you the average trips, the minimum trips 10 and the maximum trips . Those numbers were in order or 11 average trips . Instead of 358 per day it was 64 as 12 represented to the Planning Commission last month. So we 13 corrected that mistake, presenting it to the Planning 14 Commission again for consideration. And then, through the 15 public notice, provided the public with an opportunity to 16 refute or also offer new evidence . 17 Aside from that, the initial staff Findings of Fact, 18 Conclusions and Recommendations are noted in the staff 19 report and have not changed from the report presented to 20 the commission in April . 21 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Thank you very much, 22 Mr. White . 23 Any questions or comments on behalf of the Planning 24 Commission for staff? 25 Okay. We ' ll open this -- reopen this agenda item for ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 5 1 public comment for a public hearing at this time. And so 2 if the Applicant is present, you are welcome to come 3 forward again at this time; if not, anyone else? Anyone? 4 MR. WHITE: Mr. Chair, excuse me for interrupting but 5 I did want to point out for the record that the Commission 6 did receive an additional letter from one of the property 7 owners nearby that was presented through e-mail and handed 8 out before the meeting. 9 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Just for your benefit, it was sent by 10 Mr. Lenk on May 16th specifically mentioning the traffic 11 count, among other items . 12 Welcome. So again, public comment . Anyone who would 13 like to speak for or against this item please come forward 14 at this time. 15 MR. MATTHEW WELK: Matt Welk, 1908 North Road 72 in 16 Pasco . 17 I actually just wanted to be available if you have 18 any questions, any further questions regarding the new 19 information. I 'm assuming the new counts are for in/out, 20 in/out; is that how it is? 21 MR. WHITE: It is . And thank you for asking that . 22 Because the -- let ' s take the average trip number of 358 . 23 A student will generate approximately four trips because 24 you drop them off, then the parent leaves and does errands 25 and then they return and then they take their student and ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 6 1 go home. So that ' s four trips . So you are already 2 experiencing a theoretical 200 or so simply by the number 3 of students you presently have . So an addition of roughly 4 30 students will average, again, about 120 additional 5 trips on that roadway system, which gives you the 360 6 average daily count. 7 MR. MATTHEW WELK: Are there any questions, Joe? 8 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : You know, Mr. Welk, I think you are 9 off the hook from us . But thank you for coming down. It 10 shows your support for your application, so thank you. 11 Anyone else in the audience? 12 MR. RICK PEREZ : Rick Perez, 2512 Road 76 . And I 13 also used to live on Road 72 . 14 I 've had four children go through Imagination 15 Studios . I had a house built on Road 72 in 1997; however, 16 I presently reside on Road 76 and I happen to be a 17 neighbor of Mr. Lenk -- and he ' s a friend, by the way. 18 But I 'm definitely in favor of the school being able 19 to increase their number of students . Like I said 20 earlier, I 've had four children and presently one go 21 through the school and it' s a very nice addition to the 22 neighborhood. 23 I do have one question. I don' t know if I 'm reading 24 this or not seeing it correctly. But it says here that 25 you had a study done and that there was an estimated -- if ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 1 you had a 10-acre parcel, and it was turned into a 2 residential area there would be 160 trips a day, 3 approximately. And on page 4 of your report to the 4 Planning Commission it says at the top the proposed 5 preschool could generate up to 143 vehicle trips per day. 6 I 'm not quite following the 358 . That was the number that 7 you used, Mr. White . I 'm not quite sure . 8 MR. WHITE: I 'm sorry. On top of page 4? 9 MR. RICK PEREZ : Yes, sir, on the top of page 4 10 concluding on page 3 under the Initial Staff Findings of 11 Facts . It looks like this was something that the Planning 12 Commission did or some type of investigation and it states 13 your conclusions . 14 MR. WHITE: Is that number 8, sir? 15 MR. RICK PEREZ : Number 7 . 16 MR. WHITE: Well, the study is actually a text 17 reference to a number of studies that have been conducted 18 in other places and at other times in other locations . 19 And then that average is basically the results of those. 20 I think there were a total of eight studies from the 21 traffic engineers manual . 22 MR. RICK PEREZ : Okay. But really I am definitely in 23 favor of the school . 24 I would just like to hit real quickly on number 5 on 25 page 5 where it -- Will the operations in connection with ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 8 1 the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by 2 reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic or 3 flashing lights, et cetera? 4 You know, that school, yes, it has traffic, but it ' s 5 no different than Chiawana or Livingston. Like I said, I 6 can speak by means of experience because I 've lived both 7 on Road 72 and on Road 76 and, you know, Chiawana adds a 8 lot of traffic to that area, as does other things -- 9 Livingston, McLaughlin. And the neighborhood is growing 10 exponentially if you've ever been out there. Road 72 is 11 back -- I mean, we used to own some lots there, and we 12 don ' t own them anymore, but since we 've left people are 13 selling their lots right and left on Road 72 . So there ' s 14 a lot of traffic generated by this new residential area. 15 Number 6, Page 5 of the Findings : Will the proposed 16 use endanger the public health or safety if located and 17 developed where proposed? 18 It' s definitely not a nuisance to the neighborhood. 19 It ' s actually -- it' s nice to a see a beautiful maintained 20 building, a beautiful maintained yard. And I often go 21 there -- I have in the past, not so much this year with my 22 younger daughter. But with my older kids I have gone 23 there to volunteer at many school functions . 24 And like I said, Roger is a friend, but I just really 25 don ' t see where the school is a nuisance . It ' s not that ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 9 1 loud. They go out for maybe an hour a day at each session 2 -- if an hour. 3 And the outdoor -- the outdoor activities that they 4 have, like a slip and slide day once a year and the 5 end-of-the-year party, it ' s quite enjoying and it ' s not 6 loud. 7 So I am definitely in favor of the school being able 8 to increase their attendance and would hope that the 9 Commission would find the same . 10 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much for your 11 testimony. A couple of quick questions for you. Would 12 you describe that area as an amphitheater-like setting? 13 MR. RICK PEREZ : I guess that depends on what time of 14 the year. Christmas? You are talking about the public 15 functions they might have at the church? 16 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : No. In one of the other public 17 testimony items it was described as an amphitheater-like 18 setting that would actually -- at night the sound would be 19 broadcast over a broader area. And having some 20 familiarity with the area and looking at the staff report, 21 it appears to be pretty flat. 22 MR. RICK PEREZ : Yes, it is . But about the only time 23 that they have a lot of people all at once at the building 24 is Sundays, of course, because it' s a church. At 25 Christmas they have a beautiful display, a Christmas ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 10 1 setting. And other than that, it' s come-and-go traffic 2 that you would have at any other type of public setting 3 like a Baptist church, an LDS church, Catholic church. 4 And I can with some confidence guarantee you that 5 it ' s a lot less traffic than what you have at Chiawana, 6 McLaughlin and Livingston. We don' t live -- we live 7 approximately five and half to six-tenths of a mile away 8 from the school in question. And we live about the same 9 distance away from McLaughlin and Livingston and a little 10 bit closer -- we live just down the street from Chiawana. 11 And I can hear the playground noise at Livingston when 12 they are having games and soccer events at Chiawana. I 13 can hear that noise . And it ' s intermittent, sporadic. 14 And I wouldn' t go as far as saying that it ' s disturbing 15 whatsoever. You hear a loud cheer, you wait for 5 or 10 16 minutes you might hear another one . But that' s about it. 17 And I would be very -- you would be hard pressed to be in 18 doors and hear any noise. And if you are outside the 19 possibility of hearing some noise is there. But other 20 than that, it ' s probably a very rare occasion that you 21 would hear a loud amount of noise for any extended period 22 of time. 23 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Thank you very much. 24 Any other questions from the Commission? 25 No. We appreciate you taking the time come down ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 11 1 here . Thank you. 2 MR. RICK PEREZ : Thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Anyone else who would like to speak 4 for or against this item? 5 Name and address for the record, please . 6 MS . ANDREA TURNER: Hi . Andrea Turner, I 'm at -- I 7 live on Broughton Drive. 8 And my daughter has been going to the preschool for 9 two years now and then we will be going a third year and 10 so I drive Road 72 three days a week to take her there . 11 And I can count on one hand the number of times I 've 12 actually had to stop on the road because of any kind of 13 traffic. And it ' s either been a farm animal or ducks, you 14 know, crossing or someone is working on something for the 15 city or taking down a tree or something. I 've never had 16 to stop because of other vehicles because there are too 17 many of them. So I 'm definitely in support of the 18 preschool . 19 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Okay. Thank you. 20 Any questions or comments? 21 Okay. Thank you very much. 22 Anyone else that would like to speak for or against 23 this item? 24 Okay. Going once. 25 Going twice . ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 12 1 Public hearing on this item is now closed. 2 Any other questions or comments on behalf of the 3 Planning Commission? 4 Any questions or comments on behalf of the staff for 5 us? Clarifications? 6 MR. WHITE: (Shook head. ) 7 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Ready to go. 8 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Chair, I ' ll make a motion 9 to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as 10 contained in the May 17th, 2012 staff report . 11 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Second that. 12 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : It ' s been moved by Commissioner 13 Anderson. Seconded by Commissioner Greenaway. 14 All those in favor say aye. 15 COMMISSION MEMBERS (in unison) : Aye. 16 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All opposed? 17 Let the record show that the motion passed 18 unanimously. 19 COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Mr. Chair, I further move 20 based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom 21 the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a 22 special permit to Imagination Studios Academy Preschool 23 for the expansion of its existing preschool operation at 24 1800 Road 72 with the conditions as listed in the May 25 17th, 2012 staff report. ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 13 1 COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I ' ll second that. 2 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Moved by Commissioner Anderson. 3 Seconded by Commissioner Greenaway. 4 All those in favor say aye. 5 COMMISSION MEMBERS (in unison) : Aye. 6 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : Let the -- all opposed? 7 Let the record show the motion passed unanimously. 8 Mr. White, where is this one headed? 9 MR. WHITE: Again, Mr. Chair, this goes to the 10 June 4th City Council meeting unless there ' s an appeal, 11 which would bump it out probably one month or so. 12 CHAIRMAN CRUZ : All right . Thank you very much to 13 everybody who came down to speak on behalf of this item. 14 Moving on to Item Number 6B it ' s a Special Permit for 15 expansion of the jail, Franklin County Jail, Master File 16 Number SP 2012-011 . 17 18 19 20 (CONCLUDED. ) 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 14 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS . 3 COUNTY OF BENTON ) 4 This is to certify that I, ChaRae Kent, the 5 undersigned Washington Certified Court Reporter, residing 6 at Pasco, reported the within and foregoing Planning 7 Commission Meeting on the date herein set forth; that said 8 examination was taken by me in shorthand and thereafter 9 transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of 10 the testimony. 11 I further certify that I am not a relative or 12 employee or attorney or counsel of any the parties, nor am 13 I financially interested in the outcome of the cause . 14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 15 affixed my Washington State CCR number this day 16 of , 2012 . 17 18 19 20 CHARAE KENT, RPR, CCR CCR NO. 2408 21 22 23 24 25 ChaRae Kent, CCR, RPR Kent Reporting * (509) 627-2244 Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 May 24, 2012 VIA EMAIL David McDonald, City Planner City of Pasco 525 North Third Street Pasco, Washington 99301 Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP 2012-007 Dear Dave: This is in follow-up to the Planning Commission's action of May 17, 2012 regarding the above captioned matter. Please consider this an appeal in accordance with Pasco Municipal Code Section 25.86.080. Tease include this letter and any attached documents as a part of C4 Council's background materials. Please also provide council with a copy of my April 19, 2012 (EXHIBIT 1) and May 17, 2012 (EXHIBIT 2) correspondence incorporated into the Open Record Public Hearings. While all nine (9) items under PLANNING COMMISSIONS ERRORS AND INCORRECT INFORMATION RELIED UPON herein substantiate substantive disregard to process and the facts, issues enumerated in Item 4 appear to permit successful reversal in the event of a proceeding under RCW 36.700 et. seq. ARM TO BE EXPERIENCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PMC 25.86.080 b Should the Special Permit he approved, Appellant will be subjected to harm including but not limited to excessive noise; excessive traffic on substandard and unimproved/unmaintained roads; unsafe traffic speeds and other unenumerated nuisances. Appellant is further aggrieved or adversely affected by the land use decision as: (a) The land use decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice Appellant; (b) Appellant's asserted interests are among those that the City of Pasco was required to consider when it made this land use decision; (c) A judgment in favor of Appellant would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to Appellant caused or likely to be caused by the land use decision. Appellant seeks and intends to exhaust his administrative remedies to the extent required by law. Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT-CASE NUMBER SP 2012-007 Page: 2 PLANNING CO ON ERRORS AND INCORRECT INFORMATION RELIED UPON In its April 19, and May 17, 2012 hearings and meetings, the Planning Commission made several errors and relied upon information which was materially incorrect in its consideration of this matter as enumerated below: 1. At its April 19, 2012 Public Hearing, Commission Members Levin, Hay, Anderson, Greenaway, Cruz, Kempf and Hilliard were present. Commission member Khan was absent. EXHIBIT 3. 2. At its May 17, 2012 Open Record Hearing, Commission Members Kempf Cruz, Anderson, Greenaway and Khan were present, took testimony, and approved the matter. Commission Member Khan was not present at the April 19, 2012 Open Record Hearing, and should not have taken action on the item. 3. The Planning Commission did not recognize incorrect information contained in the April 19, 2012 Planning Commission meeting minutes. EXHIBIT 2, pages I and 2. 4. The Planning Commission's May 17, 2012 Open Record Hearing was restricted "to provide additional information on traffic impacts, and provide the opportunity for additional public testimony related to traffic impacts to the Planning Commission" (emphasis original). EXHIBIT 4. During the Restricted Open Record Hearing-without provocation or prompting Chairman Cruz specifically solicited input related_ to non-traffic matters, including the amphitheater like nature of the rear of Applicant's facili1y. other non-traffic related activities noise generated by non-traffic activities, etc. The testimony solicited by Chairman Cruz and placed in the record far exceeded the restricted scope as noticed for that hearing. If Chairman Cruz and the Plannina Commission had intended to conduct a Full 012cn Record Hearing as o1212osed to a Restricted Open Record Hearing, notices in the newspaper and sent out to the public and neighbors should have indicated so. This would have permitted thepublic the same opportunity to provide unrestricted written and/or oral input as certain individuals providing testimony at the meeting. See Limited Open Hearing Record from May 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. 5. The staff report indicates that "The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A preschool facility with an enrollment of 80 students and 8 staff members requires about. 22 parking stalls." All traffic counts are limited to times and day of pre-school activities and based on ITE Traffic Generation Manual, not actual data or use. The traffic counts do not include site impacts associated with the ecumenical activities which fill those 500 parking stalls, youth activities, special events, concerts, meetings, and the wide array of money generating activities conducted by Applicant. In order to assess the total impact the facility has on the adjoining neighbors and sub-standard roads which service said facility, an actual, not theoretical, traffic analysis must be completed by a professional traffic engineer prior to this body's review. Neighbors are extremely tired of the high level of traffic generated by Applicant's facility, traffic speeds, inattentive driving, and the general associated nuisances. Please note in the photos provided by staff c early depict the substandard ngl rE� a of the roads which service applicants nropeM. Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP 2012-007 Page: 3 6. Staff indicated that the proposed use will generate between 200 and 565 vehicle trips per day, with the average being 358, not including the traffic generated by activities noted in the above_ ara ra h. 7. Staff also indicated that were the site developed with single family homes, the traffic generated would be between 69 and 350 vehicle trips per day, with the average being 153. Using this methodology, no additional traffic would be generated as a result of the current additional on-site activities (ecumenical, facility rentals, etc), which are not included in staffs calculations of the pre- school above. 8. As a result the additional traffic resulting only from the pre-school/day care activity alone are 233% greater than the traffic that would be generated by housing alone. 9. The Planning Commission erred in its application of Pasco Municipal Code section 25.22.010. This section provides that Special Permits be issued for the R-S-20 Suburban District, only if "their nature and location are not detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment" (emphasis added). Since the enumerated traffic, noise, dust and other impacts of the preschool will be very detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment it does not meet the City's criteria for approval. INCONSISTENCIES WITH F.M.C. 25.86.060 Upon conclusion of the open record pre-decision hearing, the Planning Commission shall make and enter findings from the record and conclusions thereof as to whether or not the proposal is consistent with P.M.C. 25.86.060. Below you will find factual responses to the questions outlined in P.M.0 25.86.060; (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals. policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? SP2012-007 deviates and is inconsistent with goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan. According to the State of Washington Department of Early Learning, Imagination Studios Pre-School is already the largest in terms of size and enrollment in Franklin and Benton Counties. This information shows that the proposed expanded use is "detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment" in accordance with the restrictions of P.M.C. 25.22.010. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? SP2012-007 does not fully or adequately consider the negative impacts on neighbors including heavy traffic on unimproved, substandard and unmaintained roads; infrastructure damage and collateral damage to vehicles and property; and excessive noise, both traffic and children; and dust control on unimproved/substandard roads as a result of the proposed expansion. The proposed use (not including all other traffic generated by the current use) will generate 233% more traffic that single family housing units alone. Re: APPEAL OF SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP 2012-007 Page: 4 (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the gencral vicinity? See the two preceding paragraphs. P.M.C. 25.22.010 provides that "Certain public facilities and institutions may also be permitted, provided their nature and location are not detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment." Expanding the largest day care center in Franklin and Benton Counties which resides in a rural, unmaintained county area will is certainly inconsistent with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. (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? (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? Yes. Documented well herein. