Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014.07.07 Council Meeting PacketAGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. July 7, 2014 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 Councihnembers 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 16, 2014. 2. Minutes of the Special Pasco City Council Meeting dated June 23, 2014. (b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance Manager's office.) 1. To approve claims in the total amount of $5,245,465.44. (c) Water Use Agreement with Kidwell Farms: 1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager dated July 1, 2014. 2. Water Use Agreement with Kidwell Farms - Proposed Agreement. To approve the Water Use Agreement with Kidwell Fars and, further, authorize the Acting City Manager to sign the agreement. (d) I Fowler Street Dedication: Deed for a portion of N. Idaho Avenue (MF #DEED2014- 004): 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated July 1, 2014. 2. Fowler Street Dedication - Overview Map. 3. Fowler Street Dedication - Vicinity Map. 4. Fowler Street Dedication - Dedication Deed. To accept the dedication deed from Cittagazze LLC for a portion of North Idaho Avenue. (e) I Dura Plastics Utility Easement (MF #ESMT2014 -003): 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated July 1, 2014. 2. Dura Plastics Utility Easement - Overview Map. 3. Dura Plastics Utility Easement -Vicinity Map. 4. Dura Plastics Utility Easement - Easement. To accept the utility easement from Dura Plastics. (f) Resolution No. 3566, a Resolution of the City of Pasco, Washington, continuing the imposition of a moratorium established by Resolution No. 3557 prohibiting platting within the R -2, R -3 and R4 Districts for a period of six months. 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated July 1, 2014. 2. Single Family Lots in Multi- Family Zones -Proposed Resolution. To approve Resolution No. 3566, adopting findings of fact and continuing the imposition of the moratorium on the submittal of subdivision applications for properties zoned R -2, R -3 and R-4 as established by Resolution No. 3557. (g) I Resolution No. 3567, a Resolution fixing the time and date for a public hearing to consider vacating 30 -foot road easement across the south 30 -feet of Lot 5 Shaundee Estates. 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated July 1, 2014. 2. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates - Overview Map. 3. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates - Vicinity Map. 4. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates - Proposed Resolution. 5. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates - Vacation Petition. To approve Resolution No. 3567, setting 7:00 p.m., Monday, August 4, 2014 as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating the Bachart Easement. (RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Regular Meeting 2 July 7, 2014 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: (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 2014. 1. Erasmo Arroyo, 440 N. Cedar Avenue 2. Martha Franco, 1731 N. 16s' Avenue 3. Rob and Kylee Fox, 5012 Antigua 4. John and Judy Pettigrew, 6219 Cowlitz 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 2014. 1. Pasco Auto & Truck Parts — NAPA, 1724 W. Lewis Street 5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: (a) (b) (c) 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers (b) (c) 7. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: (a) Recreational and Medical Marijuana Land Uses (MF #CA2013 -005). 1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated June 30, 2014. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: (a) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington amending Section 16.06.020 "Exemptions" to Utility Connections. 1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated June 18, 2014. 2. Exemptions to Required Utility Connections — Proposed Ordinance. 3. Exemptions to Required Utility Connections — Existing Section 16.06 PMC. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. amending Title 16 adding an exemption to the requirement for utility connection and, further, authorize publication by summary only. (b) Ordinance No. an Ordinance prohibiting parking on various streets, amending Section 10.56.080 of the Pasco Municipal Code. I. Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak, City Engineer dated June 16, 2014. 2. Parking Ordinance Revisions - Road 44 (Argent Road to Burden Blvd) — Vicinity Map. 3. Parking Ordinance Revisions - Road 44 (Argent Road to Burden Blvd) — Ordinance. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , adding parking restrictions on Road 44 (Argent Road to Burden Blvd) and, further, authorize publication by summary only. (c) E Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington amending the zoning classification of property located at the northeast corner of Utah Avenue and Spokane Street from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium- Density Residential). 1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated June 30, 2014. 2. Fortune Rezone — Vicinity Map. 3. Fortune Rezone — Proposed Ordinance. 4. Fortune Rezone — Report to the Planning Commission. 5. Fortune Rezone — Planning Commission Minutes dated 5/15/14 and 6/19/14. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , rezoning the property located at the northeast comer of Utah Avenue and Spokane Street from C -3 to R -3 and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Regular Meeting 3 July 7, 2014 (d) *Q Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington amending the Zoning Classification of the Department of Natural Resources/School District site located in Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M., from RT (Residential Transition) and C -1 (Retail Business) to RS -1 (Suburban Residential), R -1 (Low- Density Residential), R -3 (Medium- Density Residential), "O "(Office) and C -1 (Retail Business). 1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated July 1, 2014. 2. DNR/School District Rezone — Vicinity Map. 3. DNR/School District Rezone — Proposed Ordinance. 4. DNR/School District Rezone — Report to the Planning Commission. 5. DNR/School District Rezone — Planning Commission Minutes dated 5/15/14 and 6/19/14. MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , rezoning the Department of Natural Resources and School District property south of I -182 between Road 68 and Road 84 from RT and C -1 to R -S -1, R -1, R -3, "O" and C -1 as recommended by the Planning Commission and, further, authorize publication by summary only. (e) 0 Resolution No. a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and approving a special permit for the location of wireless communication facilities at the southwest corner of Court Street and Road 68. 1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated June 30, 2014. 2. AT &T Special Permit — Vicinity Map. 3. AT &T Special Permit — Proposed Resolution. 4. AT &T Special Permit — Report to Planning Commission. 5. AT &T Special Permit — Planning Commission Minutes dated 5/15/14 and 6/19/14. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _, approving the Special Permit for the location of wireless communication facilities at the southwest comer of West Court Street and Road 68 as recommended by the Planning Commission. (f) ® Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation and approving a special permit for a church at 1202 W. Lewis Street, Unit B. 1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planner dated July 1, 2014. 2. Templo de Alabama Special Permit— Vicinity Map. 3. Templo de Alabanza Special Permit — Proposed Resolution. 4. Templo de Alabama Special Permit — Report to Planning Commission. 5. Templo de Alabama Special Permit — Planning Commission Minutes dated 5/15/14 and 6/19/14. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _, approving a Special Permit for the location of a church at 1202 W. Lewis Street, Unit B, as recommended by the Planning Commission. (g) 0, Resolution No. , a Resolution waiving competitive bidding requirements for the purchase of forty (40) AP22 Time Switches and forty -nine (49) M2M Model TSC2G Cellular Communications Modems and authorizing the purchase. 1. Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak, City Engineer dated June 19, 2014. 2. School Zone Flashing Equipment — Proposed Resolution. 3. School Zone Flashing Equipment — Price Quote. 4. School Zone Flashing Equipment — Sole Source Memo from City Engineer. MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _, waiving competitive bidding requirements and approving the purchase of 40 AP22 Time Switches and 49 M2M Model TSC2G Cellular Communications Modems. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) 10. NEW BUSINESS: (None) 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) Regular Meeting 4 July 7 2014 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (e) 13. ADJOURNMENT. rRoll Call Vote Required Item not previously discussed Quasi - Judicial Matter MF# "Master File #...... REMINDERS: 7:00 a.m., Thursday, July 10 — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.) 2. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, July 10 - Ben - Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS, Rep.; MIKE GARRISON, Alt.) 3. 11:00 a.m. — 1:00 p.m., Friday, July 11, 2021 N. Commercial Avenue — Basin Disposal's "Energy Independence Celebration" Event (MAYOR MATT WATKINS) (ALL COUNCILMEMBERS INVITED TO ATTEND) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 16, 2014 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 and Matt Watkins. Excused: Saul Martinez, 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; Bob Metzger, Police Chief; Bob Gear, Fire Chief; Mike Pawlak, City Engineer and Dunyele Mason, Financial Services Manager. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of Minutes: Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated June 2, 2014. Bills and Communications: To approve Claims in the amount of $3,619,147.57 ($864,187.19 in Check Nos. 198605- 198829; $362,996.04 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 800892, 801176-801178, 801229, 801287, 801374; $52,605.88 in Check Nos. 46752- 46807; 900000045- 900000047; $587,338.83 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30069603 - 30070074; $1,598,572.26 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 53 -69; $153,447.37 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 51 -56). 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 $283,530.23 and, of that amount, authorize $205,575.46 be turned over for collection. Columbia Villas Phase 1 Final Plat (MF #FP2014 -003): To approve the final plat for Columbia Villas Phase 1. Resolution No. 3558, a Resolution accepting work performed by Culbert Construction, Inc., under contract for the PWRF Optimization, Phases 1 & 2 Project. To approve Resolution No. 3558, accepting the work performed by Culbert Construction, Inc., under contract for the PWRF Optimization, Phases 1 & 2 Project. Resolution No. 3559, a Resolution accepting work performed by Big D's Construction of Tri- Cities, Inc., under contract for the Kurtzman Park Splashpad Project. To approve Resolution No. 3559, accepting the work performed by Big D's Construction of Tri- Cities, Inc., under contract for the Kurtzman Park Splashpad Project. Resolution No. 3560, a Resolution of the City of Pasco, Washington, appointing an Acting City Manager. To approve Resolution No. 3560, appointing an Acting City Manager. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. 3(a).1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 16, 2014 REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS: Ms. Francik attended the "Summer Safety Fun Fair" sponsored by Regional Service Corp- AmeriCorps. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: Single Family Lots in Multi -Family Zones (MF #CA2014 -003). Mr. White explained the details of the proposed resolution. MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. FOLLOWING THREE CALLS FOR COMMENTS, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, AND THERE BEING NONE, MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. No action was taken at this time. Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2015 -2020. Mr. Qayoumi explained the details of the proposed resolution. MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. FOLLOWING THREE CALLS FOR COMMENTS, EITHER FOR OR AGAINST, AND THERE BEING NONE, MAYOR WATKINS DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Resolution No. 3561, a Resolution adopting the revised and extended Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs for the City of Pasco. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3561, thereby adopting the City's Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan for 2015 -2020. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: Ordinance No. 4161, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington amending Title 3 "Revenue and Finance" establishing various fees, defining acceptance of credit cards and establishing procedures for miscellaneous billing. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4161, amending Pasco Municipal Code Title 3 establishing various fees, defining acceptance of credit cards and establishing procedures for miscellaneous billing and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 3562, a Resolution approving a Preliminary Plat for Madison Park Planned Density Development. Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed resolution. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3562, approving the Preliminary Plat for Madison Park. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 3563, a Resolution authorizing investment of monies in the Local Government Investment Pool. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3563, naming Dunyele Mason as the "authorized individual" to authorize all amendments, changes or alterations to the Local Government Investment Pool Transaction Authorization Form and to acknowledge the terms and conditions of participation as outlined in the prospectus. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. - T MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 16, 2014 Resolution No. 3564, a Resolution accepting the Irrigation System Master Plan prepared by MSA Associates. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3564, adopting the Irrigation System Master Plan. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Resolution No. 3565, a Resolution accepting the Comprehensive Sewer Plan prepared by MSA Associates. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3565, adopting the Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: 4th Avenue Block Wall, Project No. C7- ST- 9A- 12 -01: Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed project. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to reject all bids for the 4th Avenue Block Wall project in as much as all of the bids received significantly exceeded the Engineer's estimate and approved project budget. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Waterline Extension — Broadmoor Tank, Project No. C7- WT- 2A- 13 -02: Mr. Qayoumi explained the details of the proposed project. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to award the low bid for the Waterline Extension- Broadmoor Tank Project to KBEC, LLC in the amount of $114,757.61 and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. Mr. Hoffmann seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Council adjourned to Executive Session at 7:27 p.m. for approximately 45 minutes to discuss acquisition of real estate and litigation or potential litigation with the City Manager, Deputy City Manager and the City Attorney, and to evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for city employment with the Deputy City Manager. City Manager and City Attorney returned to the Council Chambers at 8:03. Mayor Watkins returned to the Council Chambers at 8:10 and noted Council will be in Executive Session for an additional 10 minutes. Mayor Watkins called the meeting back to order at 8:20 p.m. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to appoint Dave Zabell as City Manager subject to completion of an employment agreement. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. APPROVED: Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 7th day of July, 2014. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL JUNE 23, 2014 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor. ROLL CALL: Councilmembers present: Rebecca Francik, Michael Garrison, Matt Watkins, Robert Hoffmann and Al Yenney. Excused absence: Saul Martinez and Tom Larsen Staff present: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Lee Kerr, City Attorney; Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director; Bob Gear, Fire Chief; and Jim Raymond, Police Captain. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance lead by Gary Crutchfield. 3. BUSINESS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION: (a) APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR NEW CITY MANAGER: MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Professional Services Agreement with Dave Zabell for the position of City Manager, and further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion passed unanimously. (b) DESIGNATION OF ITEM 1984 -1 AS SURPLUS TO CITY NEEDS: MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the designation of Item 1984 -1 as surplus to City needs and authorize its disposal. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Let the record reflect: One member of the audience opposed: Mr. Gary Crutchfield. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Mayor Watkins presented a Proclamation to Gary Crutchfield, City Manager, proclaiming June 27, 2014 "Gary Crutchfield Day." Mayor Watkins presented to Gary Crutchfield a framed award of appreciation highlighting 30 -years of City of Pasco growth that occurred during 1984 to 2014 while under the leadership of Gary Crutchfield. Council member Francik verbally shared her appreciation of Mr. Crutchfield's dedication and leadership that he has provided to City Council. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:11 p.m. APPROVED: Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 7th day of July 2014. 3(a).2 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: _ July 7 2014 Accounts Payable Approved The City Council City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the city and that vre are authodwd to authenticate and certify to said claim. Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Iffiffirryele Maso , 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 7 day of July, 2014 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment Claims Bank Payroll Bank Gen'I Bank Electronic Bank Combined Check Numbers 198830- 199218 4680846980 900000050- 800000051 Total Check Amount 900000053. 900000054 $2,368,056.86 $116,702.48 Total Checks $ 2,464,759.34 Electronic Transfer Numbers 801179- 801228 30070075- 30071044 70 -71 57-60 801230 - 801373 801375 - 801647 801821-801823 801849 Total EFT Amount $1,379,258.51 $1,1151019.78 $5,746.57 $260,681.24 Total EFTs $ 2,760,706.10 Grand Total 6 5,245,465.44 Councilmember Councilmember SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERALFUND STREET ARTERIAL STREET STREET OVERLAY C. D. BLOCK GRANT HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT LID 145 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 TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STADIUM /CONVENTION CENTER GENERAL CAP PROJ CONSTRUCTION WATERISEWER EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL -OPERATING BUSINESS EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS MEDICALIDENTAL INSURANCE FLEX PAYROLL CLEARING GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 5,246,465.4 3(b) AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council July 1, 2014 FROM: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 SUBJECT: Water Use Agreement with Kidwell Farms I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Water Use Agreement with Kidwell Farms - Proposed Agreement H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/7: MOTION: I move to approve the Water Use Agreement with Kidwell Farms and, further, authorize the Acting City Manager to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: See Below IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: NOTE: a revised agreement is attached, following discussion at the 6/23 meeting, as well as the referenced Exhibits A, B and C. A) The city owns and operates an irrigation system on the Pasco plateau with about 6,000 customers, primarily residential users. The rate structure covers all operating cost and most capital expenditures, with little debt. Rates are fixed for the typical residential user at $26 /month, representing a cost of $182 annually. B) Kidwell Farms conducts farming operations on about 200 acres at the DNR site (Road 68 interchange). It has historically used Franklin County Irrigation District (FCID) water from the adjacent canal. Kidwell Farms also farms three smaller areas on the plateau using city irrigation water on undeveloped portions of approved subdivisions. As each subdivision develops, the portion being farmed shrinks until it is no longer feasible to farm. This dual -use method results in better management of dust and tumbleweed problems for the neighborhood. C) As noted in the recent Water Resources Management Plan, the city's irrigation system owns about 7,000 acre feet of water rights but still needs to confirm use of the full inventory of ground water rights. To do so, the city needs to document expanded use of those rights. That can be accomplished by applying city irrigation water to additional agricultural uses within the irrigation system service area. D) The city rate structure charges $75 /acre per month for "other" uses. That rate would be prohibitive for farming, as the 7 -month growing season would cost over $500 /acre /year. By comparison, the FCID charge to Kidwell Farms is $200 /acre /year for the DNR site. E) Kidwell Farms has agreed to use city irrigation water for the DNR farm site at the same rate charged by FCID, if the agreement includes water for the other three smaller sites at no cost. V. DISCUSSION: A) The proposed agreement with Kidwell Farms will not only generate about $33,000 additional revenue to the city irrigation system in each of the next two years, it will assist the city to meet its objective to apply more irrigation water and document more of its water rights. Thus, Kidwell Farms will save about 15% on its water cost and the city approves its ability to secure its water rights portfolio for the irrigation system. Staff recommends Council approval of the agreement. 3(c) FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF: City of Pasco, Washington WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Pasco, Washington 525 North 3rd Pasco WA 99301 WATER USE AGREEMENT (DNR Land) THIS WATER USE AGREEMENT is made and entered into this _ day of 2014, by and between the City of Pasco, Washington, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and Kidwell Farms, hic., a Washington Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Kidwell Farms." WHEREAS, City owns and operates an irrigation water system serving properties within or adjacent to the City using ground water and associated water rights obtained through urbanization of the northwest quadrant of the City; and WHEREAS, the City is interested in putting its irrigation water to beneficial use pending the urbanization of those areas within the northwest quadrant of the City; and WHEREAS, Kidwell Farms has obtained an agricultural lease of certain real property within that general area, and has agreed to accommodate use of the City ground water rights on said property and, thereby, benefitting the City by increasing the amount of ground water rights that may be perfected as provided under State law; and WHEREAS, Kidwell Farms desires to purchase City irrigation water for application upon its leased premises for a negotiated purchase price in accordance with the rules applicable to City irrigation water customers. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Secure of Lease. Kidwell Farms shall secure by lease, at its sole expense, the rights to farm and to apply irrigation water incident thereto upon farm land consisting of approximately 315 acres of real properties legally described as attached in Exhibit A, and as illustrated in Exhibits B and C (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"), providing City written verification of such lease upon which Kidwell Farms shall: Water Use Agreement - 1 A. Operate the irrigation system, utilizing City irrigation water for the 2014 and 2015 irrigation seasons applying approximately three (3) acre feet of irrigation water, per acre, during each irrigation season. For the purpose of this Agreement, the irrigation season shall commence upon the City's charging of the irrigation system on or about April 1, and closure of the irrigation system on or about November 1, during each year during the term of this Agreement. B. Kidwell Farms does hereby certify its full rights and authority to apply the irrigation water purchased under this Agreement upon the real properties described in Exhibit A. 2. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence effective April 1, 2014, and shall terminate at the end of the 2015 irrigation season, however, not later than November 1, 2015. 3. Compensation. Kidwell Farms shall pay in two equal installments ($20,000 each) to the City the sum of Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000), with the first installment paid on the date of execution of this Agreement, and the second installment paid on August 1, 2014, for irrigation water to be supplied during the 2014 irrigation season; and Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000) in two equal installments ($20,000 each) with the first due April 1, 2015, and the second on August 1, 2015, for irrigation water provided for the irrigation season of 2015. Irrigation water conveyed under this Agreement shall be measured by a flow meter installed at the point of delivery at the sole cost of Kidwell Farms. Kidwell Farms' demand for irrigation water shall, during the terms of this Agreement, not be vaned from the estimated quantities under this Agreement (945 acre feet per season) by more than 10% without the prior written consent of the City. 4. Cost and Operation of Farmine. Kidwell Farms shall bear all the costs of the ground preparation, installation of any irrigation system equipment, farming, maintenance, and operation, including the payment and the irrigation water fee as provided above to the City. Kidwell Farms is solely an irrigation water customer, and nothing shall be construed to limit Kidwell Farms' obligation under this Agreement including the payment of the compensation above, to the success or failure of its farming operation upon the property. Nothing herein shall construe the City as being a partner, joint venture, or having any interest in, or liability for, Kidwell Farms' interest income and fanning activities conducted upon the property. 5. Failure to Farm. In the event Kidwell Farms fails to operate the farm circle for that property described in Exhibit A during either of the irrigation seasons for 2014 and 2015, failing to apply City irrigation water for beneficial use, which the parties acknowledge to be the primary purpose of this Agreement and the significant benefit to be received by the City, then the City's obligation to perform its terms under this Agreement shall be terminated and the City shall be free to apply its irrigation to other beneficial uses. Water Use Agreement - 2 6. Liability - - Indemnification - - Insurance. A. The City, nor its employees, agents, officers or contractors, shall not be liable or responsible for any damage to any crops, land, improvements or any damages, direct or consequential, resulting from its delivery of irrigation water to Kidwell Farms including that damage or injury which may be sustained as a result of seepage, overflow, pipe or valve wreckage or failure, unless solely as a result of the negligence of the City, its agents, employees, officers, or contactors. B. Kidwell Farms further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless, including its employees, agents, officers, and contractors against any and all claims by or on behalf of any person or entity or other governmental entity arising from activities hereunder or by virtue of this Agreement or any part hereof, or by Kidwell Farms entering into this Agreement. Kidwell Farms will further indemnify, defend and save the City, including its employees, agents, officers, and contractors harmless against and from any and all claims arising during the term of this Agreement, or otherwise from any cause in any way connected with this Agreement from any breach or default on the part of Kidwell Farms to perform pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, or arising out of any act of negligence or omission of Kidwell Farms except for those damages solely as a result of the negligent acts or omissions of the City, its employees, agents, officers, or contractors. C. Should a Court of competent jurisdiction determine that this Agreement is subject to RCW 4.24.115, then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of Kidwell Farms and the City, its employees, agents, officers, and contractors, Kidwell Farms' liability hereunder shall be only to the extent of its negligence, acts or omissions. D. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes Kidwell Farms' waiver of immunity under industrial insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purpose of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties and will survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. E. To permit the provisions of this Agreement, Kidwell Farms agrees to maintain in full force and affect throughout the tern of this Agreement, a comprehensive general insurance liability policy with limits of not less than $3,000,000 liability limit naming the City, its employees, agents, officers, and contractors as additional insureds. 7. Interruptible Service. The City, nor its agents, employees, officers, or contractors, shall not be liable to Kidwell Farms, nor any of its successors in interest, assignees, lessees, security holders, or contracted crop purchasers, or any other party for any damages or consequential damages caused as a result of a temporary, or permanent termination of water supply through the City's facility as a direct result of causes beyond the control of the City. Water Use Agreement - 3 8. Water Rights. Water rights to the irrigation water provided under this Agreement are solely the water rights of the City. Kidwell Farms shall not accrue any interest therein, nor assert any claim of interest therein, nor for rights of delivery beyond the expiration of the term of this Agreement. 9. General Provisions. For the purpose of this Agreement, time is of the essence. This Agreement is not assignable by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. In the event of a dispute arising concerning the breach, enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, the parties shall meet in a good faith attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event the dispute is not resolved either by agreement of the parties or by voluntary mediation, the dispute shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.04A and the Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MAR). Venue shall be placed in Franklin County, Washington, and the prevailing party shall be awarded its reasonable attorney fees and costs against the other. DATED this day of 2014. CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON KIDWELL FARMS, INC. Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Todd Kidwell, President Water Use Agreement - 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF Franklin ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stan Strebel is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the Acting City Manager of City of Pasco to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this _ day of STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF Franklin ) 2014. NU I ARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residing at My Commission Expires: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Todd Kidwell is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he signed this instrument, on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the President of Kidwell Farms, Inc. to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of NOTARY PUBLIC in and Residing at My Commission Expires:_ Water Use Agreement - 5 2014. the State of Washington EXHIBIT "A" LOCATION OF USE Site # 1 NW Commons- The North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., Franklin County, Washington. Site # 2 Rd 52 School Site: The West Half of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., Franklin County, Washington Site # 3 Linda Loviisa The South half of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M, together with the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., Franklin County, Washington. Site # 4 DNR: That portion of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., Franklin County, Washington described as follows: The West Half of said Section 16 between the North line of the FCID irrigation Canal and the South line of Highway I -182; together with the Southeast % of said Section 16 west of Road 68 except the Southeast '/< thereof; together with the Northeast '/< of said Section 16 except that portion lying Northerly of Highway I -182 and Easterly of Road 68. Water Use Agreement - 6 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 1, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 Rick White, % Community & Economic Development Director Y/j FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: FOWLER STREET DEDICATION: Deed fora Rortion of N. Idaho Ave. MF # DEED 2014 -0041 I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Fowler Street Dedication - Overview Map 2. Fowler Street Dedication - Vicinity Map 3. Fowler Street Dedication - Dedication Deed II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/7: MOTION: I move to accept the dedication deed from Cittagazze LLC for a portion of North Idaho Avenue. III. FISCAL IMPACT None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. In April of 2013 the Council adopted an Ordinance vacating a portion of Idaho Avenue located north of Oregon Avenue adjacent to the HD Fowler pipe supply facility at 1320 N Oregon Avenue. B. As plans were being finalized for the construction of N. Idaho Avenue to serve the proposed Dura Plastics warehouse, to be located at the north end of Idaho Avenue, it was discovered that too much right -of -way was vacated. A forty by fifty foot triangular shaped parcel is needed at the intersection of N. Oregon Avenue and N. Idaho Avenue for a radius large enough to accommodate truck traffic. C. The real estate arm of HD Fowler, Cittagazze LLC, has provided the city with the necessary deed for the parcel needed to accommodate the road construction. 3(d) © as tr ♦ Rya rc -�F'1 . ate,, t'. �g'�$v"" !� .r ��'ly�,, ru8s ", � ~' a Ml•': � M! ' q �''' ,y.,,_.; � • �B ae �. '�' r 4 r.4 �vy i.'�l� ,�. /gyp r �� «1. • . ` r s f X4� ' ,y��{ y t lw- � • �Q��S.a ii r�ai: }y � L.4 ry5 i ° s n'N� PtA � 7sx `�,_ r r' � Pr � • �1 �syz�. i tee N tre�ir 1 hk ><'� idF �f .v A �_ :M:Ft ii �L.� f x� yy *r'p� I � "[• i i-wo co R wr �` ' • U• • � ✓7�G$ `+�� k'r a r t� "��Y Ap`*`` � t�fiiy ���u`�� /�� �t9�i? /n,y • • ' rl �-1� �� c�,y ,'�r� �A �i ,py .��T`y�� yr '����t � a t: ti,��yiq'Y �-Z!k„ 1 td �i rt ., t. ��jj !� i`I,yj°• 1I _. 6 �M1: ng ^L•. S.