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Yes. Documented well herein. Increases in the already high traffic volumes are will endanger the public health and safety of local residents. SUMMARY Applicant has taken its original Special Permit from July 25, 2002 and over time, seen fit to expand and engage in a variety of unrelated for profit and other activities which are extremely harmful to the local traffic, rural environment, and inconsistent with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and R-S-20 Rural Suburban District. It is recommended that the City Council retain current enrollment levels as approved by City Council on March 15, 2010, and deny SP 2012007. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Best Regards, Q00%3 Roger E. Lenk Exhibit 1 —April 19, 2012 Correspondence to Planning Commission Exhibit 2—May 16, 2012 Correspondence to Planning Commission Exhibit 3 —April 19, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes (Call To Order Roster Only) Exhibit 4--Notice of Restricted Public Hearing for May 17, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting EXHIBIT 1 EXHIBITS TO CITY COUNCIL APPEAL FOR SF 2012-007 Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 April 19, 2012 VIA EMAIL City of Pasco Planning Commission 525 N. Third Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 Re: SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Honorable Members of The Planning Commission: Below you will find information related to SP2012-007. Please incorporate this correspondence into the open hearing record. and include a copy in each Planning Commissioner's a�.ckage for the April 19.2012 meeting. Planning Commission Members are requested to recuse themselves from consideration of this matter should they: 1) have tics to Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios: 2) have talked to parties associated with Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios concerning this or other associated zoning matters; or 3) have relatives with any association with Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios. As a matter of law, Planning Commission Members should err on the side of recusal in order to ensure the "appearance of fairness" in this land use issue. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY On July 25, 2002, this body held an Open Record for MF# SP02-88. The purpose of that hearing was to take testimony related to a Special Permit for expansion of Applicant's facility. During that hearing, Applicant's representative was questioned about the potential of school use and facility rental at the expansion. Applicant's response was "NQ, that is an in m a ' le use f fa il' 'es and the Church itself' (see Exhibit 1, pages 13 and 14). After the expanded facility was complete, Applicant immediately commenced with commercial preschool operations, and facility rentals, and did not seek appropriate permits for either. On December 17, 2009, after an Open Record Hearing process, this body approved for recommendation to City Council a day care center at Faith Assembly Christian Center for up to 18 students under MF## SP09-008 (see Exhibit 2, page 3). The City Council remanded the matter back to the Planning Commission upon appeal. Re: SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Page: 2 On remand from City Council,the Planning Commission increased the number of allowable students from 18 to 50 in any session (see Exhibit 3, page 6). This recommendation was approved by City Council on March 15, 20I0 (see Exhibit 4, page 4). Unlike any other private business operation in the City, during the entire approval proceedings,the applicant was able to continue its un-permitted day care activities. At no time has the City taken any action to resolve issues related to facility rental (see Exhibit 5) which is inconsistent with Special Permit #02-88 and PMC 5.25 which requires and administrative permit for concerts and alike. Exhibit 6 shows that the City has provided its administrative blessing to such un- permitted activities subject to PMC 5.25. This history herein does not include Applicants several special permits for Corn Maizes, nor illegal farming and code enforcement issues. ISSUES WITH APRIL 19, 2012 REPOR_TO PLANNING COMMISSION Traffic Impacts The staff report indicates that "The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A preschool facility with an enrollment of 80 students and 8 staff members requires about. 22 parking stalls." All traffic counts are limited to times and day of pre-school activities and based on ITE Traffic Generation Manual, not actual data or use. The traffic counts do not include site impacts associated with the ecumenical activities which fill those 500 parking stalls, youth activities, special events, concerts, meetings, and the wide array of money generating activities conducted by Applicant. In order to assess the total impact the facility has on the adjoining neighbors and sub-standard roads which service said facility, a complete traffic analysis must be completed by a professional traffic engineer prior to this body's review. Neighbors are extremely tired of the high level of traffic generated by Applicant's facility, traffic speeds, inattentive driving, and the general associated nuisances. Please note in the photos provided by staff the substandard nature of the-roads which service applicants property. Applicant's Application And Site Plans Page five(5) of Applicant's Application for Special Permit notes a 652 x 272 Youth Building. I hope that Applicant does not wish to gain covert approval of such a facility by way of this application. Noise Generated From Day Care Activities Staff does not include information related to noise generated from the outside activities related to the daycare function. The outdoor play area is located in a amphitheater like setting with large amplifying walls surrounding. The noise generated by the gleeful children is amplified and radiated out into the surrounding neighborhood, and is an extreme annoyance throughout the day. INCONSISTENCIES WITH P.M.C. 25.86.060 Upon conclusion of the open record pre-decision hearing, the Planning Commission shall make and enter findings from the record and conclusions thereof as to whether or not: (1) The proposal is in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive PIan; Re: SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Page: 3 (2) The proposal will adversely affect public infrastructure, (3) The proposal will be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity; (4) The location and height of proposed structures and the site design will discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof; (5) The operations in connection with the proposal will be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district; and (6) The proposal will endanger the public health, or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district. Below you will find responses to the questions outlined in the Staff Deport: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? SP2012-007 deviates and is inconsistent with goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan. According to the State of Washington Department of Early Learning, Imagination Studios Pre-School is already the largest in terms of size and enrollment in Franklin and Benton Counties. This information shows that the proposed expanded use is "detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment" in accordance with the restrictions of P.M.C. 25.22.010. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? SP2012-007 does not fully or adequately consider the negative impacts on neighbors including heavy traffic on unimproved, substandard and unmaintained roads; infrastructure damage and collateral damage to vehicles and property; and excessive noise, both traffic and children; and dust control on unimproved/substandard roads as a result of the proposed expansion. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with gxisting or intended character of the general vicinity? See the two preceding paragraphs. P.M.C. 25.22.010 provides that "Certain public facilities and institutions may also be permitted, provided their nature and location are not detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment." Expanding the largest day care center in Franklin and Benton Counties which resides in a rural, unmaintained county area will is certainly inconsistent with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. (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? (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? Yes. Documented well herein. the operations in connection with the proposed preschool will be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, vibrations, dust, and traffic than would be the operation oaf any permitted uses within the district due to the 477% higher use than estimated (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any wa-X-become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Yes. Documented well herein. Re: SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Page. 4 SUMMARY Just like the frog slowly boiled to death in a pot of water by slowly raising the water temperature, Applicant has taken its original Special Permit from July 25, 2002 and over time, seen fit to expand and engage in a variety of unrelated for profit and other activities which are extremely harmful to the local traffic, rural environment, and inconsistent with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and R-S-20 Rural Suburban District. It is recommended that the Planning Commission retain current enrollment levels as approved by City Council on March 15, 2010. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Best Regards, Roger E. Lenk Exhibit I —July 25, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting Transcript Exhibit 2—December 17, 2009 Report to Planning Commission Exhibit 3 —February 18, 2010 Imagination Studios Preschool Remand Exhibit 4—March 5, 2010 City Council Agenda Report Exhibit 5 —August 9, 2010 Emails and Materials Concerning Commercial Concerts at Applicant's Facility Exhibit 6— City Code Enforcement"s August 12, 2010 Response to Exhibit 5 EXHIBIT I CITY OF PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MASTER FILE NO. 02-88-SP FAITH ASSEMBLY CHRISTIAN CENTER Public Hearing July 25, 2002 7:00 p. m. Pasc© City Hall Pasco, Washington ATTACHMENT A FAITH ASSEMBLY CHRISTIAN CENTER HEARING On Thursday July 25, 2002 the Pasco Planning Commission held a special meeting at the hour of 7:00 pm in the City Council Chambers. One of the items on the agenda for that meeting was a Special Permit Hearing for the expansion of a church (Faith Assembly Christian Center) at 1800 Road 72. The following proceedings took place: CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: The next item is Number "D" on the agenda this is a church expansion, a Special Permit Master File 02-88- SP. DAVID LITTLE: Mr. Chairman being a member of the church I probably should be dismissed. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: We will excuse you from this action. DAVID MCDONALD: For the record Mr. Chairman, Commission members, staff caused notice of this hearing to be published in the Tri City Herald notifying the public of this hearing. This hearing was scheduled for last Thursday, evening and as you know, due to the lack of a quorum the meeting had to be continued until this evening. This request involves an expansion—a rather large expansion--of the Faith Assembly of God Church on Road 72. That church has been located there for fifteen/sixteen plus years. It is just a short distance off Court Street. Court Street is located to the south, Road 72 on the east and through the block to the west is Road 76. The church property extends froze. Wernett all the way to Court Street, The general area is Low Density Suburban, residential development on very large lots with some perhaps hobby farms. There's a small vineyards directly to the east of the church property on Road 72. As I said the church has been in this location for quite some time. To my knowledge they've been a good neighbor within that particular neighborhood. The proposal is to add a large wing to the existing structure which is located here (pointing to a over head film). The proposed auditorium/sanctuary will be located to the southwest of the existing building. The church also plans to add significant parking to accommodate those that attend the church. Parking is now contained primarily in this area (pointing to the overhead) where it is sufficient for existing chapel and services but will not provide the needs for the new expansion. The proposal is to add 500 parking spaces to serve the needs of the church. In reviewing the size of the building, and the parking configuration the number of parking stalls with the zoning regulations, staff believes the 500 space parking lot would be sufficient to providing seating up to 2,000 people within the auditorium. So that should satisfy the demands of parking. We've provided in your report a list of findings of fact that address the concerns that are identified in the municipal code related to special permits. We've also provided a set of recommended conditions related to approval of this proposed expansion. Because the expansion is considerable and there will be a large parking lot at times when church begins and when church lets out or when there are activities during the week on Wednesday evenings there will be some peak traffic concerns at the corner Road 72 and Court and perhaps on 72 with cars coming and going. As a result of that the City Engineer is recommending that left turn lanes be installed on Court Street for a distance of 200 feet on either side of Road 72 to provide stacking space to allow cars to turn onto 72 and allow traffic on Court Street to flow freely. Also on 72 he (City Engineer) is recommending that there be a turn lane for the same purposes to allow traffic to free flow on 72 and allow church people to turn off. As far as access is concerned this property is located conveniently to Court Street. 2 Court Street is a major arterial. Load 72 provides access to Court but, also provide access north to Argent which would allover traffic to flow north to Argent and then to Road 68 intersection and on up to the freeway. So there are connecting street within the neighborhood that would provide for traffic in and out of the site. As I mentioned, traffic more than likely be concentrated on a few days during the week unlike an elementary school or McLaughlin Junior High School which has traffic every day. This facility will be limited to Wednesdays on a few- other nights and on Sunday. And typically Sunday the surrounding traffic is not what it is the other times of the week. To help perhaps mitigate some of the concerns of neighbors within the neighborhood relative to the large size of this facility, staff is recommending all parking lights-lighting- be shielded so it doesn't encroach on adjoining properties. We had a request last week from an adjoining property owner who is not here this evening, Mrs. Billie Ross, who lives directly across the street. She was concerned about lighting on the side of the building. Apparently either the Nazarene Church which is right beside this church or the Faith Assembly Church has lights on the sides of the building that shine into her home and she would like some consideration on shielding and lighting on the building if there's going to be any. That maybe a question you may want to ask the applicant. We are recommending a solid fence on the western side of the property as a buffer and a shield particularly for car headlights onto adjoining properties. All garbage dumpsters should be enclosed for aesthetic reasons. Landscaping should follow the landscaping provisions that are required on homes a that 50% of front yard areas are required to be live vegetation and those areas within the parking lot are also required to be at least 50% live vegetation. With that I guess I would refer you to the comments and direction provided in the written staff report and would open it up to any questions you might have. 3 CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Questions? JAMES HAY: Has there been any correspondence? DAVID McDONALD: Oh,- excuse me, yes there has been. At the last meeting, I did provide a letter which was submitted from an adjoining property owner, Roger Link and his wife, that expressed a number of concerns related to the size of the building the parking lot lighting, commotion and various activities that would occur in the building. One concern they had was whether or not it was going to be a commercial business in the church, namely a cafd. There was a newspaper article recently and the Tri-City Business Journal mentioned a cafe inside of this church. There isn't a cafe in the church and the applicant indicated to me upon questioning that they don't plan to have a cafe in the church. There is an espresso stand that's operated Sunday mornings to I guess provide coffee to patrons of the church, but it's basically not open to people to walk in off the street to buy coffee and then leave. That letter should be incorporated as part of the record of this hearing this evening and I believe there are some copies on the bench there before you. I did have a couple of gentlemen that lives in the neighborhood visit with me this week that expressed some concern relatively to the size of the proposed addition and the proposed parking lot that may be the noise associated with that. Those gentlemen are here this evening I'm sure they will speak to those matters. We didn't receive any other calls did we Larry. LARRY PETERSON: We did not. CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: We will now open the public comment portion for this item a special permit for the church expansion. Is there 4 anyone who wishes to speak for this item? Please come forward, state your name and address for the record. ROGER LENK: Good evening, my name is Roger Lenk, my wife, son and I, reside at 1817 North Road 76 in Pasco. I-appreciate the opportunity to speak with you on this important issue. You may be aware, I think that Dave said the area surrounding Faith Assembly is quite, rural, consisting mostly of single-family residents on large lots, small agricultural uses and two small churches. Excuse the terminology the applicant is proposing an aggressive expansion consisting of 35,000 sq. ft. 2,000 seat multi-purpose auditorium, numerous classrooms, 5,000 sq. ft. administrative complex, 500 space parking facility (I guess there are some issues as to whether or not a public cafe is included or not). Also, I understand that a sports complex is in the works. Faith Assembly Christian Center maintains a membership of 1,000 and according to the pastor they grow their business by about 36% per year. At that rate their membership will approach approximately 1,500 in a few years. When I arrived home Saturday, June 20th I discovered that the applicant had already started with the construction project they were doing some grading and removing of turf. I made the assumption that this special permit had been approved already. When I contacted Dave, I was told that the applicant had not pulled any permits for the work he performed. Monday, I found that your July 18th public hearing was delayed due to the lack of a quorum. Given that additional time, I decided to walk down the street and up the street to talk with some of my neighbors to see what their thoughts were about the project. Without exception our neighbors are opposed to the aggressive expansion. The neighbors are very concerned that the applicant had made no attempts to talk with them regarding their plans. Very few neighbors received notices due to large lot size of abutting lots. All were very unaware of the aggressive scope of this particular expansion. When I walked the neighborhood, I 5 got fourteen signatures. Everybody that I talked to signed the petition — they were opposed to the expansion. Given the limited time, I didn't have an opportunity to go over to Road 72 over to Court, Wernett or some other locations. I would venture to guess that the response from those neighbors would be very similar. When I talked to the neighbors a number of issues came up and I'm going to.share those with you. The first issue was the increase in activity, the'large number of facility users is very similar to those associated with our regional high school campus or community college, again we are talking about 1,500 members. This will definitely have a detrimental impact on our rural environment. The use is inconsistent and incompatible with the rural use we have there now. The aggressive scope and size of the expansion is not consistent with our quite surrounding, again that includes single-family residential units and small agricultural uses. The additional noise and disruption will have a very negative affect on these surroundings. There is also a great concern about increase traffic volume. The local road infrastructure is not equipped to handle extreme volumes of traffic which will be generated by this aggressive use. Ingress and egress between Court and adjoining roads currently there is already difficult at best. The additional traffic will create further safety issues and accidents especially along Road 72 and 75 which are designed for heavy usage. We are also concerned about the increased noise. Local environment is extremely quite given the mix of uses that are existing. A 2,000 seat auditorium and 500 car parking facility will significantly increase the level of noise we have in our rural environment. We are also concerned about commercial activities it is clear that a 2,000 seat auditorium will not be limited to Sundays. The applicant will need to utilize this facility daily to pay for the significant investment. Renting out the facility will be required to support the building and operational costs. The public cafeteria, again there is some controversy over that, but that's also evidence of a commercial nature of this particular use. The negative 6 environmental impact, a significant portion of the complex is currently unimproved. This area is a haven for quail, pheasants, geese and other wildlife. Aggressive expansion will devour the entire footprint of the entire complex and significantly disrupt the calm environment which attracts birds and other wildlife. Light pollution: The neighbors are extremely concerned about the glare of light pollution which will be 'created by automobile head lights as well as lighting associated with parking lots, buildings and landscaping. Decrease in safety and security: As you are all aware large and unattended parking lots are havens for illicit activity. The neighbors are not interested in introducing such problems in our quite atmosphere. It could be a detriment to the safety of the local residents. Increased traffic speed: Road 72 and 76 will increase traffic speeds as people race to and from the 2,000 seat auditorium. These roads are small and designed for minimal usage and speed associated with single-family residences. A number of names were also concerned about decrease property values_ This is an incompatible conflicting use it is going to cause a decrease in property values compared to what the rural environment now provides. In closing I would like to highlight a final point according to the Pasco Municipal Code Section 25.22.010 churches may be permitted in our residential area provided their nature and location are not detrimental to the intended residential environment. This aggressive expansion does not meet the city's own criteria for approval as it will have a significant detrimental impact on the residential environment. In some way the proposed expansion is in conflict with existing surroundings, is incompatible, inconsistent and detrimental to the intended local residential environment. Pasco municipal code does not support the aggressive expansion proposed by Faith Assembly Christian Center. The neighbors are opposed by this expansion. The only finding the Planning Commission can make is to deny the requested permit. 