� • .F yt' " r N.. i t z. �lt� After Recordin>r Return To: City of Pasco, Washington Attn: City Planner 525 North 3'a Pasco, WA 99301 DEDICATION DEED Tax Parcel No. 113482072 THE GRANTOR, CITTAGAZZE LLC a Washington State Limited Liability Company, by donation pursuant to RCW 35A.79.010, dedicates, conveys and quit claims to the GRANTEE, THE — E CITY OF PASCO., a Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, for the public use, as a public right -of -way and all interest in the land described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of the Oregon Avenue right -of -way. Said point being the intersection of the west line of Lot 12, Block 61 Frey's Addition with the north right -of -way line of Oregon Avenue; Thence southwesterly along the north right -of -way line of Oregon Avenue for a distance of 51.2084 feet, plus or minus, to the intersection with the east right -of -way line of Idaho Avenue as established by vacation Ordinance No. 4101; Thence northerly along the east right -of -way line of said Idaho Avenue for a distance of 40 feet; Thence easterly to the point of beginning. DATED this2 day of 2014. GRANTOR Dedication Deed - 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of�r f&+nt. ►(TN Zr N On this ,21 � day of AIAl 2011, before me, the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared SJAm &s F r04L QZ — to me known to be the individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that he /she /they signed the same as his /her /their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he /she /they is /are authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN under by 204. N hand and official seal this At �—rday of /VIA} Print Name — 51 ru ta'y r —I I NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington Residingat: Eu 5 J✓4 My Commission Expires: 7 / b SHELLEY MUTH STATE OF WASMNOTON NOTARY PUBLIC C4X* ON EXPIRES 07- 28.18 Dedication Deed - 2 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 1, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 Rick White, l �� Community & Economic Development Director eV FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: DURA PLASTICS UTILITY EASEMENT: MF # ESMT 2014 -003 1. REFERENCE(S): 1. Dura Plastics Utility Easement -Overview Map 2. Dum Plastics Utility Easement - Vicinity Map 3. Dura Plastics Utility Easement - Easement II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/7: MOTION: I move to accept the utility easement from Dura Plastics. III. FISCAL IMPACT None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The 16 inch water main serving the cemetery and connecting the water system between North Oregon Avenue with North 4`s Avenues was built many years ago in part without the benefit of an easement. The portion of the line immediately to the north of Motel 6 crosses private property. Staff has been unable to find a record of easement for this line. B. As a part of the plan review process for a new warehouse, Dura Plastics, the owner of the property in question has provided the city with an easement for the water line. 3(e) x- RY h 8 6 y \ ut � -Y c 4Z cr. x- W r � a L, r l RY h 8 6 y \ ut � -Y R i I t r W pVRI w wk It of ry h _.i� C .py W r � a L, r l After Rec eerll . Ret ern To• City Engineer City of Pasco PO Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 UTILTIY EASEMENT Tax Parcel No. 113400070 & 113400392 THE GRANTOR,b� -r (1p,es, LLL by donation dedicates, conveys and hereby grants to the City of Pasco, Franklin County, _Washington, a Municipal Corporation, and to its successors or assigns, an easement to construct operate, maintain, repair, replace or remove on and under the below described land City utilities service lines and components with surface obstructions associated with said utility service (i.e. valve covers, meters, manholes, etc.): BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE ROST BROS., LLC- PARCEL B AS DESCRIBED UNDER FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITORS FILE NUMBER 1789581, RECORDS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 89 050'32" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL B FOR A DISTANCE OF 680.67 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL B, SAID POINT ALSO BEING TlIE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE ROST BROS. LLC - PARCEL C AS DESCRIBED UNDER FRANKLIN COUNTY AUDITORS FILE NUMBER 1789581, RECORDS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL B AND CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL C, NORTH 89 °50'32" EAST, 27.36 FEET TO THE MOST SOUTHERLY SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL C, SAID POINT BEING ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF STATE ROUTE 397 (ALSO KNOWN AS NORTH OREGON AVENUE) AT A POINT 100.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE THEREOF, WHEN MEASURED RADIALLY; THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL C FOLLOWING THE WESTERLY RIGHT -O&WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROUTE 397 (A.K.A NORTH OREGON AVENUE) AND THE EAST LINE 01' SAID PARCEL C THE FOLLOWING COURSES: THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF A 400.00 -FOOT RADIUS, NON - TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT (THE RADIUS OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 54 °03'57" WEST) THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08053'14" FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 62.04 FEET TO A POINT 100.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF SAID CENTERLINE, WHEN MEASURED RADIALLY; THENCE NORTH 20 000'48" EAST, 19.68 FEET TO A POINT 104.86 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF SAID CENTERLINE, WHEN MEASURED RADIALLY: THENCE LEAVING THE WESTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROUTE 397 (A.K.A NORTH OREGON AVENUE) AND THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL C, SOUTH 89 050'32" WEST, PARALLEL TO AND 20.00 NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20 AND THE SOUTH LINES OF SAID PARCEL B AND C FOR A DISTANCE OF 716.02 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL B; THENCE SOUTH 00 026'12" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL B, PARALLEL WITH AND 150.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 20 FOR A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AND THE END OF THIS UTILITY EASEMENT DESCRIPTION. DATED this —L_ day of –, 2014. GRANTOR(S) //.. �US'Y 1' 2�s'iMGrli L -` 14v I to L STATE OF WA ) �r li-forniF :ss County of F.IMAWt1 ) 12iuer5(r)A On this + day of _'. 2014, before me, the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared („ ROSY to me known to be individual(V described above and an authorized representative of the Rost taros LLC and who executed the within and foregoing instrument as owner(q of record, and acknowledged to Inc tha ie he/they signed the same a his )ier /their free and voluntary act and deed. for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that �e/the is re authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN undeseal this / � day of }✓ r Print Name: in and fpr the State of Washington , --,—; ires: 2 , 2014. �-- LO OFFICIAL SEAL J. E. WAGNER NOTARY PUSLIC•CALIFORNIAM, COMM. DE OUNT5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY MY COMM. EXP. AUG. 29, 2016 w AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 1, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 FROM: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director7_V I I SUBJECT: Single- Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones (MF# CA2014 003) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Single Family Lots in Multi - Family Zones - Proposed Resolution H. III. V. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution 3, adopting findings of fact and continuing the imposition of the moratorium on the submittal of subdivision applications for properties zoned R -2, R -3 and R -4 as established by Resolution No. 3557, FISCAL IMPACT: None HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On June 2, 2014 the Council approved Resolution No. 3557 imposing a moratorium on the acceptance of subdivision applications for proposed plats located in R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts. B. RCW 36.70A.390 and RCW 35A.63.220 require the Council to hold a public hearing on the moratorium within 60 days of the effective date of Resolution 3557. Following the hearing the Council must adopt findings of fact justifying the imposition of the moratorium. Findings of fact have been included in the attached resolution. C. The City Council held a public hearing on June 16, 2014 to receive public testimony on the moratorium. No public comments were provided. The proposed findings of fact in the resolution have been modified to include the fact that the public provided no comments on this issue. DISCUSSION: A. Although not specifically intended for single - family development, the multi- family zoning districts have permitted single - family homes on individual lots since the inception of zoning in Pasco. Single - family lots within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zones can be a minimum of 5,000 square feet. B. In addition to applying for multi- family rezoning to allow smaller lot sizes for single - family development, builders have the option of platting under the "Planned Density Development" standards which allows the developer to average lot sizes. Under this process some lots can be smaller than the underlying zoning and others