7 I thank you for the opportunity to address you and will be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUK Questions from the Commission-- comments? Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this item? Please come f9rward and state your name and address. RICHARD MANKE: Richard Manke, 7517 West Court, I'm about 600/700 feet from the corner of this property. I think our concerns are the size of the project, 2,000 seat auditorium and what really is a very suburban setting out there. It's a fair impact. The impact is going to show up primarily to us in traffic but if you look at Road 72 and the intersection with Court you realize that Court is a two lane street a narrow unimproved two lane street I would call it, I guess at that point. You're dumping 300 cars over a fairly short period of time onto Court Street that's assuming a full load 'on that parking lot and part of them going north to Argent which again takes them up a portion of Road 72 which is narrow and unimproved. The area in front of the church is a fairly wide and approved street, but it tapers down further up. This kind of traffic on those kinds of streets seems a little out of line a turn lane might help -- still they are pulling across Court Street and no turn lane will really help them coming on to Court. I think that it's probably a little too much. I think that there is a concern of cars moving around in the parking lot there at night. I'm not too sure that their parking lots shouldn't be fenced off so that they are not accessible at night for people could get out and try out their cars and see what kind of shanghais they can pull in the parking lot. I guess those are our primary concerns, but we don't feel that its particularly compatible with our neighborhood and the neighborhood we try to maintain out there. This is simply a large expansion in a fairly suburban setting. Thank you. 8 CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Thank you. Any comments or questions from this gentlemen? Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this item? CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: State your name and address for the record please. WAYNE BURKE: Wayne Burke, 8700 Whipple Avenue, Pasco, 99301: I'm the advocate for Faith Assembly Christian Center. I am a member of the congregation as well and speaking on behalf of the board and the building committee that has started this process. We understand that there are some folks that are obviously opposed and feel very negatively about the things we are planning to do. But we have a business to take care of and that is the ministry that the Faith Assembly has been given and acquired for a long time. They acquired this property a long time ago. Some twenty years ago they built the existing facility in the late 80's and the congregation has continued to grow right now we are operating three services per week. On Sunday morning just to accommodate we need more space. There are objections to the size of our expansion and that has been a major concern of the church body as well. We've been working on the plans for this trying to figure out what size we should make it for probably two - two and one half years. Looking at the growth, looking at what Faith Assembly really should be all about and we have chosen this particular size. It would be silly to try to build a building that would accommodate the increase the size of the congregation that we are presently serving because we have gone to three services and it just unattainable. We would like to have back down to one and maybe two at the most. So we have chosen this size yes, there are a lot of thing to be considered we are particularly sensitive to things like light shielding and trying to be a good neighbor. Lots to do. We are going to have to do some street improvements and no we have not 9 started construction at all. We are anticipating that something will be done. We have four acres - three and one half acres of sod that needs to be eventually replaced with a parking lot. And so right now we are just displacing that sod to members and other people in the community and the youth are working on that project right now. Ultimately the sod will be torn down we are assuming that there will be a fair and favorable approval based on our application. But no permits have been pulled for any kind of construction. We are in the process now of doing sewer and water plans those have been reviewed by the City and so with everything falls together yes we will be under construction with sewer and water within probably three weeks. There is a lot of work to be done before we - the building probably won't be built we will not pull a building permit for at least six months maybe a year but right now there is much other work to be done in preparation for that. Lots of things to be put underground, lots of things to be planned, and lots of things to get ready. So that we are ready for the building when it is underway or when it reaches completion we will be ready to take care of our people. I have nothing else to add to what already been said, but I'll gladly respond to questions. DAVID HATHAWAY: You have three services on Sunday so in a typical week tell the commission what other activities are going to be going on. WAYNE BURKE: Sunday night there is a senior service and Wednesday night there is a regular worship service. Those are the things that are planned on a routine basis every week. There are meeting that go on, certain studies -- educational studies that go on for small groups that only deal with five to ten percent at the most, most of the meetings really occur in the homes throughout the week. So like Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays there is nothing regularly planned there, once in a while there might be something special like a Thanksgiving service or some matter. 10 We had a marriage seminar it was kind of a retreat thing that happened about six months ago and that occurred on Friday night and all day Saturday and something like that goes on but those are very sporadic. This is not going to be a full-fledged college campus activity - type of activity. We are not going to have that type of thing. We don't have the people to support that. I mean even if everybody wanted to come - somebody's got to run those things and that takes too much time. But from the things that we see on a routine basis those are the nights and the days that are regularly scheduled. Right now on Sunday morning we deal with about 1,200 people on a Sunday morning. Thank you. JIM HAY: I see it shows in your drawing here a featured youth center/gymnasium. That means you are going to be expanding further other than just what you are asking for tonight is that correct? WAYNE BURKE: From a facility standpoint yes we could use those facilities right now. It's a matter of having the funds to be able to take care of those. So we are including that kind of activity and that kind of use in this application. We don't anticipate - we don't see that that's going to necessarily increase the membership and who knows what will happen. I can't guarantee that when we build that we won't another 100 youth come in. I don't know. We're taking care of the Junior and Senior High Youths right now in the neighborhood of 350 and we take of those with our present facilities. But sometimes we have to go elsewhere because we don't have those kinds of- that particular kind of facility on site now. JIM HAY: I guess I see the potential for church with basketball/volleyball tournaments and things like that to occur - something like this you have a nice parking lighted - nice facility I guess 11 I see the potential there for a lot more involvement with people than maybe just being shown here. WAYNE BURKE: Those are generally - if I may be so bold. Those are generally associated with schools - school activities we are not having a school activity here. JIM HAY: I realize that but my church. WAYNE BURKE: There is recreation activity - there is recreation functions that go on or would go on if we had such a thing. CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: Comments or questions? DAVID MCDONALD: I have one question Wayne. Just for clarification you have two or three Sunday services now because you don't have enough room in the building. Is that correct? WAYNE BURKE: Yes. DAVID MCDONALD: And you want to expand the building and I thought I heard you say the number of services would then be fewer but, you would accommodate more people. So instead of having three services on a Sunday you would have two or you would have one. WAYNE BURKE: The desire of everybody right now- cause we went from one to two services about five or six years ago and the congregation says you know it would be nice if we could all be there at once because we're missing some of the people that we don't get to see on the other services. That happens at every church and our plan would be to get back to one service and yet at the rate that we are growing we know we will 12 accommodate more people. I can't deny that. It isn't economical feasible to build a building that is half the size and take care of our expansion for two or three years and say OK gee we didn't well now we got to do it again. We love to try and phase a building and after considerable discussion with construction management and contractors and I know that some people have done that in the past at other places. There is considerable costs involved so we've decided that this is where we're going to go. DAVE MCDONALD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Any other questions? Yes. RICHARD MANKE: Could I ask a couple of questions frorn the floor. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Yes you may. RICHARD MANKE: Is there a future school site in question. I noticed on the site plan there was something on that. 'There are future classes rooms. Are they only for future Sunday school use. WAYNE BURKE. Ya we are short of space right now. A school was started by this church some time ago and its existing down the street and now its going to go out on Road 100 and Argent. RICHARD MANKE: You are not asking for that. WAYNE BURKE: No that is an incompatible use the facilities with the church itself. In some places it worked but it just didn't work there - there were a lot of folks were opposed to it was doing so well and decided lets move out there and they did. 13 RAY ROSE: What about rental off-ice space? WAYNE BURKE: Rental? RICHARD MANKE: Do you see the church being rented for use by large groups. WAYNE BURKE: No because you're talking about a management situation and you are letting your facilities being impacted and controlled by others. It's done in a public situation but that's not something on our agenda. RICHARD MANKE: If you went to a single service - would that not intensify the traffic tremendously on the roads? WAYNE BURKE: We know that we are going to impact the traffic there is no question about that. We're put into a position (if I may preach a bit). The Lord has brought all kinds of folks to us and its getting bigger and bigger. We've got a 12 step program dealing with all kinds of people who really had a lot of trouble in their lives and we've seen tremendous growth there and tremendous things have happened. We've affected a lot of people and turned so many things -- lives around that its hard for us to ignore that. And for us to shut our doors because right now for us to say no we can't do anymore they are going to come anyway and we've just been pus red to the limit and said we got to have more space. RICHARD MANKE: Another thing I noticed that tax exemptions are for five acre sites and your site is almost 10 acres. WAYNE BURKE: I can't speak to that 14 DAVE MCDONALD: Maybe we can have Mr. Hathaway answer that, I don't know all of the rules but, there are some restrictions on acreage but, I don't know if there is a value restriction either. Do you know DJ? DAVID HATAWAY: That is something you would have to contact the Department of Revenue on. All the Assessor's Office does is get the determination letters from the state we don't make the rules. We don't say who can and who can't be exempt. RICHARD MANKE: I thought that churches and the five acres they sat on were exempt. DAVID HATAWAY: Like I said that determination comes from the Department of Revenue. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this issue? Is there anyone else who wishes to comment on the special permit for the Church expansion? Last call, is there anyone else who wishes to speak on the special permit for the church expansion? Seeing none, hearing none, we will close the public comment portion on this item and open it for Commission comments, questions and actions. JEFF BURCKHARD: I've got a question, the gentlemen I believe Mr. Lenk had quoted one of the city codes regarding to detrimental — using that term- I can't remember the exact number on that code but, how or how is that detrimental in this case defined? DAVE McDONALD: That's why we have a Planning Commission and that's one of the reasons we hold public hearings for activities that 15 require a special permits. As you know, churches come in all different sizes and shapes. Some are small congregations. The one you postponed this evening is located on a third of an acre. These folks are locating on eight acres and so through the public hearing process you determine that (what is detrimental] through public input, through listening to the staff, reading staff reports, receiving correspondence from neighbors and so forth. Through the process if there are problems associated with a use such as increased traffic, you have the opportunity to come up with mitigating measures that may soften those impacts somewhat. Another example would be the lighting that would ---- as Roger said-- would increase light pollution in the neighborhood. You have the opportunity through this process to place restrictions or conditions on the special permit for the church to shield those lights not only on the parking lot but, also on the building if they have any. You have the opportunity to require additional lanes on the street out front or on Court to accommodate traffic to try to mitigate some of these issues. I am not totally answering you question but really through the process if there are problems with the proposal there is an opportunity to address those through mitigation measures and I guess if it comes right down to it you don't feel that there are opportunities for those mitigation measures and that there would be a detriment to the neighborhood you have the option of recommending it or not recommending it. JEFF BLIRCKHARD: I guess the other question I have if anyone can answer it is approximately how many households surround the church in the closest proximity do we have an idea? DAVID McDONALD: Mr. Manke could probably answer that better than I, but the lots around the church are very large. They are few in number, that's why not that many people received notices as Mr. Lenk mentioned, Mr. Manke. 16 RICHARD MANKE: There's only about 15, perhaps 15 houses located around the church's ground. So there is a fairly large chunk. Most of the houses around here on five acres, there is a couple on two and some on ten. These are fairly good size chunks of ground. A lot of them have pastures and Various animals. You are in a suburban setting. DAVID HATAWAY: I guess going back to that suburban setting with larger acreages there's going to be somewhat of a buffer and what I'm getting from the tax payers is the traffic issue period. RICHARD MANKE: Not soley. I think there are a variety of issues. ROGER LENK: Just because we have large lots don't mean that we have a buffer. They are going to be building the parking lot right against my lot. There is no buffer. There is a parking lot adjoining my property. We have a lot of large residential uses and we have a giant coming that is going to dominate the character of our neighborhood. This is no different than a shopping center or any other large use. This is very-- I like churches in the neighborhood they are quite and good to get along with. This is a mega facility. This is like the facility over in Kennewick. The Baptist church that had the big plant growing around it. This is a different use than we have. This is not the small church constituted as a third of the acre church. Those would be very compatible uses in our area. This is not. This is completely out character with the area. DAVE McDONALD: Maybe just one comment about the buffer - Mr. Lenk's property is in this general area right here (pointing to the overhead and most of the parking lot will be abutted up to his lot. There is a landscape strip between the parking lot and fence that is proposed to be built. That area can be landscaped with shrubbery and trees whether 17 its is a buffer Mr. Lenk would like or not but its still provides an opportunity for a buffer. RAY ROSE: Dave how wide of buffer is that - that you have planned there now? DAVID McDONALD: 20 feet? WAYNE BURKE: It's a tapered stripe that runs 15 to 18 to 19 feet. DAVID HATHAWAY: I guess what I would like to say is I would like to add I guess this buffer and I'm probably not expressing it well. When I was talking about a buffer you face Road 76 and I am assuming you would have pasture all the way up to their parking lot. ROGER LENK: No it is all grass. DAVID HATHAWAY: How big a lot do you have? ROGER LENK: Three acres. It is all grass and ornamental things. DAVID HATHAWAY: How far off 76 are you? ROGER LENK: We are back about an acre. So we are really in the middle of the lot. So it is going to be pretty close to us. WAYNE BURKE: May I speak to this issue. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: Yes. is WAYNE BURKE. The details that we are discussing, I don't plan to get into that, but the site plan has been submitted to the city and won't be under consideration of course until that they can actually take it into advisement from here. The recommendation from staff is we would have a solid fence along the west side and that would be in my estimation no more than 6-feet tall just because that would be noncompatible or incompatible. We also plan also a fairly heavy tree buffer there, if you want to call it that, but we have plans for flowering, pear and Australian willow. In addition to there are others scattering three or four trees along there exist there now are fairly good size, but we want to fill that in and add that to that but we also plan to add grass around the base of all the trees. With a fence there will be some shrubs but for the most part we are looking at trees to take care any buffering, but we are talking about a substantial amount of trees. The south portion of that parking lot adjacent the Nazarene church already has a clear defining line of existing trees that have been there for some time. We are going to let those trees tell us when take those down and replace them. They are established and in fairly good health we'll need to trim them up some and that won't change much. But from there clear around to --- there is an established trees in this area right (pointing to the overhead) that we are going to try to enhance those get water to them and do something about those and scattering a few trees along here I think there is three or four. This is the area we plan to landscape. That was in the plans even though Mr. Lenk said he wants that we want it too so that's already in the works. Also, I might add along this plant row here there will be two trees per island here as well as down this way so also it will be shielding the building in this area as well. Now we're talking --- right now the recommendation is those will be flowering and pear right here (pointing to the overhead}. CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: is there other questions or comments from the Commission? Action: 19 DAVID HATHAWAY: Dave has the City Engineer looked at this? DAVID McDONALD: Yes he has. They've discussed several times with the applicant problems and questions related, to water and sewer and the requiring of this church to extend the 12" waterline down Rd 72 from Court Street. I believe they are going to have to loop the line around the church for fire flow. Which will satisfy that provision. The engineers look at it with respect to traffic that's why we have the recommendation for the turn lanes on Court Street and also on 72 and he (the Engineer] felt that was sufficient. There is adequate right of way on Court Street for that turn lane and the free flowing Ianes also. With the Final Plat of Ivy Glades we will be able to obtain more right of way on the south side of the street if we need to enlarge the pavement width and so forth. DAVID McDONALD: One of the options you may want to consider to perhaps soften the impact of such an expensive parking lot is require more trees in the parking lot itself. Wayne mentioned flowing pear trees along the isle way immediately north and west of the church. Perhaps the isle ways at the back end of--the west end of the parking lot and the very north end of the parking lot could have trees included in it which would help break the parking lot up a little. CHAIRMAN GARY McCOLLUM: What is the wish of the Commission? JEFF BURCKHARD: I would like to move that the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in this report. CHAIRMAN GARY 1',+IcCOLLUM: There has been a motion is there a second. RAY ROSE: Second 20 CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: It's been moved and second that we adopt the findings of fact as contained in this report. Is there any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying Aye. (The Chairman was unable to hear the Commissioner responses) CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: All those in favor signify by raising your right hand. (The Commissioners raised their hands.) Those opposed. Motion carried. JEFF BURCKHARD: I move based on the findings of fact as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Faith Assembly Christian Center to expand a church at 1800 road 72 with the conditions included in the staff report. I would also like to include, I don't know how to say this, but if there is any building lighting that that be shielded as well and I like Dave's recommendation of adding more trees in the back which I think will help shield the property in the back somewhat. And I would also like to include as a matter of record the letter from Mr. Lenk that he provided we received on July 11, 2002. CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: Are you recommending that that letter be included in the conditions? JEFF BURCKHARD: Not in the conditions. DAVID McDONALD: It will be part of the record. JEFF BURCKHARD: It will be. OK. 21 CHAIRMAN GARY MCCOLLUM: Its been moved and seconded that we approve granting a special permit with the additional conditions. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Commissioner said aye.)Those opposed. Motion is carried. DAVID McDONALD: What the Planning Commission has done is made a recommendation; they haven't actually granted this special permit to the church. That's an action that can only be taken by the City Council. They will act on this matter at the next regular meeting which will be August 5th unless an appeal is fled. If that's the case a closed record hearing would have to be held before the City Council. A closed record hearing is a hearing that is based only on the testimony and information that was generated at this hearing. So the tape would be transcribed, Mr. Leek's letter and other information that he provided will be a part of that record. As for those who have questions about that you will need to get a hold of Larry or myself here at the City Hall. ROGER LEND: What is the timeframe for an appeal. DAVID McDONALD: Timeframe is within ten days for appeal and there is a fee that is involved with that I believe there is a $500 -- $100 plus cost of the transcript. The last one we did was around $500 for the deposit from the appellant and all $500 was basically eaten up in the cost of doing the transcript and compiling information for the closed record. So if you have questions give us a call. RICHARD MANKE: Is there be another hearing by the City Council? DAVID McDONALD: No there won't be unless someone appeals and if someone appeals there will be what we call a closed record hearing. There's a hearing where the City Council will discuss the item amongst 22 them, there will be no interaction like we had this evening with the applicant or the neighbors, they will have to base their decision just like a judge on the record that was generated in this meeting. That's the way it's done after the regulatory form laws that were enacted many years ago or several years ago. RICHARD MANKE: Will it go before a workshop. DAVID McDONALD: No it can't go before a workshop if it was appealed. It would have to go right to a public hearing - a closed record public hearing. I guess that's a bad term because the public cannot actually speak in it. ROGER LENK: If it is not appealed it goes on the consent agenda DAVID McDONALD: They put it on the regular agenda rather than the consent. Typically they're on the regular agenda and then they can vote to approve just as the Planning Commission recommended. If they want to do something different then they would have to on their own motion set a closed record hearing occasionally that happens. In fact that happened just last month. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a church in the downtown area and a couple of the Council members disagreed with that and they set their own closed record hearing which will. be held on August 19th- There was no appeal filed by any property owner. If the Council does it, there is no cost. There is still a cost, but no one has to write a check. Does that answer - are we all clear? Gary McCollum: Thank you. 23 EXHIBIT 2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 09-008 APPLICANT: Faith Assembly Church HEARING DATE: 11/ 19/2009 1800 Road 72 ACTION DATE: 12/17/2009 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Children's Daycare/Pre-School in an existing church in an R-S-20 Zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. General Location: 1800 Road 72 Property Size: Approximately 10 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Road 72. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-S-20 (Suburban) and contains the Pasco Faith Assembly of God Church. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North: R-S-20 - Single Family Residence (largely vacant land) South: R-S-20 - Single Family Residences East: R-S-20 - (County) Single Family Residences West: R-S-12 - Single Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential uses. Goal LU-3-A encourages the location of daycare facilities in each residential neighborhood. 5. 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 Faith Assembly of God Church has been located on Road 72 for over 20 years. In September of 2002 the church was granted a special permit by the City for a major expansion. Following the completion of the new addition in 2004 the Faith Assembly Christian Center applied to the State and received a child day care center license. Since that time the Church has operated a child care center/preschool in the original portion of the Church building. Day care centers and preschools are required to obtain a special permit prior to locating anywhere within the city. The Faith Assembly of God Church did not receive a special permit when they received a child care license from the state. As a result of the hearing process for the recent corn maze application (on church property) staff became aware of the preschool in the church. Upon learning of the need for a special permit, the Church submitted an application. The preschool/daycare has been located in the church for 5 years without any complaints from the neighborhood about noise, traffic or related activities. There is Tattle outward appearance that indicates there is a preschool in the church. There is a fenced playground area directly behind the church that is difficult to see from Road 72. The nearest house is located 418 feet west of the playground across the Church parking lot. Faith Assembly was initially licensed by the State to care for up to 18 children. In 2005 the church changed their care program to a preschool which does not need a State license. However they still provide services to about 18 children split between the morning and afternoon classes. The 70,107 square foot church facility contains 18,650 square feet of classroom space, a kitchen, bathrooms and a playground available to daycare/preschool activities. The ages of the children served range from 3 to 5 years. The preschool is open from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday. Traffic to and from the proposed daycare/pre-school will typically coincide with the morning and afternoon peak traffic through the neighborhood. The ITE Trip Generation Manual (Volume 7) indicates a pre-school/daycare the size of the Imagination Studio could generate up to 80 vehicle trips per day. By way of comparison, if the site were developed with homes under the current zoning, it is estimated that 160 vehicle trips per day would be generated by the 10 acre site (16 homes x 10 vehicle trips per day). The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A daycare facility of this size requires about 9 parking stalls. Daycares/nursery schools are defined as community service facilities and as such are required to obtain a special permit before locating anywhere within the city. Daycare facilities and schools are often located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Daycare and school activities in residential neighborhoods typically do not generate complaints from neighbors. The daycare has currently been operational for approximately five years and no complaints have been received from the neighbors. 2 INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis 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 R-S-20 (Suburban). 2. All municipal utilities currently serve the site. (sewer service is located at the intersection of Court St. and Rd 72. The church uses a pressure line to connect with the Court St. sewer line) 3. Daycares/nursery schools are Conditional Uses in the RS-20 zone (PMC 25.22.040(5). 4. Conditional Uses require Special Permit approval prior to establishment. 5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 6. The site proposed for a children's daycare/pre-school currently contains a church. 7. The proposed daycare/pre-school could generate up to approximately 80 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 8. The applicant indicated a maximum capacity of 18 children for the daycare/pre-school. 9. The daycare/pre-school will accommodate children ages 3-5 years. 10. The daycare/pre-school will have up to 6 staff members. 11. The site contains over 500 on-site parking stalls. 12. The requested daycare has been operating in the church for approximately 5 years. 13. The city has not received complaints about the daycare/preschool in the church. 14. Public testimony at the open record hearing on November 19, 2009 did not indicate that any adverse impacts are experienced by the neighborhood as a result of the operation of the daycare/pre-school. 3 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL 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 site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. The proposed daycare/pre-school supports Plan Goal LU-3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The church has a permitted occupancy load in the main sanctuary of over 1,000 people and has a parking lot with over 500 parking stalls. The weekday use of the building for 18 preschool aged children will have a negligible impact on public infrastructure. No infrastructure modifications would be required for the preschool. 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 neighborhood is suburban residential. Typically, schools and or preschool facilities are located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 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 daycare/preschool school is located in an existing church which previously received a special permit and building permit from the City of Pasco. The County Assessor's records indicate the value of the adjoining residential properties have increased over the past four years. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The daycare/preschool school has been operating on the site for 5 years without generating any noise, dust, traffic or other conditions that would be 4 objectionable to the neighborhood. The city has not received any complaints about the preschool in the last five years. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Daycares are similar to schools, which are commonly located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods where they are generally not viewed as a nuisance. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions there from as contained in the December 17, 2009 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions there from the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Faith Assembly of God Church for the location of the Imagination Studios Preschool with the following approval conditions: ,APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The special permit shall be for a day care and or preschool only; 3) The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; 4) The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; 5) The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; 6) The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by April 1, 2010. 5 Vicinity Item: Special Permit - Preschool Map . Applicant: Imagination Studios N File #. SP 09-008 4 _ � _ 'SUTTEFiNUT I 1, rER ESTET ni . G E City-Litt it Ec f ` `I� - TEF ,I A.Yk- SITE .,. 4 JAI z Gity Limit . OU.RT 5T zk - Z3m BLUEIS Ld Land Item: Special Permit - Preschool Use Applicant: Imagination Studies N Map File #: SP 09-008 F"yi�m�i�t SFDU's E ERN-T F R CLE ILVE C EST-GAT M . SFDU's - C amity-Himit E 5T g SITE SFDUs ysT I t Ln Church s Q COUR ST Xlt 'LM1T� ti z a � O p, stt BL.U:E_STA m S F D U s F fW- �'O-LAS-� • Item: Special Permit - Preschool Zoning Map Applicant: Imagination Studios N File : SP 09-008 City-Lim�i; w wE ETT RD 0 RS-20 B TTERN I CL (County) --, Rs 2o SILVER ST-C-T I� O SEC EK CT ac-i-ty-Himlit- RSm20 ST SITE (County);RAY GT �. RS-12 sT RS-20 COURT S7 x �Clty-LI'111'It J ~ � a � BLUE STA FM _ LR=S=1 /PUD _I I 1--YL-- I S 20 � 2 CA I � A? 9 EXHIBIT 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 18, 2010 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: Imagination Studios Preschool Remand The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council for approval of a preschool (Imagination Studios) in the Faith Assembly of God Church on Road 72 was appealed by an adjoining property owner. Upon considering the appeal the City Council remanded the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review. In their remand the City Council specifically directed the Planning Commission to consider traffic impacts related to the estimated number of students enrolled in the preschool and any applicable limitations on the number of students or school operations that may be necessary to address the impacts. The Planning Commission was also charged with developing appropriate findings of fact dealing with student enrollment and related impacts. The Council's remand centered on the issue of student enrollment and the conflict between the information provided with the applicant's application and testimony provided at the open record hearing. The application materials indicated there were 18 children enrolled in the preschool. However, the Assistant Pastor for the Church explained in his testimony that there were about 85 children enrolled in the program. The original findings did not reflect the testimony provided by the Pastor. The appeal highlighted this discrepancy. To clarify the Pastor's comments on enrollment and classroom periods, staff asked the preschool operators to clarify the enrollment numbers submitted at the open record hearing. Staff can report that the preschool currently has a total of 85 students enrolled. However, there are never 85 students on the church grounds at any one time. Classes are split between a morning and afternoon session in three hour blocks. There are morning and afternoon classes on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and separate classes on Tuesday and Thursday. Enrollment varies per day of the week and between morning and afternoon sessions. The morning classes on Monday, Wednesday and Friday have a total of 44 students. The afternoon classes only have 10 1 students. The Tuesday and Thursday morning classes hold 37 students and the afternoon classes have 9 students. The clarified enrollment numbers will give the Planning Commission a better indication of the traffic generated by the preschool. Traffic will be heaviest on Monday, Wednesday and Friday mornings and afternoons. According to the ITE Manual the Monday, Wednesday and Friday morning session could generate up to 197 vehicle trips per day. The afternoon sessions would generate about 44 vehicle trips per dray. The Tuesday and Thursday morning classes would generate about 166 vehicle trips per day with an additional 40 trips per day generated from the afternoon classes. The afternoon traffic would be leaving the site at 4 P.M., 20 to 25 minutes before the start of the P.M. peak for traffic congestion. Both morning and afternoon preschool sessions would generate an estimated 237 trips per day on Monday, Wednesday and Friday using current enrollment figures. By way of comparison, as pointed out in the 12/17/09 report to the Planning Commission if the site was developed with homes under the current zoning, it is estimated that 160 vehicle trips per day would be generated by the 10 acre site (16 homes x 10 vehicle trips/day). The church parking lot contains over 500 parking spaces. The preschool requires about 22 parking spaces. The Planning Commission also needs to determine what, if any, limits need to be considered for enrollment. Increases in enrollment will have corresponding effects on traffic generation. For every additional student there is the potential for 2.4 new vehicle trips per day. Given the size of the church building (70,100 ft ) the preschool has the potential to grow to the size of a small elementary school. To avoid increasing neighborhood traffic beyond an acceptable level the Planning Commission should consider limiting the enrollment size. Limiting the preschool to a maximum class size of 50 students in any session may be appropriate. Corrected findings and conclusions reflected in the discussion of this memo are below. The original staff report is attached as Exhibit # 1. Following review of the findings and conclusions the Planning Commission will need to make a recommendation to the City Council. 2 FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are revised findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report, public testimony and clarification by staff. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing. 1. The site is zoned R-S-20 (Suburban). 2. All municipal utilities currently serve the site, (sewer service is located at the intersection of Court Street and Road 72. The church uses a pressure line to connect with the Court Street sewer line). 3. Nursery schools are Conditional Uses in the RS-20 zone (PMC 25.22.040(5).. 4. Conditional Uses require Special Permit approval prior to location within the community. 5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 6. The site proposed for a children's pre-school currently contains a church. A pre-school has been operating within the church for approximately 5 years. 7. The proposed pre-school could generate up to approximately 197 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day for the Monday, Wednesday and Friday morning classes (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 8. The proposed pre-school could generate up to approximately 44 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day for the Monday, Wednesday and Friday afternoon classes (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 9. The proposed pre-school could generate up to approximately 165 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day for the Tuesday and Thursday morning classes (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 10. The proposed pre-school could generate up to approximately 40 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day for the Tuesday and Thursday afternoon classes (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 11. The ITE Trip Generation Manual indicates vehicle trips can range from 2.5 to 7.06 trips per student. The average is 4.48 trips per student. The figures in findings number 7-10 were based on the average of 4.48 trips per student. 3 12. The applicant indicated a current enrollment of 85 children for the pre- school. 13. The pre-school will accommodate children ages 3-5 years. 14. The pre-school has up to 6 staff members. 15. The site contains over 500 on-site parking stalls. lei. The proposed preschool has been operating in the church for approximately 5 years. 17. The city has not received complaints about the preschool activities in the church. 18. Public testimony at the open record hearing on November 19, 2009 did not indicate that any adverse impacts are experienced by the neighborhood as a result of the operation of the pre-school. 19. The Planning Commission made a recommendation for special permit approval on December 17, 2009. 20. The December 17, 2009 recommendation was appealed to City Council. 21. City Council remanded to the Planning Commission on February 2, 2010 with direction to consider traffic impacts related to the estimated number of students and to develop findings of fact dealing with student enrollment and related impacts. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE 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 site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. The proposed pre-school supports Plan Goal LU-3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The church has a permitted occupancy load in the main sanctuary of over 1,000 people and has a parking lot with over 500 parking stalls. The weekday use of the building for 85 preschool aged children in morning and afternoon sessions will have a slight impact on public roads, mostly occurring during non-peak hours. No infrastructure modifications would be required for the preschool. 4 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 neighborhood is suburban residential. Typically, schools and or preschool facilities are located in or adjacent to residential. neighborhoods. To maintain the residential character of the neighborhood a limitation on the number of students at a session at any given time is recommended. 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 preschool school is located in an existing church which previously received a special permit and building permit from the City of Pasco. The County Assessor's records indicate that over the past five years the values of the adjoining residential properties have increased. S) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise,fumes, vibrations, dust, traff c, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The preschool school has been operating on the site for 5 years without generating any noise, dust, traffic or other conditions that would be objectionable to the neighborhood. The city has not received any complaints about the preschool in the last five years. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Preschools are similar to schools, which are commonly located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods where they are generally not viewed as a nuisance. s RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2010 staff memo. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to the Faith Assembly of God Church for the location of the Imagination Studios Preschool with the following approval conditions: APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The special permit shall be for a preschool only; 3) The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; 4) The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; 5) The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; 6) The preschool is to maintain a maximum class size of fifty (50) students in any session; 7) The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by April 1, 2010. REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 09-008 APPLICANT: Faith Assembly Church HEARING DATE: 11/19/2009 1800 North Road 72 ACTION DATE: 12/17/2009 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Children's Daycare/Pre-School in an existing church in an R-S-20 Zone. 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. General Location: 1800 North Road 72 Property Size: Approximately 10 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from Road 72. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-S-20 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Low-Density Residential uses. Goal LU-3-A encourages the location of daycare facilities in each residential neighborhood. 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 Faith Assembly of God Church has been located on Road 72 for over 20 years. In September of 2002 the church was granted a special permit by the City of Pasco for a major expansion. Following the completion of the new addition in 2004 the Faith Assembly Christian Center applied to the State and received a child day care center license. Since that time the Church has operated a child care center/preschool in the original portion of the Church building. Day care centers and preschools are required to obtain a special permit prior to locating anywhere within the city. The Faith Assembly of God Church did not receive a special permit when they received a child care license from the state. As a result of the hearing process for the recent corn maze application (on church property) staff became aware of the preschool in the church. Upon learning of the need for a special permit, the Church submitted an application. The preschool/daycare has been located in the church for 5 years without any complaints from the neighborhood about noise, traffic or related activities. There is little outward appearance that indicates there is a preschool in the church. There is a fenced playground area directly behind the church that is difficult to see from Road 72. The nearest house is located 418 feet west of the playground across the Church parking lot. Faith Assembly was initially licensed by the State to care for up to 18 children. In 2005 the church changed their care program to a preschool which does not need a State license. However they still provide services to about 18 children split between the morning and afternoon classes. The 70,107 square foot church facility contains 15,650 square feet of classroom space, a kitchen, bathrooms and a playground available to daycare/preschool activities. The ages of the children served range from 5 to 5 years. The preschool is open from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday. Traffic to and from the proposed daycare/pre-school will typically coincide with the morning and afternoon peak traffic through the neighborhood. The ITE Trip Generation Manual (Volume 7) indicates a pre-school/daycare the size of the Imagination Studio could generate up to 80 vehicle trips per day. By way of comparison, if the site were developed with homes under the current zoning, it is estimated that 160 vehicle trips per day would be generated by the 10 acre site. (16 homes x 10 vehicle trips per day) The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A daycare facility of this size requires about 9 parking stalls. Daycares/nursery schools are defined as community service facilities and as such are required to obtain a special permit before locating anywhere within the city. Daycare facilities and schools are often located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Daycare and school activities in residential neighborhoods typically do not generate complaints from neighbors. The daycare has currently been operational for approximately five years and no complaints have been received from the neighbors. INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the 2 result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned R-S-20 (Suburban). 2. All municipal utilities currently serve the site. (sewer service is located at the intersection of Court St. and Rd 72. The church uses a pressure line to connect with the Court St. sewer line) 3. Daycares/nursery schools are Conditional Uses in the RS-20 zone (PMC 25.22.040(5). 4. Conditional Uses require Special Permit approval prior to establishment. 5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Low-Density Residential uses. 6. The site proposed for a children's daycare/pre-school currently contains a church. 7. The proposed daycare/pre-school could generate up to approximately 80 (per the ITE Trip Generation Manual) vehicle trips per day (including employees) if each child arrived in an individual vehicle. 8. The applicant indicated a maximum capacity of 18 children for the daycare/pre-school. 9. The daycare/pre-school will accommodate children ages 3-5 years. 10. The daycare/pre-school will have up to 6 staff members. 11. The site contains over 500 on-site parking stalls. 12. The requested daycare has been operating in the church for approximately 5 years. 13. The city has not received complaints about the daycare/preschool in the church. TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS SASSED ON INITIAL 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 PlanP The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Low-Density Residential uses. The proposed daycare/pre-school supports Plan Goal LU-3-A which encourages such facilities to be located in neighborhoods. 3 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The church has a permitted occupancy load in the main sanctuary of over 1,000 people and has a parking lot with over 500 parking stalls. The weekday use of the building for 18 preschool aged children will have a negligible impact on public infrastructure. No infrastructure modifications would be required for the preschool. 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 neighborhood is suburban residential. Typically, schools and or preschool facilities are located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. 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 daycare/preschool school is located in an existing church which previously received a special permit and building permit from the City of Pasco. The County Assessor's records indicate the value of the adjoining residential properties have increased over the past four years. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The daycare/preschool school has been operating on the site for 5 years without generating any noise, dust, traffic or other conditions that would be objectionable to the neighborhood. The city has not received any complaints about the preschool in the last five years. 6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Daycares are similar to schools, which are commonly located in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods where they are generally not viewed as a nuisance. 4 TENTATIVE APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; 2) The special permit shall be for a day care and or preschool only; 3) The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; 4) The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; 5) The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; 6) The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by April 1, 2010. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to close the hearing on the proposed daycare/nursery school and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the December 17, 2009 meeting. 5 i Item: Special Permit - Preschool V'c'nety Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map File #: SP 09-008 ff"12LU& ".5 JL '00 -A low, 7 Y r • ' l-'+rte i� i • i f 4 jj -- •, l *� "'� y♦-°}r`�1lJI! �14� �� aA ! h6til I - j- '- - - _y I�� h-t . r r W ;r s •r r s ��. �, z r:9� �� �!i 1'!�}.. �• A:�7t*` . ° �s ,� i����..'��::i ���" it s "k' Land Item: p s ecial Permit - Preschool . Use Applicant: Imagination studios N Map Pile #: SP 09-008 11 JL I I I Clt�j/'L-i,-M-i. W W R E T RD SFDU's BUTTER UT CIRCLE I IWER R S -C-T M VE SFDU'St CT -Ry+imr TE_ST EFI;fiAY CT SITE SFDU's R Church G o Of w COURTS J , LL C1 "LICI11 'J Bu: � SFDU • Item:. Special Permit - Preschool Zoning Applicant: Imagination Studios N Map 09-008 Pile �#: SP RNETT R a, RS=20 B TTERNUT CI CLE (County '�j R L0 FRC S -C M 0 F C O City-L-imrit RS=20 G7aZ _ T E_= SITE (County) �. RS=1 2 = RS-2Q 0 .a- to ti. OURT z `' =City-L-imit BL.UELS' LC=1 RS-20 R.s.1 /pu a R-2 7Ir %• _ .Q EXHIBIT 4 AGENDA REPORT FOR. City Council March 5,2010 TO: Gary Crutchfield,Cit ^gee Regular Mtg.:3/15110 Rick White, I V.j Community&Economic evelopment Director FROM: Shane O'Neill,Planner I SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT(APPEAL MF#SP 09-008 : Location of a re-school in R-S-20 Zone(Faith Assemblv Imagination Studio 1. REFEREINCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed resolution 3. Binder containing the Hearing Record (Council packets only; copy available for public review in the Planning Office,the Pasco Library,or on the City's webpage at http://www Pasco-wa gov/webapip/citvcouncitnorts). H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL(STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING Motion: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving the special permit for the location of a pre-school in the Faith Assembly of God Church at 1800 Road 72 with conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE III. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF. A. On November 19,2009,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for a pre- school in the Faith Assembly Church at 1800 Road 722 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 a pre-school at the Faith Assembly Church in an R-S-20 District. C. A neighboring property owner filed a written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation. City Council set a Closed Record Hearing for February 1,2010. D. At the Closed Record heating on February 1,2010 the City Council remanded the item back to the Planning Commission to develop and review findings of fact relating to traffic and student enrollment numbers that reflected testimony which occurred at the open record hearing on November 19,2009. E. On February 18, 2010 the Planning Commission conducted the remand and adopted findings of fact and conclusions and revised conditions of approval, 8(a) relating to traffic and enrollment and recommended that City Council approve the special permit. 1Y. DISCUSSION: A. Consideration of an appeal occurs in the form of a "Closed Record Hearing" consisting of the written record of the special permit application, including testimony and the Planning Commission's deliberations. B. As requested by Council, the Planning Commission reviewed the record and modified its findings to reflect the public hearing discussion on the number of students enrolled in the pre-school. As a result of accurately accounting for student enrollment the Planning Commission was then able to fully consider the traffic impacts of the pre-school. C. 'I`b:e findings and conclusions were revised to show a current pre-school enrollment of 85 children which is estimated to produce 237 vehicle trips per day on Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Lower traffic generation levels are expected on Tuesdays and Thursdays. D. The Planning Commission has again forwarded the City Council a recommendation fur approval of the pre-school application with an additional condition limiting the daily session perio&q to 50 children at any given lime. E. Should the Council decide to take action other than accepting the "Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, this item should be tabled until the next regular meeting to allow time to prepare appropriate futdings of fact and conclusions,conditions and a revised Resolution. Special Preschool Applicant: Imagination 1 . 1 ! 1 . 11 • «►''�'•'� 'v rte, -- yam•; ` ' -�'� � � � � {.,.a�+� ka tat �+ � � �' ��'� ����► .•f' -�". '.3� I ,tee ', _'(lam. ��� '�..�a�. ,}1► w'`;iy, .t�^.n' - _. .. �-''�0�- �r' `� ��r.. j •J ` l� va �� �i+ . , Igf.,r-• i �k 4,� � v, v�.-.��j��'�.,� r�•��f !G4R 'ti. ,�s*J r,3 �t���s ��tir�: { ��( IF - �r,N�'���4 ��,tw:-t..���,,. '�.�!".�r'`� .�]%F„"��:�. .� �![ic°►' �,��i'f ��: .��..5��,• � i �:rli RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING'ITIE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE LOCATION A PRE-SCHOOL IN THE FAITH ASSEMBLY OF C',0D CHURCH AT 1800 ROAR'12. WHEREAS, Faith Assembly Church submitted an application for a special permit for locating a pre-school in an existing church at 1800 Road 72 on October 14,2009; and, )NMEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing an November 1%2009 to review Faith Assembly Church's proposed pre-school facility;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission recommendation was appealed;and, WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a closed record (tearing on February 1, 2010 and remanded the item to the Planning Commission;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission adopted additional findings and conclusions as a result of the remand and recommended approval of a special permit for the location of a pre- school in the existing Faith Assembly of Clod Church at 1800 Road 72 with certain conditions; NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That n special permit is hereby granted to Faith Assembly of God Church on behalf of Imagination Studios Daycare for the location of a pre-school within the existing church located at 1800 Road 72 with the following conditions: a. The special permit shall be personal to the applicant; h. The special permit shall he for a pre-school only; c. The pre-school attendance shall be lirntted to no more than fifty(50)children on site at any given time; d. The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; e. The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; f. The pick-up and drop-off area for children shall not be in the public right-of-way; g. The special permit shall be null and void if the applicant has not obtained a City of Pasco business license by April 1,2010. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 15's day of March,2010 Joyce 015011,Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sandy L. Kenwarthy,Deputy City Clerk Leland B.Kerr,City Attorney EXHIBIT 5 Roger E. Lenk From: Roger E. Lenk <lenk.roger @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 7:40 PM To: 'Mitch Nickolds (nickoldsm @ci.pasco.wa.us)'; 'smarks @co.franklin.wa.us' Subject: Commercial Concert At Faith Assembly Attachments: haaseposter.pdf; mens_wild_gam.pdf Howdy. A neighbor let me know about the upcoming commercial concert at Faith Assembly. Attached is the flyer. It does not appear to conform to the Special Permit Provisions (NIF 02-88-SP),nor PMC 5.25. It also appears to be a commercial event,totally inconsistent with its exempt property tax status. Earlier this year, the Church sponsored a vendor fair for hunting outfitters (see attachment 2). This was also out of bounds for the use of the facility. Please let me know what the City and county plan to do with this continuing matter. Thank you very much. Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco,Washington 99301-1830 Phone: (509) 542-0489 Email: leak. ex aiLcom 1 E" M.. presents: Gaither Homecoming Artist & Grammy Nominee C O N C E R T S . � You remember Ernie Haase from the Cathedral Quartet:.Now come enjoy EHSS Ar perform their HITS as well as a tribute to the songs of the cathedrals on this great tour? SIGNATURE SOUND 7) �-- NFVVED & - , Monday, August 23rd 7:30 PSI PASCO, WA - Faith Assembly Christian Center CHURCH ADDRESS: 1800 N. Road 72, Pasco, WA 99301 Concert starts at 7:30 PM, Doors Open at 6:30 PM Private Reception and VIP Seating starts at 5:30 PM (Includes Light Refreshments) LOCAL TICKET OUTLETS: Faith Assembly Christian Center - 1800 N. Road 72 - Phone: (509) 547-5773 The Bible Shoppe - in uptown Richland - 1380 Jadwin Ave - Phone: (509) 946-8263 Griggs Department Store, Pasco - Phone: (509) 547-0566 Christian Supply Center - 115 E. Main St. - Walla Walla, WA 99362 - Phone: (509) 529-0810 Order online, www.imcconcerts.com or by calling (800) 965-9324 FUl - n:ADVANCE GENERAL SEATING VIP • + • $30.00 (Ticket ho)der, that I Clhe Limited VIP tickets wiR ham the opportunity to ouend a special PPJVATE reteption wth r These become a highlelt or III Concert sieries. EHSSQ will be spending at? hour vn4h guests to visit. take pictures and sign autographs, •a will Mso be,dedicating tune dwing 1his reception it) do a QuMon and Answer session This has bLcorne a fay&114!WWI 09 who attend'Hurry,these sell out FASTP!) �`roup rages scounts avai ' IK n. info�cptmcconcerts.cbm BRING I 0 F1�1ENL)S & GET 2 TICKETS FREE w W w . I I"-1'1 C C o n C e r t S . C o I l l The City Plaza-Wild Game Extravaganza featuring THE DUCK COMMANDER Phil Ro... http://faith,onthecity.org/plaza/events/f4f802f865efdOO91ac52045388fdfeb552873fd Search • Show All • Topics • Events • Prayers • Needs • lMburns 1 of 4 2/9/20119:38 AM The City Plaza-Wild Game Extravaganza featuring THE DUCK COMMANDER Phil Ro... http://faith.onthccity.org/plaza/events/f4f802f865cfd0091ac52045388fOfeb552873fd Wild Game Extravaganza featuring THE DUCK COMMANDER Phil Robertson By Pastor Chris Judd in Faith Assembly 2 months ago 1434 views Link: http://bit.ly/g6vyVR 1 2 of 4 2/9/20119-38 AM The City Plaza-Wild Game Extravaganza featuring THE DUCK COMMANDER Phil Ro... http://fa.ith.onthecity.org/plaza/events/f4f802f865cfd0091ac52045388fCfeb552873fd The Men's Ministry at Faith Assembly will be hosting international duck hunting icon,Phil Robertson (the Duck Commander) on February 19th. Come early for a sportsman's expo including WILD GAME hors d'oeuvres,vendors,MASSIVE door prizes, and raffles!! The Duck Commander will speak at 7 o'clock and will bring his hilarious brand of down home, full-bearded, swamp-lovin', duck callin' goodness to the Tri-Cities. Tickets are $15 for a single ticket, $25 for 2,or$10 a piece for a group of 3 or more.Bring some friends and get here early...Doors open at 5 o'clock! Call Faith Assembly for tickets at: 509-547-5773 a t' j •M ^'-i 4 A. * �w sr �, .44r7 RSVP using your Facebook account: --- 3 of 4 2/9/20119-38 AM Events:The Duck Commander http://www.duckcommander.cotn/events/ Home: Customer Service Login or Join 4 r r a E � - DUCI( CONINIAI1 DER 1-YE TS CALENDAR 02/05/2011 -08/31/2011 Duck Commander Events Speaking Tour, LA Phone: 318-367-0588 For Information on how to book a Duckman, contact During the off-season, Phil and the Duckmen travel Missy Robertson at missy @duckcommander.com. For across the country giving duck call demonstrations, details about each of the following events,visit sharing stories about their hunting experiences and www.duckmenlive.com. even doin'a little preaching. Many of these events are sponsored by churches, while some are at 02/12/2011 waterfowl festivals and store promotions. What can Heritage Baptist Church you expect if you attend an event?First,you can Wild Game Dinner meet and get to know the men who chase ducks for Monroe, MI a living, Phil Robertson,lase Robertson, Willie Robert Sermon Phone: 734-735-5398 Robertson,lep Robertson,and John Godwin.Then, Don't miss this chance to hear Phil Robertson at this wild you will get an opportunity to check out all of the game dinner that is free to the public.There will be Duck Commander products.T-shirts,duck calls, plenty of food and door prizes along with Duck DVDs and CDs,posters, hats,and decals will be Commander merchandise that Phil will be happy to available at each event. Phil and the rest of the autograph for you. Duckmen will also autograph just about anything you want.After you have met and talked hunting 02/17/2011 with the Duckmen,you'll be able to load up on all Leland Chamber of Commerce the hottest waterfowl gear. And, if Phil or lase is Annual Chamber Banquet there, they will give a very entertaining,yet Stoneville, MS meaningful, message.The Duckmen have a very Stephanie Patton Phone: 662-394-1065 powerful way of spreading the good news about Get your tickets now to hear lase Robertson give his Jesus.The Duckmen's lives revolve around calling entertaining and highly inspirational speech about duck ducks, eating well,and spreading the Gospel. When hunting and what really motivates him. It's a night you Duck Commander arrives in your area, we hope to won't want to miss! see you there! 02/19/2011 Booking Information Faith Assembly Christian Cente Wild Game Dinner Phil speaks at many events throughout the year Pasco, WA and stays booked fairly far in advance. If you are David Neff Phone: 509-544-6557 planning an event simply check out the events This is a wild game dinner that is in its 3rd year.With page to check for open dates,then send us an Phil as the guest speaker, it's sure to be a success. email or give us a call with details of the event, There will be food,an archery shoot and rifle range along where and when, number of people expected to with booth space for local businesses. attend,etc.and Willie or Kay,Phil's wife,will get back to you with availability and details necessary 02/26/2011 to make it happen. Palestine Baptist Church Wild Game Dinner Email: booking @duckcommander.com Huddleston,VA Phone: (318) 396-1126 or(318) 325-1114 Rodney Dellis Phone: 540-874-8627 After enjoying a wild game dinner,check out the wall of mounts and enter yours for best trophy mount.There will also be plenty of door prizes and entertainment. Phil will give a powerful and entertaining speech,so stick around for that. 02/26/2011 rani*el rhiir.-i, 2 of 2 2/9/20119:33 AM Faith Assembly Christian Center Page 1 of 1 -. o Our Misslon I Ministries I Onllne Giving I Multimedia News and Events News&Events Men's Wild Game Dinner Calendar PQdcast J 1 Pheasant stew,sweet&sour pronghorn antelope.,barbecued venison steak,buffalo meatloaf,venison chill...Does this menu make your mouth water? If so,we have the event for you: Faith Assembly's wild Game Dinner. Join is Saturday,February 20 0 6.00 p.m.