are required to be larger while the over -all average lot size must conform to the zoning. This process allows for flexibility in the development process and encourages the development of a variety of housing types to better serve community needs. Although this process is permitted for parcels larger than 20 acres it is not required. C. Using multi - family zoning for single- family developments circumvents the Planned Density process and could lead to a series of single - family developments with only 5,000 square foot lots. D. The moratorium will allow the City to address applicable regulations in the Zoning Chapter of the Pasco Municipal Code. 3(f) RESOLUTION NO. 5Co(p A RESOLUTION of the City of Pasco, Washington, continuing the imposition of a moratorium established by Resolution No. 3557 prohibiting platting within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Districts for a period of six months. WHEREAS, on June 2, 2014 the Pasco City Council approved Resolution No. 3557 establishing a six month moratorium on the acceptance of plat applications within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Zoning Districts. WHEREAS, to fulfill the requirements of the Revised Code of Washington the following findings of fact are provided as justification for the moratorium established on June 2, 2014 by Resolution No. 3557: a) The Pasco Zoning Ordinance contains R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts primarily intended for multiple - family dwellings with a range of minimum densities. b) Single - family homes are permitted within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 zoning districts provided no single family lot is less than 5,000 square feet in size. c) Developers often build subdivisions to the minimum standard with respect to lot sizes. d) The creation of 5,000 square foot lots without forethought to building design, subdivision integration with existing and adjacent neighborhoods and overall acceptance by the community has the potential to harm the residents of Pasco. e) Pasco Zoning Ordinance permits, but does not require, the use of the "Planned Density Development' process which allows an overall housing density based on the underlying zoning requirements to promote creativity in the design and layout of subdivisions for the development of a variety of housing types to better serve the citizens of Pasco. f) On June 16, 2014 the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony for or against the proposed moratorium. No public testimony was provided; and WHEREAS, the City intends to review and if appropriate develop zoning and land use regulations within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Zoning Districts to accommodate smaller lots and at the same time address issues related to subdivisions developed to the minimum standard without forethought or consideration of adjoining neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City that a moratorium be established by Resolution 3557 be continued; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Moratorium Established. A moratorium imposed by Resolution No. 3557 prohibiting the acceptance of subdivision applications within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Zoning Districts is hereby continued. Resolution - 1 Section 2. Findings of Fact Adopted. The findings of fact herein provided are adopted in support of continuance of the moratorium established by Resolution No. 3557. Section 3. Term of Moratorium. The moratorium imposed by Resolution No. 3557 shall continue for period of six (6) months from June 2, 2014, unless repealed, extended, or modified by the City Council after a public hearing and the entry of appropriate findings of fact as required by RCW 35A.63.220, provided, however, that the moratorium shall automatically expire upon the effective date of zoning regulations adopted by the City Council to address the minimum lot sizes for single family dwellings within the R -2, R -3 and R -4 Zoning Districts within the City of Pasco. Section 4. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and signature below. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, at its regular meeting dated this day of 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Resolution - 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 1, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner SUBJECT: EASEMENT VACATION (MF# VAC 2014-004) Road Easement on Lot 5 Shaundee Estates I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates - Overview Map 2. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates - Vicinity Map 3. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates - Proposed Resolution 4. Easement Vacation Shaundee Estates - Vacation Petition H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No._JJ, setting 7:00 P.M., Monday, August 4, 2014, as the time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating the Bachart Easement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Anthony Bachart has submitted a petition for vacation of a 30 -foot road easement across the southern portion of his lot. The road easement was established in the County with no provisions for future improvements or conversion to a public right -of -way. B. The petition requires the City Council to fix a public hearing to consider the vacation request. The earliest regular City Council meeting available for a public hearing, which provides the statutory 20 -day hearing notice, is August 4, 2014. 3(g) 0 N ct C •O � ct ct O� 4-j O cn op � CCS •PEO s z F' _r i u $f c 'M �Imwl� ^ e Itt pt LU :0.9 RESOLUTION NO. 107 A RESOLUTION FIXING THE TIME AND DATE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATING 30 -FOOT ROAD EASEMENT ACROSS THE SOUTH 30 FEET OF LOT 5 SHAUNDEE ESTATES. WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general interest of the City, the City Council may vacate rights -of -way; and WHEREAS, R.C.W. 35.79 requires public hearings on vacations to be fixed by Resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: That a public hearing to consider vacating the east/west road easement across the southerly 30 feet of Lot 5, Shaundee Estates will be held before the City Council of the City of Pasco in the Council Chambers at 525 N. Third Avenue, Pasco Washington, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on August 4, 2014. That the City Clerk of the City of Pasco give notice of said public hearing as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7te day of July, 2014. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney os ovoa �z � Z J F O � ~ c OLs ovoa �O Lw N �- r�^ • c/ M qt W 1 - CITY OF PASCO STREET /ALLEY VACATION PETITION MASTER FILE # DATE SUBMITTED: FEE $200 I, we the undersigned, owners of two - thirds of the privately owned abutting property hereby petition the City Council of the City of Pasco to vacate the following described street /alley rights -of -way: n Print Name: t1nSi]nn�r L�]�rtie__ Sign Name: Address: z9oar Phone # (6 )6Z8 -2884 Date G- /c Print Name: Sign Name: Print Name: Sign Name: Date Date PROPERTY OWNED (Legal Description) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 30, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: Recreational & Medical Marijuana Land Uses (MF# CA2013 005) I. REFERENCE(S): H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/7: Conduct a public hearing III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. In 2012, Council adopted Ordinance 4059 amending the zoning code to include language precluding land uses which violate local, State or Federal laws. This amendment applies to dispensaries of cannabis and collective gardens for the production, distribution and/or dispensing of cannabis for medical uses. B. In 2012, Initiative 502 (I -502) legalizing the recreational use of marijuana was approved by the electorate. I -502 establishes a system, overseen by the State Liquor Control Board (LCB), to license, regulate and tax the production, processing and sale of marijuana. C. Since I -502 was passed, Council has adopted a moratorium on the location of both medical and recreational - marijuana related uses within the city. The moratorium expires September 1, 2014. D. During the April 28 and May 27, 2014 Workshop sessions, Council generally indicated their desire to prohibit recreational marijuana businesses and collective gardens within the city. E. At the May 27, 2014 Workshop, Council also expressed their intention to conduct a public hearing on an ordinance prohibiting marijuana production, processing, retail sales, collective gardens and dispensaries. V. DISCUSSION: A. The State Attorney General has provided an opinion that indicates cities and counties may ban recreational marijuana land uses and a Court of Appeals decision indicates that cities and counties may also ban collective gardens. B. Following the public hearing staff will return to Council with the appropriate ordinance and/or resolution. 