(vendor showcase begins at 5:00 p.m.)for a tasty meal,a great speaker,and lots of outdoor adventure vendors. Our guest speaker is Chuck Buck from Buds Knives. Cost is$20 for 1,$35 for 2,and$120 for 8. You won't want to miss it. Tickets available at the church office or lobby. Beek to eyent4 Our Miss&on I Contact Us I Privacy Policy I Terms of Use C 2010 Faith Assembly Christian Center I Site Credits http://www.faithtriciti es.org/?/news_events/entry/mens_wild_game_dinner_february_20_6... 1/31/2010 EXHIBIT 6 Roger E. Lenk From: Roger E. Lenk <lenk.roger @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:51 PM To: 'Mitch Nickolds' Cc: 'Rick White'; 'Dave McDonald' Subject: RE: Faith Assembly Church- Events Thank you. I understand the TCH is interested in this one. The City's position that "as long as someone else is doing it must be ok" shows a great libertarian mindset at City Hall. I am sure that many of the smaller churches in residential and downtown areas will applaud this ruling. A new source of revenue is always welcome. I assume this would also cover non-for profit owned and union halls. I still believe that this Concert is specifically-covered by PMC 5.25.010 however,and does not meet the exemptions under PMC 5.25.015. As such,a special events permit is requisite. Is there an appeal process I may follow? Thank you. Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco,Washington 99301-1830 Phone: (509) 542-0489 Email: len( .roger�gma� il.com From: Mitch Nickolds[mailto:NICKOLDSMCa7pasco-wa.aovl Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:04 PM To: lenk.roQer(a)gmail.com Cc: Rick White; Dave McDonald Subject: Faith Assembly Church- Events Dear Mr. Lenk, A review of the advertisements you provided finds the Faith Assembly sponsored events listed are not unlike many varieties of events other (or almost all) churches engage in and are consistent with the City's special permit conditions and requirements. Thus, no City enforcement action will be initiated at this time. Thank you, Mitch Nickolds, CBO Inspection Services Manager (509)545-3441 Ext. 6311 nickoldsm 0pasco-wa.g2v 1 EXHIBIT 2 EXHIBITS TO CITY COUNCIL APPEAL FOR SP 2012-007 Roger E. Lenk 1817 N. Road 76 Pasco, Washington 99301-1830 May 16, 2012 VIA EMAIL City of Pasco Planning Commission 525 N. Third Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 Re: SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP2012-407 Honorable Members of The Planning Commission: Below you will find additional information related to SP2012-007, and serves as a follow-up to my April 19, 2012 letter and public hearing testimony related thereto. Please incorporate this correspondence into the open hearing record, and include a cop, in each Planning !Commissioner's package for the May 17, 2012 meeting. In accordance with RCW 42.36 et. seq. and specifically RCW__42.36.080, I hereby disqualify Commissioner Micheal Levin, from participation in this matter based on bjj membership at faith Assembly Christian Center which is noted by his admission in the April 19, 2012 Planning Commission Minu es. Other members are requested to recuse themselves from consideration of this matter should they: 1 have tilts to Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios: 2) have talked to parties associated with Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios concerning this or other associated zoning matters, or 3) have relatives with any association with Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios. As a matter of law, Planning Commission Members should err on the side of recusal in order to ensure the "appearance of fairness" in this land use issue. INCORRECT APRIL 19, 2012 MEETING MINUTES First, it should be noted that the April 19, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes are inaccurate. The Minutes indicate that "Rick White, Community& Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application and provided background history on the previous special permit that permitted the preschool in the Faith Assembly Church. The Church was originally granted a special permit in 2004 for a child daycare center. In 2010 following an appeal the City Council approved the existing preschool. Mr. Rick White indicated that the Applicant was granted a Special Permit for a Daycare". Mr. White's statement was incorrect. Re: SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Page: 2 In actuality, Applicant ran the day care without a special permit between 2004 and 2010. Applicant submitted its first request for a Special Permit for hearing before the Planning Commission at its November 19, 2009 meeting. Said Special Permit, MF# SP 09-008 was granted by City Council on March 15, 2010. ISSUES WITH MAY 17, 2012 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION Traffic Impacts The staff report indicates that "The proposed site contains over 500 parking spaces. A preschool facility with an enrollment of 80 students and 8 staff members requires about. 22 parking stalls." All traffic counts are limited to times and day of pre-school activities and based on ITE Traffic Generation Manual, not actual data or use. The traffic counts do not include site impacts associated with the ecumenical activities which till those 500 parking stalls, youth activities, special events, concerts, meetings, and the wide array of money generating activities conducted by Applicant. In order to assess the total i pact the facility has on the adjoining neighbors and sub-standard roads which service said facility, an actual not theoretical traffic analysis must be completed by a professional traffic engineer prior to this-body's e��ew. Neighbors are extremely tired of the high level of traffic generated by Applicant's facility, traffic speeds, inattentive driving, and the general associated nuisances. Please note in the photos provided by staff the substandard nature of the roads which service applicants,property. In addition, staff indicates that the proposed use will generate between 200 and 565 vehicle trips per day, with the average being 358, not including the traffic generated by__activities noted in the above paragraph, Staff indicates that were the site developed with single family homes, the traffic generated would be between 69 and 350 vehicle trips per day, with the average being 153. Using this methodology, no additional traffic would be generated as a result of the current additional on-site activities (ecumenical, facility rentals, etc), which are not included in staffs calculations of the pre-school above. As a result, the additional traffic resulting only from the Ire-school/day care activity alone are 233% greater than the traffic that would be generated by housing alone. Please recall the the R-S-20 district is a suburban housing district, not a district for high traffic generating uses. INCONSISTENCIES WITH P.M.C. 25.86.060 Upon conclusion of the open record pre-decision hearing, the Planning Commission shall make and enter findings from the record and conclusions thereof as to whether or not the proposal is consistent with F.M.C. 25.86.060. Below you will find responses to the questions outlined in the Staff Report: (I) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the og als,_policies, objectives and text of the, CoMl?rehensive Plan? SP2012-007 deviates and is inconsistent with goals, policies, objectives, maps and/or narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan. According to the State of Washington Department of Early Learning, Imagination Studios Pre-School is already the largest in terms of size and enrollment in Franklin and Benton Counties. This Re: SPECIAL PERMIT—CASE NUMBER SP2012-007 Page: 3 information shows that the proposed expanded use is "detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment" in accordance with the restrictions of P.M.C. 25.22.010. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? SP2012-007 does not fully or adequately consider the negative impacts on neighbors including heavy traffic on unimproved, substandard and unmaintained roads; infrastructure damage and collateral damage to vehicles and property; and excessive noise, both traffic and children; and dust control on unimproved/substandard roads as a result of the proposed expansion. The proposed use (not including all other traffic generated by the current use) will generate 233% more traffic that single family housing units alone. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the Zeneral vicini ? See the two preceding paragraphs. P.M.G. 25.22.010 provides that "Certain public facilities and institutions may also be permitted, provided their nature and location are not detrimental to the intended suburban residential environment." Expanding the largest day care center in Franklin and Benton Counties which resides in a rural, unmaintained county area will is certainly inconsistent with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. (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? (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 than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? Yes. Documented well herein. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? Yes. Documented well herein_ Increases in the already high traffic volumes are will endanger the public health and safety of local residents. SUMMARY Applicant has taken its original Special Permit from July 25, 2002 and over time, seen fit to expand and engage in a variety of unrelated for profit and other activities which are extremely harmful to the local traffic, rural environment, and inconsistent with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and R-S-20 Rural Suburban District. It is recommended that the Planning Commission retain current enrollment levels as approved by City Council on March 15, 2010. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Best Regards, 6401,01 Roger E. Lenk EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBITS TO CITY COUNCIL APPEAL FOR SP 2012-007 REGULAR MEETING April 19, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00pm by Chairman Cruz. POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT No. 1 Michael Levin No. 2 James Hay No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Vacant No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Paul Hilliard APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS, Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare. There were no declarations. Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict of interest or appearance of fairness questions regarding the items to be discussed this evening. Roger Lenk, 1817 North Road 76, stated for the record in regards to item 6B on the agenda (MF# SP2012-007) that any Planning Commission members are requested to recuse themselves from consideration of this matter should they: 1) have ties to Faith Assembly Center or Imagination Studios; 2) have talked to parties associated with Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios concerning this or other associated zoning matters; or 3) have relatives with any association with Faith Assembly Christian Center or Imagination Studios. As a matter of law, Planning Commission members should err on the side of recusal in order to ensure the `°appearance of fairness" in this land use issue. Commissioner Levin stated that he attends Faith Assembly. Since he only attends the church he didn't feel connected to the matter at hand. -1- EXHIBIT 4 EXHIBITS TO CITY COUNCIL APPEAL FOR SP 2012-007 i . �. r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (509)545-3441 1 Fax(5091545-3499 � - P.O.Box 293,525 North Third Avenue,Pasco,Washington 99301 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Imagination Studios Academy Pre-school (SP 2012-007) has filed a petition requesting a special permit to expand an existing Pre-school from 50 to 80 students on the following described property: Legal: The Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest '/4 of the Southeast '/4 of Section 21, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. General Location: 1800 Road 72 THEREFORE, LET ALL CONCERNED TAKE NOTICE that the City will re-open the public hearing on the Imagination Preschool Special Permit application to provide additional information on traffic impacts, and provide the opportunity for additional public testimony related to traffic impacts to the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing is in the City Council Chambers, Pasco City Hall, 525 North 3rd Avenue at the hour of 7:00 p.m., Thursday, May 17, 2012. For additional information, please contact the Pasco City Planner at (509) 545- 3441. David I. McDonald Planning Commission Secretary Pasco, Washington SITE J rn "April 19, 2012 & May 17, 2012 Planning Commission DVD" Planning Commission Meeting, April 19, 2012 Video Link: http://psctv.pegcentra 1.com/player.php?video=d20ac24fb43621176d8e47e66955e13b Planning Commission Meeting, May 17, 2012 Video Link: http://pscty.pegcentral.com/plaver.php?video=e8317adec7fle9f8ad8948lec388d3a4 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO EXPAND THE CAPACITY OF A PERMITTED PRESCHOOL AT 1800 ROAD 72. WHEREAS, Imagination Studios Academy Preschool submitted an application to expand the capacity of a permitted preschool from 50 to 80 children in an existing church in an R -S -20 (Suburban) Zone at 1800 Road 72; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 19 and May 17, 2012 to review the proposed preschool expansion; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on May 17, 2012 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the proposed preschool expansion with certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, an appeal was filed against the Planning Commission recommendation; and, WHEREAS, a closed record hearing was held by the City Council on July 2, 2012; and, WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the closed record hearing held July 2, 2012 the City Council found concurrence with the recommendation of the Planning Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: Section 1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Imagination Studios Academy Preschool to expand the capacity of a permitted preschool from 50 to 80 children in an existing church in an R -S- 20 (Suburban) Zone under Master File # SP2012 -007 with the following conditions: a) The special permit shall be for Franklin County Tax Parcels #118491062 and #118491044; b) The special permit shall be for a preschool only; c) The preschool attendance shall be limited to no more than eighty (80) children on site at any given time, and not more than 80 in any 24 -hour period; d) The preschool shall only operate during weekdays (Monday- Friday); e) The applicant shall comply with all necessary state licensing requirements; f) The applicant shall continue to maintain the fenced playground as currently developed on the site; g) The pick -up and drop -off area for children shall be located in the parking area and not in the public right -of -way. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 2nd day of July, 2012. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT NO. 5 FOR: City Counc' Date: 06/19/2012 TO: Gary Crutch ity Manager FROM: Abroad Qayou i, Public Works Director Workshop: 06/25/12 Regular: 07/02/12 SUBJECT: Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2013 - 2018 L REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Plan 2. Resolution 3. Map II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 06/25: Discussion 07/02: Conduct Public Hearing 07/02: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. thereby adopting the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan for 2013 -2018. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND BRIEF FACTS: A) Each year, all Cities and Counties in the State are required to adopt an updated Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan specifically for federal and state funded projects. For the City of Pasco, this plan has consisted of all projects including the annual overlays, street widening, and signal projects which are within the City limits. Larger projects such as the Lewis Street Overpass also have been shown. B) The proposed six -year program represents those projects that are anticipated to be needed within six years. Several projects will need to be coordinated with utility projects which could change the actual timing of the projects. Although this process of adopting a six -year plan is a state requirement, the Council will again review the projects in the Six -Year C.I.P. process and the budgeting process. While the worksheets presented by staff include a potential funding source, many of the projects listed will be dependent upon available funding. In addition, staff will be pursuing available grants from the various funding programs. Staff recommends the plan be presented at a public hearing on July 02, 2012, and that Council adopt the plan by resolution. 7(b) 00 1� N i M N i-i CC Q �I Q • ^I �I •�r/.�l V1 z w V (Z .+Oo U N `N^ W 4i O U i. O c� C a> O a w O V 0 U O I� z N U L-19i 0 N w. v E u � w U 0 o v 4o v cd O a a° O O O 0 cd O 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 w a a o a a 0 v v n V) CIO o 'n O v o Ef3 69 69 69 (A 69 69 69 a a a a � �It:$ :1 ° o �1 Q Q aa���a�wwwac�waa C. abi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C h C o C 0 r--� 00 o o C C o O Lr 1, 00 , C 0 "r �o v� O O O N 00 V� 00 N aa.aaa N a, -- N O 0 O O O O 69 Ge 119 69 69 69 69 69 69 Gos 69 rs 69 69 69 69 U bA a on co w �e _ P. - N 00 00 a) 'b o > rA a a as PL, o U) o P 00 O U w ,' ro y '.�' m .� O 'ro m l y al :.d H O O o c o o o o V a) aaav rA ° °a*�*�- °'6 ° b_a° °QQ It mC U F.-F. 7 cq W b b bh _ C, O N 0 �. Cd V 88 itl y N a x E C\ U M �/ F4 7 y \CSC ✓ 0 Vi 0 bo w > G m U m J�i o a�i e°'n � � Ms' O U b .-� N m d• � Ic r- oo C, — .-. 0 N w. v E u N � w U o v 4o v cd O a a° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD o 'n O v o Ef3 69 69 69 (A 69 69 69 > Q C. O O ❑ 0 C +-' 0 O O O O 0 O U C O O O O O Q aa.aaa a, O 0 O O O O 7 9 9> 7 U U bA b. on co w �e _ P. - N b a) o > rA a a as PL, o U) o P a U w al w H W ) o c o o rA mC x F.-F. 7 N 00 N i M N I� QI �I e� 1�1 Q eC� a z �I �I V T N O1 N O m H 0 N ro d 0 b b U b y i. p O td d N O a bA w O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^o 0 0 0 0 0 0 b � 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 CD O .- 0 0 0 0 00 N 69 id o U U id N id e�C � •U -d 0 cd 0 cd 0 cd 0 ro O 4 0 O O O O O O � U U ? O 7 O Lf) p �U a+ w 0 a 9 9 °o °O 9 Co +� 0 0 0 0 0 0 p o C 0 V o 0 0 ro on rq ~ U N d N N a U U to cn U °wa:wwwwwQw y C'). E u 0 w b > rn O /O ^ .°.°awa ro N 0 0 co] 69 69 69 ' ° .b @ x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 U 0 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 C U C C C 0 CD 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 N 0 .-+ 0 O 0 o0 O 00 N w^ 0 M Ef3 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 .b -o .pU. ,b cd d box U O y � M U N 0 a ~ x � ~ Q ro U c a c"a N b C0 ° U M C 0 0 0 o ro 0 (D 0 U o H 0 N ro d H 0 N c 0 b b b y d td d N O a w O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 CD O .- 0 0 0 0 00 N 69 id o U id id N id w 0 0 cd 0 cd 0 cd 0 ro O 4 0 O O O O O O O U O ? O 7 O Lf) p a 9 9 > > 9 c 0 0 U ro on rq U U N d N N a U U to cn U °wa:wwwwwQw y C'). E u 0 w b > rn O .°.°awa ro N 0 0 co] V) ::3 O 5 k ' ° @ x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 C C C 0 CD 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 N 0 .-+ 0 O 0 o0 O 00 N M Ef3 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 .b ,b O N 0 a ~ x ro c a c"a N b C0 ° U M C 0 0 0 o ro 0 (D 0 U o a °aa °a° °a ° ° > 7 v a 0 4, O O O O O vNi LN vNi "'� o o o o o o 9 >> a m w N cL rx W w O w o .to j a Q W T b >, N o0 N N 'd O 4) p b R N y � •� j LL � as N � (� � N b0 � a ° x ° Zc Cd clqxN�� 00 W 01 O E Vl I �O I N O I N I N H 0 N c N U O b b b y d td d N O a w O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 CD O .- 0 0 0 0 00 N 69 69 69 69 69 69 0 0 cd 0 cd 0 cd 0 ro 0 q 4 0 0 r0-1 X0-1 r0-1 a° ° O �ms O O ? O 7 O Lf) p a 9 9 > > 9 c 0 0 U ro on rq U U N d N N a O ° ° q to cn U o a' y C'). E u 0 w b > rn ro N 0 0 co] V) ::3 O 5 k ' ° @ x _ > N_ b N U C' cd A U b U M N N 00 O N M N L" a A� W 0 E O i� a r ^� C� r� V1 z rT�rT� CIS I� ci O .y U N r-, a\ N O CA m r C N a� w U U U U U U ❑ 0 b 0 w w w w cn U) w a cn v' oA 79 :° a 78 c b b > o o abi o abi w C abi a�i W H 0 a M� w a u. W. a w w u. Ul V) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000 o n v o0 o n o n � o 0 o 0 T) 10 -0 "I� -0 q a abi w a-1�i w a abi w w w abi w w w w U 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o 0 O O O O O Cl O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o O O o 0 0 C o 0 0 0 0 o o c o 0 0 V r r-:, o C 0 0 0 0 o vi o V� W C� O O O O O N O O1 .-. O N O o o O > 000 cn O N U Y Q D o w " C }..� a •n a�6s o b ra1l ,� .� > >> 6S I�SGGS GI� V� 61:1 &S r�s O U s. y b U _ > b 50 00 C') ❑ b O U O M ti b0 o b b O oYO c4 �� O _S s a O .J b N CNi It Vb a O •" •o 'b 'b 'c 0 0 O 0 b 0 'b = h� r�° UC a°' 61po'04rquP°Q> ro V) 'd �j a _ U G O o O W w °A a a T � F" ❑ x � O cn o 0 o O ^ ctl RS t cd M T rn h ❑ o O .Ly o C/] N cn o U cn rx a c O x g� ❑d o r. 3 G r N tx to mC-4 V q�q Q ¢h d O N, c4 ao' .'. w° Q cd ^• o � U) CZ d8 y .�C O O oc G c o U U a N ON O C'41 I �O I r 1 00 N r C N m b w U U U U U U ❑ b w w w w cn U) w a cn v' � 79 :° a 78 C7 b > o o abi o abi o abi a�i Q H O a a w a u. W. a w w u. Ul V) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000 o n v o0 o n o n rn o 0 0 0 0 O N O r• �O cn o O o o O > 000 cn O N U Y ,-- �Ln D o w " C }..� a •n v o b ra1l ,� .� > >> O U U Q. O U o b a O .J Uo°n vs O0 o UC ro V) 'd �j a _ U G °' 60 o ti" w °A a a U F" x a i cn o o ctl RS t cd M rn h ❑ o O .Ly C/] N cn o U O x g� o r. 3 G r N y to mC-4 V q�q Q ¢h d O N, c4 ao' .'. w° m 00 U !• 1 O o N � i W M c TOO � :d O a N � l YV W N �r O O U O %1r %^•V i•y O cv i••�.I O 7 C O O �I �I 0 V b I� a� U � � z N U 0 b 0 U U 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 —co U U U U U U U U U U U U _w � U O O O O O O O O O O O O O b b Y /5 >, a — a a — '� 0 o o U v U v o c v '(:I o v a v o 70 O a� 1 4.1 w w w w w w w w w w w U w O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 o vi o r o 0 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 O vl 00 O �D M N O Mco� O\ O, O O O 01 O r. •-+ vl n O 00 N — — Ln ti � 69 b9 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 V) Glf 69 69 69 6A 'b N 'O It a1 b > W CIO U p ro x cn w� O oo cd ° U oo ° D, v ° b U b ° ° o 0 0 0 0 0 > w v o .0 v ° cn P4 _ U o °a °a °/ ° .°a .°a .°a °' d a ° UD O_ O_ O_ O_ O Pr 'O N U `T) b Y., b Pr .U+ .1 O > O 7s O N O UD O U Pl P4 a P4 .� U p w d U P; r: .'L' O w r 0 o a x ° 0 '� a ^ N G ^ aP _ o o°'u 0 U-d w ro x Co '� U U ca' ' o E' y�� .-. q U N � y ;b a o y > ct o Cn > o a x o �° ❑ on ro 00 0 �_ b ° UdwUv r�°aizaxO.;wd �D N M d' V'1 �D l- 00 �n �O .N O cU .D U b UJ N M M M M M M M [� N M 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION adopting the revised and extended Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs for the City of Pasco. WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 provides for annual revision and extension of the Comprehensive Street Program of each city and town, after public hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, it is now time to revise and extend the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, That the City Council of the City of Pasco hereby adopts the revision and extension of the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs for the ensuing six years as attached hereto and labeled "Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2013 - 2018" incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein; and Be It Further Resolved, that the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs shall be filed with the Benton - Franklin Regional Council and the State of Washington. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 2nd Day of July, 2012. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney a 1102001 MIN mom Imm am CEO Ila 11111119 Ila an'! IS lam IM pill, Zip: . ARN;; oil IN ... ........ Mimi AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 26, 2012 TO: Gary Crutch anager Regular Mtg.: 7/2/12 Rick White, Community & cono is Development Director FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT (MF# SP2012 -011) Franklin County Courthouse and Correctional Facility Expansion I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Resolution 3. Report to Planning Commission 4. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 5/17/12 and 6/21/12 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/2: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving a special permit to expand the Courthouse and Correctional Facility as recommended by the Planning Commission. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On May 17, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for the expansion of the Courthouse and Correctional Facility at 1016 N. 4a' Avenue. B. Following conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned that with conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a special permit for the facility expansion. C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution. D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. 8(a) i Item: Countv J ansion a ---v Applicant: Franklin Coun p File #: SP2012 -011 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WHEREAS, Franklin County, submitted an application for the expansion of the County Courthouse and Correctional Facility at 1016 N. 4`h Avenue (Tax Parcel 112 -012- 027); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 17, 2012 to review the proposed expansion; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on June 21, 2012 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a special permit for the proposed expansion 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 Franklin County for the expansion of the County Courthouse and Correctional Facility in the R -1 (Low Density Residential) and C -1 (Retail Business) Districts under Master File # SP2012 -011 with the following conditions: a) The new jail/courtroom/office building must be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the special permit application b) The landscaping strip along 5th Avenue shall continue north around the parking lot area at the corner of 5th Avenue and Marie Street. The landscaping strip shall also be placed along Marie Street. Said landscaping areas shall, at minimum, contain 100% lawn. c) The new generator in the receiving area shall be screened from 5th Avenue with a block wall equal to the height of the generator to provide noise attenuation. d) All safety and architectural lighting on the building shall be shielded to prevent light encroachment onto adjoining properties. e) Architecture of the additions shall be similar to that of the existing Courthouse and Correctional Facility. f) Exterior finishing materials shall match that of the existing structure as closely as possible. g) Any and all parking lot lighting shall be shielded to prevent light encroachment on adjoining lots. h) Ornamental fencing, matching the existing ornamental fencing, shall extend from the "security building" to the "secure public entry" as indicated on the site plan submitted with the special permit application. i) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by August 1, 2014. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 2nd day of July, 2012. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney P MASTER FILE NO HEARING DATE: ACTION DATE: REPORT TO PLANNING : SP 2012 -011 5/17/12 6/21/12 APPLICANT: BACKGROUND LCA + pH LLC. c/o Franklin County 1016 N 4th Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Expansion of the County Courthouse and Correctional Facility 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Blocks 6 & 7 and Lots 13 -28 Block 8, Sylvester Park Addition, together with vacated Henry Street and the vacated north, south, east 8y west alleys in said Block 7, together with adjacent portions of vacated Octave Street and the adjacent potions of vacated Marie Street General Location: 1016 N. 4th Avenue Property Size: Approximately 5.7 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessible from 4th and 51h Avenues. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R -1 (Low Density Residential) and C -1 (Retail Business) and contains the Franklin County courthouse, correctional facility and parking lot. Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: NORTH - C -1 - Commercial/ Church SOUTH - C -1 - Offices EAST - R-1 - City Park WEST - R -1 &'0' - Residential /Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Government/ Public & Commercial uses. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11 -158. 1 ANALYSIS The Franklin County courthouse complex has existed in one form or another at 1016 North Fourth Avenue for over 100 years. The original courthouse was constructed in 1910. In 1973 the Public Safety Building was added to the west of the original courthouse. The Public Safety Building was built to house the Sherriff's Department, courtrooms and a County jail. In 1982 a new County jail was added to the north of the Public Safety Building and opened in 1985. In 2003 the voters in Franklin County approved a bond to restore the original courthouse. The restoration work, completed in 2004, also included a work release jail addition placed on the northwest side of the main jail wing and a temporary (portable) courtroom that was placed in the parking lot north of the jail. The courthouse security building was added in 2007. The major additions to the courthouse complex all occurred well after the surrounding neighborhoods were developed with homes. The Sylvester Addition and subsequent Additions west of the courthouse complex were platted in the 1890's. Most of the homes in these subdivisions were constructed in the 1940's. The only major land use changes in the neighborhood over the years have been additions to the courthouse. Since the jail opening in 1985, the County has increased in population from 35,700 to approximately 83,000. This significant growth (47,300 people) in population has increased the need for services within the community, including the need for governmental services. The community is currently at a point where the present jail facilities and court facilities are no longer adequate to serve the needs of Franklin County. The current jail facilities were designed to house 103 inmates, but now routinely house 200 or more inmates per day. The County is proposing to add a new 192 -bed jail with supporting facilities at the north end of the existing jail building constructed in 1982. The new building will also contain new courtrooms for municipal court and offices for the Sheriff's Department. The new addition will be 55,000 square feet in size and will extend through an existing parking lot and part of vacated Octave Street. The work release facility (added in 2004) and the County Coroner's office, now in the temporary courtroom, will be removed from the site. The architecture of the new addition will be similar in nature to the existing 1973 and 1982 courthouse additions. Brick and brick glazing will match the existing facilities as closely as possible. Pre -cast concrete and metal trim panels will also be used to bring the color scheme of the buildings together. 2 In 2008 Franklin County received Special Permit approval for parking lot improvements along 4t' Avenue. The Health District office was razed and the area was leveled and redeveloped into the current parking configuration. This parking lot added 90 new spaces to the courthouse complex. There is no specific parking requirement in the zoning regulation related directly to the courthouse. Offices require one space for every 300 square feet of floor area on the main floor and one space for every 500 square feet of floor area on other floors. Police stations also require one space for every 300 square feet of floor area and juvenile detention centers (the only listed use similar to a jail) require one and half spaces per bed. Based on the forgoing, the courthouse complex does not have enough parking to meet code requirements. There are currently about 230 parking spaces available to the public and employees. Another 67 spaces are currently fenced off (in the lot behind Atomic Foods) and are used for storage. The proposed addition will eliminate approximately 70 spaces. Most of the spaces to be lost to construction are surrounding the coroner's office. Through observation and reports from the County Administrator's office this parking area is underutilized and is often more than 50 percent vacant. A survey of the parking area on May 8 and May 10, 2012 revealed there were 32 empty parking spaces. The County parking lot west of Atomic Foods was also sparsely occupied on those dates. The County will be removing the fencing in the parking lot west of Atomic Foods and eliminating the storage yard. This will almost fully replace parking spaces being eliminated by new construction. The County owns two vacant parcels west of 51h Avenue which could be developed for parking when the need arises in the future. Access to the new jail will be from the exiting sallyport (which will be enlarged) at the southwest end of the current facilities. One or more mechanical room doors will face 5th Avenue, as will several staff emergency exiting doors. No public access will be located on the west side of the building. Access to the courtrooms will be from the east side of the building facing the parking lot. A new curb cut and receiving area will be provided where the new building adjoins the current building. This receiving area is located directly across 5th Avenue from one of the vacant lots owned by the County. 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 the R -1 and C -1 zones. 3 2. The site is approximately 5.7 acres. 3. The site contains the Franklin County courthouse and correctional facility. 4. The courthouse has been located on the site since 1910. 5. The Public Safety Building was added to the courthouse in 1973. 6. In 1983 a new County jail was added to the Public Safety Building. 7. The 1983 jail facility was put into service in 1985. 8. The work - release facility and temporary courtrooms were placed on the property in 2004 9. The security building was built in 2007. 10. The Health District office building was demolished in 2008 to allow for expansion of the courthouse parking lot along North 01 Avenue. 11. The subdivisions west of the courthouse were platted in the 1890's. 12. The residential homes located west of the courthouse were built in the 1940's and 1950's. 13. Major additions to the courthouse occurred long after the neighborhood to the west was developed. 14. Franklin County's population has increased by 43,700 since the current jail facilities were opened in 1985. 15. The current jail facilities were designed to house 103 inmates. Today the County jail consistently houses over 200 inmates per day. 16. Current courtrooms and court offices are located on the site. 17. Jail facilities are described in the Growth Management Act as essential public facilities and as such cannot be precluded from locating within the community. 18. There will be no public access to the new jail and courtroom addition from 5th Avenue. Access will be by way of existing points from current buildings and /or from the parking lot along 4t' Avenue. 19. A new receiving area will be located on the west side of the building. 20. The proposed addition will total 55,000 square feet in area. 21. The proposed addition will be a maximum of 31.6' feet in height. 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? rd The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Government/ Public & Commercial uses. The parking lot behind Atomic Foods is designated for commercial uses. The Growth Management Act describes jails as public facilities and as such cannot be excluded from the community. Plan Goal CF -3 states that adequate land should be provided for public facilities. 2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The public infrastructure is fully developed around the courthouse property. The current facility is operating beyond its capacity with the utilities currently in place. It is not anticipated that the increased size of the County jail, offices and municipal courtrooms will adversely impact public infrastructure. 3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony urith existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The proposed addition to the courthouse facilities will be constructed to closely match the character and construction of the jail and public safety building added to the original courthouse a number of years ago. The new addition will incorporate pre -cast concrete panels, brick with glazing to match the existing brick and colored metal panels and trim to tie the color scheme of the new and old buildings together. There will be no public access to the new building from 5th Avenue and the storage yard in the north parking lot will be removed to replace parking lost to the new construction. Public facilities are typically located in or near residential neighborhoods and are an accepted part of the character of residential areas. The courthouse is a major part of the general character of the neighborhood and has been for over 100 years. 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 properties surrounding the courthouse complex are generally fully developed. The site design and building design will closely match the existing courthouse buildings. Construction materials and colors are designed to create a unifying theme for the complex to ensure the value of surrounding properties is not impaired. The proposed height of the E new building will be about 10 feet taller than the existing jail building but will be similar in height to the Public Safety Building and original courthouse. 5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district? The site in question is zoned both C -1 and R -1. The parking lot west of the Atomic Foods building is zoned C -1 and the location of the proposed jail is zoned R -1. The continued use and expansion of the County parking lot may be less objectionable to the neighborhood than many of the permitted uses within the C -1 zone such as automotive repair shops, taverns and restaurants. The proposed new building will essentially be replacing a County courthouse parking lot. The existing courthouse complex has operated without objectionable noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights since 1910. The design of the proposed building with public access restricted from 5th Avenue will continue to ensure the neighborhood is mostly insulated from traffic and noise from the general public. The new receiving area on 5th Avenue with a standby generator could create a noise problem for neighbors to the west unless screened. 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 proposed jail facilities will be operated and maintained by Franklin County. The new courtrooms will be operated by the City of Pasco. The current and ongoing operation of the County courthouse complex has not endangered the public health and safety of the community. A portion of the courthouse complex was and is called the Public Safety Building. The purpose of the building is to assist with providing public safety for the community through the police and court services provided by County and City offices. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The new jail /courtroom /office building must be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan submitted with the Special Permit application 3 2. The landscaping strip along 5th Avenue shall continue north around the parking lot area at the corner of 5u' Avenue and Marie Street. The landscaping strip shall also be placed along Marie Street. Said landscaping areas shall, at minimum, contain 100% lawn. 3. The new generator in the receiving area shall be screened from 5f Avenue with a block wall equal to the height of the generator to provide noise attenuation. 4. All safety and architectural lighting on the building shall be shielded to prevent light encroachment onto adjoining properties. 5. Architecture of the additions shall be similar to that of the existing courthouse and correctional facility. 6. Exterior finishing materials shall match that of the existing structure as closely as possible. 7. Any and all parking lot lighting shall be shielded to prevent light encroachment on adjoining lots. 8. Ornamental fencing, matching the existing ornamental fencing, shall extend from the "security building" to the "secure public entry" as indicated on the site plan submitted with the special permit application. 9. The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been obtained by August 1, 2014. MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the June 21, 2012 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a Special Permit to Franklin County to expand the County courthouse and correctional facility with conditions as contained in the June 21, 2012 staff report. 7 icinity Item: County Jail F Ma Applicant: Franklir. P File #: SP2012 -011 ansion Coun Land Use Item: County Jail Expansion Map F le #c SP2012 -0 lil County x Public MARIE []—F= OCTAVE ST 17 11 1 177T] Resident HENRY ST '1'111" 111„11 IWMAIRET ST NIXON ST Office I W1:j.l U CO Id Car- Hospital Commercial w Res. N\ee Park P-P.P20-4 Multi-Family- Residential it City Hall Zoning Map Legend _ C -1 C -3 O R -1 0 R -2 ® R -3 _ R-4 _ RP Item: County Jail Expansion Applicant: Franklin County File #: SP2012 -011 'I"11 1'■ 1.,111 1'11'111 1111 1111111 11 11 -- 11111111 mill' mil'''l 111,,, 1111„1 11111111 1111111 11111 1 ■■■ ,111 11111 1 .1111. �., 1111111 11111111 — ■,.,1 111„1 „111. mini1 11��11 11�i1 11111 11111111 1,,,■ 1111,11 11111 111111 - COURT ST I, �I F N x F a 11 L J fn -� a,� - � / `� I ;'; West Side ,1'TiA!17L r jj e r. Jb Pt r a ■ lkl% I A moon I I 0 NEW MAc Tm. FRANKLIN COUNTY EE LCA +pH, LLC JAIL ADDITION O PA w�ma M sue, 4� 9RE PLAN z e I r o � z I f[ e S f g__ a __ Mn i i r rym� I FRANKLIN COUNTY I LCA +pH, LLC JAIL ADDITION ry .J PA %G WPID1�r0lOrl ��e�n '`.'1 Pj F OVERALL MAIN FLOOR PVW s ! e a n O 0 1 S ©1 4 4 e of ®1 o� of ©IF ©, of of o� o a� 4r Pit o�[ �1 ®Ie 0 o, 0 III FRANKLIN COUNTY LCA +pH, lLC W ' JAIL ADDITION - � II:i MAIN FLOOR PLAN D FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL ADDITION LCA +pH, LLC IN PLAN O a' �< � nnmunnm -- - -� • niomimim �� � p a o = o _ �Mri— E Ina I > � 10,31 11 a FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL ADDITION e 6 ' I �II I loin 1l 1m ■ oil III. No ■ IN I� ■ I_II; e : III Maw IN IN oil II 9 _ � 'I I O N i ■� III III � � 1 ICI' j ■ � 1 ■ IN FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL ADDITION ............... MAI � ���iiiifii !' , Illlilll ,�r mmmom �iiINS INS ON LQUIN) a on MR I'll 9. LAI Planning Commission Minutes 5/17/2012 B. Special Permit Expansion of a jail (Franklin County Jail) (MF# SP 2012 -0111 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, explained how the County had grown since the current jail was opened in 1985 from a population of 35,700 to approximately 83,000. A brief history was provided on the development of the courthouse complex starting with the original courthouse in 1910, the addition of the public safety building in 1973 and the current jail in 1983. The main parking lot along 4th Avenue was added in 2008. Mr. McDonald explained the current jail facilities were designed to house 103 inmates but now routinely houses 200 or more inmates per day. The County is proposing to add a new 192 -bed jail with supporting facilities at the north end of the existing jail building. The new building will also provide courtrooms for the Pasco Municipal Court, Pasco Municipal Court offices and some office space for the County Sheriff's Department. The new addition will be 55,000 square feet in size and will extend through an existing parking of and part of vacated Octave Street. Mr. McDonald reviewed the written staff report and addressed staff recommendations on items, such as noise and fencing. Commissioner Hilliard asked if the fencing on the back side would be required to match the fencing on Fourth Avenue. Mr. McDonald explained the backside of the Courthouse on Fifth Avenue currently has a chain -link fence and the architect would be able to answer the question better. Christopher Patano, 1809 7th Avenue, Seattle, WA spoke on behalf of the applicant and addressed the perimeter of the building on the back of the building and new parking lot. The chain -link fencing will remain in those areas. The ornamental fencing on the front side of the building will be extended to the new entry. Mr. Patano reviewed some slides for the benefit of the Planning Commission and explained how the new building would tie into the existing buildings. Commissioner Hilliard asked Mr. Patano about the lighting for the exterior and if it would affect the neighbors to the west. Mr. Patano answered that they are still working on the lighting. With the regulations and new exterior lighting fixtures they will limit light pollution. The new fixtures help control light spillage. With no further comments the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact, and development of a recommendation for City Council for the June 21, 2012 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. A. Special Permit Planning Commission Minutes 6/21/2012 Expansion of a jail (Franklin County Jail) (MF# SP 2012 -011) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed changes in conditions in the staff report. Some of the conditions were modified slightly since the previous meeting to reflect testimony that was provided in the hearing relating to light spillage on the west side of the new proposal. The report also includes new language on ornamental fencing on the east side of the building as well as clarification of the landscaping strip along 5th Avenue and Marie Street. Chairman Cruz asked a question in regards to one of the conditions relating to exterior finishing materials matching that of the existing structures. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the June 21, 2012 staff report. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, based on the findings of fact and conclusions that the PIanning Commission recommend the City Council grant a Special Permit to Franklin County to expand the County courthouse and correctional facility with conditions as contained in the June 21, 2012 staff report. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. McDonald explained that this item will go to City Council at the next regular meeting unless an appeal is filed. FOR: City TO: Gary FROM: Ahm AGENDA REPORT NO. 08 June 27, 2012 Director,7 Regular Mtg.: 07/02/12 SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Heritage Railspur Project I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Professional Services Agreement 2. Vicinity Map II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 07/02: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc., authorizing engineering services on a time and material basis not to exceed $53,612.00 for the Heritage Railspur Project and further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The City contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. in May 2009 for design of the Heritage Industrial Center Rail Extension. The design work was completed to 90% level at that time. V. DISCUSSION: A) The proposed engineering services are necessary to complete design of the Heritage Railspur Project and includes design of an at grade crossing of Rd. 40 East, in the event an industrial user requires rail service east of the roadway. The agreement is based on a time and material basis, not to exceed $53,612.00. B) The City and the Port have entered into an agreement whereby the City will manage the project. Expenses associated with this project will be paid by the Port through a Washington State Department of Commerce Grant. C) Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. 10(a) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Pasco, hereinafter referred to as the "City ", and HDR Engineering, Inc. hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant ". WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consulting firm to provide engineering services with respect to the Heritage Railspur Project, and Consultant has demonstrated that it is highly qualified to perform these services. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish the above mentioned objectives in accordance with Exhibit A. 2. Ownership and use of documents. A. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement shall be governed by RCW Chapter 42.56 and any other State or Federal law relating to confidentiality, intellectual properties, and public disclosure. The parties shall make a good faith effort to comply with such laws, and to the fullest extent allowed by law, comply with the provisions of this section. B. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all other work product and deliverables, as defined in the Scope of Services, and prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered shall not be considered public records, provided, however, that: (1) All final deliverables prepared by Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records. (2) The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and, subject to the approval of Consultant, copy any work product. (3) In the event that Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the event that this Agreement shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided, the deliverable(s) of Consultant, along with a summary of services performed to date of default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the deliverable(s) and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this Agreement. The summary of services provided shall be prepared at no additional cost, if the Agreement is terminated through default by Consultant. If the Agreement is terminated through convenience by the City, the City agrees to pay Consultant for the preparation of the summary of services provided. Professional Services Agreement — HDR — Heritage Railspur 1 (4) Consultant shall maintain all documents associated with services provided under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years after completion of the work. This provision shall survive termination of this Agreement. (5) Consultant shall respond to requests by the City for project- specific accounting records within five (5) business days by either providing the records, or by identifying in writing that additional time is necessary to provide the records with a description of the reasons why additional time is needed. Records shall be provided to the City within twenty (20) days of the date of the request. Provisions of Section 5 in this Agreement shall specifically apply to any claim arising out of Consultant's failure to properly maintain or timely produce records as described herein and as otherwise required by law. 3. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work. A. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be on a time and material basis as set forth on the fee schedule found in Exhibit A, provided, in no event shall the payment for all work performed pursuant to this Agreement exceed the sum of $53,612.00, without approval from the City. B. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City monthly during the progress of the work for payment of completed phases of the project. Billings shall be reviewed in conjunction with the City's warrant process. C. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3) years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request. 4. Time of performance. The Consultant shall perform the work authorized by this Agreement promptly and before August 31, 2012. 5. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this Agreement, the Consultant agrees to defend, and to the extent permissible by law, indemnify and hold harmless the City, their officers, agents, servants and employees (hereinafter individually and collectively referred to as "Indemnitees "), from all suits, claims, demands, actions or proceedings, from: Professional Services Agreement — HDR — Heritage Railspur 2 A. All damages or liability of any character including in part costs, expenses and attorney fees, to the extent based upon, any negligent act, error, or omission of Consultant or any person or organization for whom the Consultant may be responsible, and arising out of the performance of professional services under this Agreement; and B. All liability, loss, damage, claims, demands, costs and expenses of whatsoever nature, including in part, court costs and attorney fees, based upon, or alleged to be based upon, any act, omission, or occurrence of the Consultant or any person or organization for whom the Consultant may be responsible, arising out of, in connection with, resulting from or caused by the performance or failure of performance of any non - professional work or services under this Agreement, or from conditions created by the Consultant performance or non - performance of said work or service. 6. General and professional liability insurance. Consultant shall secure and maintain in full force and effect during the performance of all work pursuant to this Agreement a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance providing coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for personal injury; $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for property damage; professional liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000; and automobile insurance as required by law. Each such insurance policy, except Professional Liabilty and Worker's Compensation, shall name the City as an additional insured and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policies, except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City. The City shall be named as a certificate holder on each insurance policy. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement. 7. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap. 8. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose. Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and subcontractor during the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall make no claims for benefits for employment against the City including, but not limited to, sick leave, medical insurance, coverage under the City's State Department of Labor and Industries policy, vacation benefits, retirement, or unemployment benefits. Consultant shall comply with all State and Federal laws including, but not limited to, the requirements of RCW 50.04.0140 and RCW 51.08.195. 9. City approval. Notwithstanding the Consultant's status as an independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this Agreement must meet the approval of the City. Professional Services Agreement — HDR — Heritage Railspur 3 10. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 11. Integration. The Agreement between the parties shall consist of this document and any schedules or exhibits listed in this agreement and attached hereto. These writings constitute the entire Agreement of the parties and shall not be amended except by a writing executed by both parties. In the event of any conflict between this written Agreement and any provision of Exhibit A, this Agreement shall control. 12. Non - waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision. 13. Non - assignable. The services to be provided by the Consultant shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the City. 14. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant represents that he has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gifts, or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this representation, the City shall have the right to annul this Agreement without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 15. General Provisions. For the purpose of this Agreement, time is of the essence. In the event a dispute regarding the enforcement, breach, default or interpretation of this Agreement, the parties shall first meet in a good faith effort to resolve such dispute. In the event the dispute cannot be resolved by agreement of the parties, said dispute shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A, as amended, and the Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MAR); venue shall be placed in Franklin County, Washington, the laws of the State of Washington shall apply; and the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees and cost. In the event any provision of this Agreement is deemed to be unenforceable, the other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Professional Services Agreement —14DR— Heritage Railspur 4 16. Notices. Notices to the City of Pasco shall be sent to the following address: City of Pasco P. O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: HDR Engineering, Inc. 2805 St. Andrews Loop, Suite A Pasco, WA 99301 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U. S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed. DATED THIS DAY OF , 20 CITY OF PASCO CONSULTANT: By: By: Matt Watkins, Mayor HDR Engineering, Inc. ATTEST: Debbie Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Professional Services Agreement —HDR— Heritage Railspur 5 EXHIBIT A City of Pasco Heritage Park Phase 2 — Pasco, WA Lead Project Scope of Work General The City of Pasco has received funding for construction of a lead track for the Heritage Park Project. The funding is approximately $1.8 million. HDR has been asked to resume engineering for the construction consistent with future industrial rail facility development envisioned at the site. The work is based on the preliminary work developed in 2009. Work Element #1 — Base Project Assumptions: • BNSF concurs with the general concept for the site and particularly the lead track as currently envisioned, up to 1.25 miles in length. BNSF concurs with design deviations presented in the previous concepts. • Plans will use previously designed alignments, except end of project will be reconfigured to eliminate curvature to the north and instead continue tangent track across Rd 40. • The entire project will be bid and performed as a public project. (No BNSF work.) • "Boilerplate" and format (and plans and special provisions) used in the previous Port of Pasco railroad projects will be used as the basis for this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and TESC are assumed to require only minor updates. • Drawings will be prepared in AutoCAD format in accordance with BNSF Design Guidelines for Industrial Track Projects (DGFITP). AREMA shall be used were BNSF specifications are not authoritative. • WSDOT and City of Pasco specifications will be used as required. • It is envisioned that this project will be bid in conjunction with the Port of Pasco Phase 5b project which has also received funding. (The funding is of the same type with identical stipulations. The projects will be performed under the same project with separate schedules.) • No at grade or grade separations will be designed in the base scope. • This phase will be built using all new materials. The base scope includes (reference Hours Estimate): • Railroad coordination for the purpose of obtaining railroad approval of the final design. No rail work will be performed by the BNSF. • Up to one on site meeting/inspection for one Sr. Project Manager. • Provide 2 submissions of plans for City review: Pre-final, and Final for Bid. • Provide 1 submissions of plans for BNSF review: Pre -Final • Provide 2 submissions of special provisions: Pre -final and Final (Bid Set). • Provide 2 submissions of probable construction cost estimates *: Preliminary, and Pre - final. • Anticipated project solicitation support/assistance up to, but not including, the bidding period. The base and general scope excludes: • Assistance with WSDOT coordination unless specifically included above. • Topographic survey. • BNSF Flagging (not anticipated to be needed). • Special schedules (Pert, or phasing) or cost engineering. • Permitting or coordination regarding permitting issues. • Utility accommodation engineering beyond that which was already included in the Heritage projects. (I.e. minor coordination with franchise utilities.) • Additional Geotechnical or drainage analysis. • Boundary work and property descriptions, title research, and abstracts. • Preparation of Railroad Agreement Applications or other documents. • Construction staking and testing. • Construction management. (This is anticipated to be provided in a separate scope document.) • Archeological / historical research and report. • Design or specifications of roads, structures, fences, luminaries, or other facilities. • "Conformed specs and plans ". • Bidding phase support. • Preparation of Special Maps or Exhibits. • Public Meetings. • Alternate Alignment Evaluations. • Value Engineering. Work Element #2 — Rd 40 At Grade Crossing Assumptions: • WUTC will have jurisdiction regarding review and approval of at grade crossing. • At grade crossing design will include signs and pavement markings. • BNSF will sign a waver of hearing concerning the installation of the crossing without crossing signals. • Rd 40 will ultimately be configured as a 3 lane road with allowance for bike lanes and sidewalks. Design will incorporate a 72' crossing surface. • Crossing can be installed in limited duration total road closure. • "Boilerplate" and format (and plans and special provisions) used in the previous Port of Pasco railroad projects will be used as the basis for this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and TESC are assumed to require only minor updates. • Drawings will be prepared in AutoCAD format in accordance with BNSF Design Guidelines for Industrial Track Projects (DGFITP). AREMA shall be used were BNSF specifications are not authoritative. • WSDOT and City of Pasco specifications will be used as required. • This phase will be built using all new materials. The Rd 40 crossing scope includes (reference Hours Estimate): • Utility locates and survey in the Rd 40 corridor sufficient to design grade crossing. • Provide 3 submissions of plans for City review Preliminary (30 %), Pre -final (60 %), and Final Plan (100 %) for grade crossing and road modifications. • Provide 2 submissions of plans for WUTC review: Preliminary and Pre -Final • Provide 2 submissions of special provisions: Pre -final and Final (Bid Set). • Provide 2 submissions of probable construction cost estimates *: Preliminary, and Pre - final. • WUTC coordination and application preparation. • Assistance with Railroad coordination for the purpose of obtaining a railroad waiver of hearing. • Up to one on site meeting/inspection for one Sr. Project Manager. • Anticipated project solicitation support/assistance up to, but not including, the bidding period. The Rd 40 crossing scope excludes: • Road widening or other reconfiguration. • Design of grade crossing signal system. • Design of sidewalks or swales beyond consideration of future road improvements. • Road closure plan. • Utility accommodation engineering in Rd 40. • Additional Geotechnical or drainage analysis. However, conveyance culverts shall be included under track in position for anticipated future road improvements. • Boundary work and property descriptions, title research, and abstracts. • Archeological / historical research and report. • Design or specifications of structures, fences, luminaries, or other facilities. Work Element #3 — Rd 40 At -Grade Crossing Signal System Assumptions: • Signals will supplement the work developed in Work Element #2 if determined to required /necessary by BNSF and/or WUTC. • The system is anticipated to consist of shoulder mast light and gates. • BNSF will sign a waver of hearing concerning the installation of the crossing with the signal configuration above. • Design of the crossing signal will include "front sheet' and civil plans. (Full plans for the signal system will be developed by contractor as part of the construction contract.) • "Boilerplate" and format (and plans and special provisions) used in the previous Port of Pasco railroad projects will be used as the basis for this project. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and TESC are assumed to require only minor updates. • Drawings will be prepared in AutoCAD format in accordance with BNSF Design Guidelines for Industrial Track Projects (DGFITP). AREMA shall be used were BNSF specifications are not authoritative. • WSDOT and City of Pasco specifications will be used as required. • This phase will be built using all new materials. The signal system scope includes (reference Hours Estimate): • Provide 3 submissions of plans for City review Preliminary (30 %), Pre -final (60 %), and Final Plan (100 %) for grade crossing and road modifications. • Provide 2 submissions of plans for WUTC review: Preliminary and Pre -Final • Provide 2 submissions of special provisions: Pre -final and Final (Bid Set). • Provide 2 submissions of probable construction cost estimates *: Preliminary, and Pre - final. • Assistance with Railroad coordination for the purpose of obtaining a railroad waiver of hearing. • Up to one on site meeting /inspection for one Sr. Project Manager. • Anticipated project solicitation supportlassistance up to, but not including, the bidding period. The signal system scope excludes: • Design of sidewalks or swales. • Signal system that requires cantilever signal masts. • Design and incorporation of road delineators or curbs. • Preparation of Railroad Agreement Applications or other documents. • Design or specifications of structures, fences, luminaries, or other facilities. Engineering Submittals and Schedule Work Elements 1 and 2 1. Preliminary Submission (Revised/Updated Estimate) will be provided within 1 week of Notice to Proceed (NTP). 2. Pre -final Submissions will be provided within 4 weeks of NTP. 3. Final submissions will be provided within 3 weeks of receiving comments related to the Pre - Final. Work Elements 3 1. Preliminary Submission will be provided within 4 week of Notice to Proceed (NTP). 2. Pre -final Submissions will be provided within 2 weeks of receiving comments related to the Preliminary submission. 3. Final submissions will be provided within 1 week of receiving comments related to the Pre -Final submission. 4. Based on previous preliminary concepts, a concept for confirmation will be provided. This will be based on existing topo information. This will be provided within one week of receipt of a signed contract. An order of magnitude estimate for the lead track will be provided at this time also. No revisions are anticipated. One set of comments can be provided by client for consideration in further submittals. It is assumed that the City will provide (only) one set of comments for consideration in further submittals. Miscellaneous HDR has included expenses for phone, copying, and mailing. Submittals will be provided in Word, MS Project, PDF, and Excel formats as appropriate. Unless other wise indicated, submissions will be made in an electronic format. *(In providing opinions of cost for the PROJECT, CONSULTANT shall have no control over cost or price of labor and materials, unknown or latent conditions of existing equipment or structures that might affect operation or maintenance costs, competitive bidding procedures and market conditions, time or quality of performance by operating personnel or third parties, and other economic and operational factors that might materially affect the ultimate PROJECT cost or schedule. The CONSULTANT, therefore, will not warranty that the actual PROJECT costs will not vary from CONSULTANT'S opinions, analyses, projections, or estimates.) An allowance for our standard railroad QA/QC process is included Work will be performed and billed on actual cost/ multiplier basis Fee 14DR will perform the above described engineering services on a time and materials basis — not to exceed: Work Element 0 and 1 $16,043.00 Work Element 2 $24,735.00 Work Element 3 $12,834.00 Total $53,612.00