7(a) AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Counci June 18, 2014 TO: Gary Crutch r Manager Workshop Mtg.: 6/23/14 Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 FROM: Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Exemptions to Required Utility Connections I. REFERENCE(S): I . Exemptions to Required Utility Connections — Proposed Ordinance 2. Exemptions to Required Utility Connections — Existing Section 16.06 PMC II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 6/23: DISCUSSION 7/7: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance amending Title 16 adding an exemption to the requirement for utility connection, and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. Chapter 16.06.010 of the Pasco Municipal Code requires that connection to City water and sewer are required when property is developed. B. Occasionally owners of properties already served by functioning and lawful septic systems or wells apply for building permits for accessory structures or other property improvements. Often, City utilities are adjacent or available for connection. C. Current City practice is to refer the above permit application to the Benton Franklin Health Department (BFHD) for review. D. Review by the BFHD can cost an applicant approximately $400 and involves an on -site inspection. This review seems unnecessary if water and/or sewer are available for connection to the property and the owner acknowledges that should either the septic system or the well fail — he or she will connect to the available City utility. V. DISCUSSION: A. Staff has prepared an ordinance for Council consideration that revises Title 16 of the PMC to add an exemption to the requirement for connection to City utilities. B. The proposed exemption recognizes that in certain cases the availability of City sewer and/or water and the agreement by the owner to connect to City utilities should either the on -site well or septic system fail, provides the necessary assurances for protecting the public health. C. If Council concurs with the proposed ordinance, staff will place the issue on the July 7, 2014 agenda for action. 8(a) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Section 16.06.020 "Exemptions" to Utility Connections. WHEREAS, Chapter 16.06.020 of the Pasco Municipal Code requires that connection to City water and sewer occur when property is developed; and WHEREAS, in certain cases, development of property may not need a connection to City utilities due to the existence on the property of a functioning and lawful on -site well or septic system; and WHEREAS, often these properties served by on -site systems are able to connect to available City utilities; and WHEREAS, the property owner will commit to connecting to City utilities should the on -site systems fail; NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 16.06.020 entitled "EXEMPTIONS " of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follow: 16.06.020 EXEMPTIONS. The following types of development may be exempt from the requirements of 16.06.010: (1) Filling or grading provided no use of City utilities occurs and the property is not functionally related or accessory to a non - exempt development; (2) Surfacing or paving provided no use of City utilities occurs and the property is not functionally related or accessory to a non - exempt development; (3) Installation or construction of fencing; (4) Temporary uses of property of no more than 180 days provided no use of City utilities occurs and fire protection is not required; or (� Development of property that is served by a lawful and functioning septic system or well provided an agreement is executed acknowledging that the owner will connect to City utilities upon the failure of thematic system or well; or (W6) Other similar types of development not requiring connection to City utilities or use of City water for fire protection. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this day of July, 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debbie Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney CHAPTER 16.06 UTILITY SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMITS Sections: 16.06.010 WATER AND SEWER SERVICE REQUIRED ........... ..............................9 16.06.020 EXEMPTIONS .................................................... ..............................9 16.06.030 LOT LINE REVISIONS PROHIBITED ................. ............................... 10 16.06.040 WAIVER - AUTHORIZED ............................... ............................... 10 16.06.050 WAIVER - CRITERIA ........................................... .............................10 16.06.010 WATER AND SEWER SERVICE REQUIRED. (1) City water and /or sewer service connection to the lot(s), parcel(s) or tract(s) of land sought to be developed shall be a prerequisite to the issuance of a development permit. No development permit shall be issued without compliance with this section except as stated in this chapter. (2) `City water and sewer service connection" means the ability to physically connect to transmission lines of such service when such service is within 200 feet of the lot, parcel or tract boundary, after paying for all applicable fees. This may include the installation of a water meter, the use of water for fire protection, the use of water or sewer for non - structural improvements or use of existing water or sewer service at a future date. (3) "Accessory" and "Functionally Related" means a use that is subordinate, supplementary or dependent on a non- exempt use or activity. (4) "Developed" and "Development" means any manmade change to improved or unimproved lot(s), parcel(s) or tract(s) including but not limited to filling, grading, paving, excavating, installation of curb, gutter or sidewalk, installation of driveways, construction or placement of a building or other structure and uses of a commercial or industrial nature not requiring a structure. (5) "Development Permit" means but is not limited to a grading, building, right of way or encroachment permit or a license or permit for land use. (Ord. 4069, 2012; Ord. 2412 Sec. 1, 1982; Ord. 2303 Sec. 1, 1981.) 16.06.020 EXEMPTIONS. The following types of development may be exempt from the requirements of 16.06.010: (1) Filling or grading provided no use of City utilities occurs and the property is not functionally related or accessory to a non - exempt development; (2) Surfacing or paving provided no use of City utilities occurs and the property is not functionally related or accessory to a non - exempt development; (3) Installation or construction of fencing; (4) Temporary uses of property of no more than 180 days provided no use of City utilities occurs and fire protection is not required; or (5) Other similar types of development not requiring connection to City utilities or use of City water for fire protection. (Ord. 4069, 2012; Repealed Ord. 3786, 2006; Ord. 2303 Sec. 2, 1981.) PMC Title 16 7/15/2013 9 16.06.030 LOT LINE REVISIONS PROHIBITED. Lot line revisions through platting, binding site plans or tax parcel segregations shall not be used as a means to avoid the requirements of 16.06.010 unless such revision is for the purpose of functionally separating uses, establishing lot lines for sale or transfer of ownership or delineating property from non - exempt development. (Ord. 4069, 2012.) 16.06.040 WAIVER - AUTHORIZED. The prerequisite requirements for a development permit stated in Section 16.06.010 may be waived by approval of the City Council by majority vote at any regular meeting, upon such forms as they shall deem necessary to enable them to make specific findings of fact as to why a waiver should be granted. All such waivers must be applied for in writing on a form or forms to be supplied by the City of Pasco and all denials of such waiver shall also be in writing and state specific findings upon which the denial is based. The grant of a waiver may be reasonably conditioned and any such conditions shall be in writing, signed by the owner of the land, recorded and run with the land. Such conditions may include but shall not be limited to the following: (1) A specific period of exception; (2) Required participation in future public sewer and /or water service extension by L.I.D. or other means; (3) The signing by the owner of the property of a hold harmless and /or indemnity agreement in favor of the City of Pasco. (Ord. 4069, 2012; Ord. 2303 Sec. 3, 1981.) 16.06.050 WAIVER - CRITERIA. Any determination to grant, deny, or grant with conditions an application for a waiver described in Section 16.06.040 shall be based upon the following criteria: (1) Special circumstances applicable to the property in question or to the intended use that do not generally apply to other properties or classes of use in the same vicinity or zoning classification; (2) A waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use possessed by other property in the same vicinity and in zoning classification, which because of special circumstances is denied to the property in question; (3) The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to any person, property or improvements thereon in such vicinity and zoning classification in which the subject property is located; (4) The granting of a waiver will not conflict with the general intent of this chapter; (5) Except as provided below, no waiver for City water service shall be granted for any property lying within the boundaries of the Pasco Landfill ground water protection area (the Protection Area) as delineated on the official map designating said area on file at the City of Pasco Public Works Department. If the City of Pasco receives a waiver request, it shall notify the Department of Ecology of such request, and shall provide the Department of Ecology all relevant information regarding such request. PMC Title 16 7/15/2013 10 AGENDA REPORT NO. 17 FOR: City Council June 16, 2014 TO: Gary Crutchfie i Manager Ahmad Qayo ', Pu lic Works Director FROM: Michael A. Pawlak, City Engineer Workshop Mtg.: 6/23/14 Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 SUBJECT: Parking Ordinance Revisions - Road 44 (Argent Road to Burden Boulevard) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Road 44 (Argent Road to Burden Boulevard) — Vicinity Map 2. Road 44 (Argent Road to Burden Boulevard) - Ordinance H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 06/23: Discussion 07/07: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. ' adding parking restrictions on Road 44 (Argent Road to Burden Boulevard), and fiuther, authorize publication by summary only. HI. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The Engineering Division and Police Department have periodically received complaints about speeding on Road 44 between the roundabout at Madison Avenue and Burden Boulevard. Inquiries about how to slow traffic along this segment of Road 44 have also been received. B) Road 44 (Madison Avenue to Burden Boulevard) is currently posted as 25 MPH. The street section is 38 feet wide with curb & gutter along the east side. Sidewalks are constructed on both sides of the roadway. C) Parking is currently allowed along the east side (northbound) between Meadow View Drive and Burden Boulevard, although there is rarely a parked car along this roadway segment. Parking is already prohibited along the east side of the street between Argent Place and Meadow View Drive. Parking is also prohibited along the west side (southbound) of the street between Argent Place and Burden Boulevard. V. DISCUSSION: A) The Engineering Division has made several site visits to the area to monitor traffic, gather physical data (e.g. street measurements, etc.), photograph the site, and evaluate the street section. The street section conforms to the City's Standards for a Collector Arterial street. The 25 MPH posted speed limit was previously set in conformance with the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood, and to balance the needs for through- traffic movement and safety due to the number of intersecting side streets. • • 1 B) Drivers tend to feel more comfortable driving faster on wider street sections; in this case the tendency is for motorists to drive 30 -35 MPH. Pasco Police recently placed its Speed Limit Radar Message Board along Road 44 in an effort to place more emphasis on speed control. C) The Engineering Division evaluated various methods for calming traffic utilizing lane striping, curbing and physical barriers. Working with Pasco Police and Public Works Operations, it was determined that the City should retain the two - lane section striping and include edge striping that delineated 12 -foot wide lanes, leaving a 6 -1/2 foot ( + / -) shoulder / unmarked bike lane along both outside edges. Providing centerline and edge striping tends to cause drivers to feel as if the driving lanes are narrower and helps to reduce speeds. Once the edge striping is applied, there will be insufficient width for a parking lane along the east side of the roadway. D) Engineering recommends prohibiting parking along the east side of Road 44 between Meadow View Drive and Burden Boulevard. E) This ordinance will amend Section 10.56 080 (Schedule III, Parking Prohibited at All Times on Certain Streets) of the Pasco Municipal Code to add and/or revise the following streets to the list of prohibited parking streets: Add: Road 44 — Argent Road to Burden Boulevard Remove: Road 44 — east side from Meadow View Street to Argent Place Road 44 — west side from Desert Street to Argent Place Road 44 — west side from Desert Street to Burden Boulevard VICINITY MAP ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE prohibiting parking on various streets, amending Section 10.56.080 of the Pasco Municipal Code. WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has determined that it is necessary for public safety to prohibit parking on Road 44 Argent Road to Burden Boulevard; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 10.56.080 of the Pasco Municipal Code is amended to add the following underlined language and read as follows: 10.56.080 SCHEDULE III - PARKING PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES ON CERTAIN STREETS. In accordance with Section 10.56.030, and when signs are erected giving notice parts of streets: thereof, no person shall at any time park a vehicle upon any of the following described streets or "A" Street - both sides of street from Elm Avenue to SR -12• "A" Street - both sides of street from Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue; "A" Street - from Main Avenue to Beech Avenue; "A" Street - 300 feet west of 4th Avenue to three hundred feet east of 4th Avenue; Avenue; 'A" Street - both sides from 20th Avenue to a point two hundred fifty feet west of 20th "A" Street — both sides, corner of "A" Street and 28th Avenue; Agate Street - between Fourth and Fifth Avenues; Ainsworth Avenue - north side from Railroad Avenue to Oregon Avenue; Ainsworth Avenue - south side from 10th Avenue to Fourth Avenue; Argent Road — 20th Avenue to Road 44; Argent Road — Road 84 to Road 76; Autoplex Way — from Court Street south to 160 feet north of Marie Street; Bonneville Street - the south side of Bonneville Street from a point 150 feet east of the east curb line of 10th Avenue to the east curb line of 111th Avenue; Billings Street - from Lewis Street to "A" Street Broadmoor Boulevard — FCID canal to Nottingham Drive; Brown Street - north side from Road 28 to Road 26; Brown Street - south side from Road 28 to a point 130 feet to the east; Burden Boulevard — Road 76 to Road 36; Chapel Hill Boulevard — Road 68 to Saratoga Lane; Chapel Hill Boulevard — Broadmoor Boulevard to Road 84; Chapel Hill Boulevard - from Crescent Road to Broadmoor Boulevard; Clark Street - both sides of street from Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue; Clemente Lane — Burden Boulevard to Wrigley Drive; Commercial Avenue — both sides from Hillsboro Avenue south 1 mile; Court Street - from Fourth Avenue west to SR -395; Court Street — east of Fourth Avenue; Court Street - from Road 68 to Road 84; Court Street — Rd. 100 to I -182 Hwy overpass; Court Street — 1,000 feet south of Harris Road; E. Broadway Street — (north side) Wehe Street to Franklin Street; First Avenue — Court Street to Sylvester street; Fourteenth Avenue — both sides from Clark Street north 100 feet; Fourteenth Avenue — both sides from Clark Street south to the alley; Fourth Avenue — (east side) 50 feet north of Columbia Street; Fourth Avenue —100 feet south of Columbia Street; from Shoshone tre t to 125 feet north of vac vacated Park Street and fro Street; and ee north of Octave Street to Court Street; Fourth Avenue - east side from Sylvester Street north 140 feet; and on the west side from Sylvester Street north 200 feet; Fifth Avenue (west side) Park to Octave; Fifth Avenue — (east side) north of Court Street; Fifth Avenue - (east side) Nixon Street to Park Street; North Fourth Avenue - between Court and Ruby Streets; Heritage Boulevard - both sides from US -12 to "A" Street; Hillsboro Street and Commercial Avenue - both sides of Hillsboro Street from a point 100 feet east of the. center line of Commercial Avenue to SR 395, and on both sides of Commercial Avenue from a point 100 feet south of the center line of Hillsboro to Hillsboro; Homerun Road — both sides, from Convention Boulevard to end; James Street — south side from the far east end of James Street to 400 feet west; James Street — north side from the far east end of James Street to 340 feet west; Jay Street - north side from the east curb line of Road 22 to a point 50 feet west of the east curb line of Road 22; Lewis Street - from First Avenue to 70 feet east; Lewis Street - north side from Fourteenth Avenue to 130 feet west; and north side from Fourteenth Avenue to 80 feet east; Lewis Street — south side from Fourteenth Avenue to 100 west; and south side from Fourteenth Avenue to 100 feet east; Lewis Street - Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue; Lewis Street - north side of Lewis Street from the east curb line of Seventh Avenue to a point 135 feet east; Lewis Street - South side of Lewis Street, from 150 feet east of the center line of First Street running easterly a distance of 165 feet; Lewis Street (east) - both sides from Wehe Avenue east to Cedar Avenue; Lewis Street (east) - both sides from Oregon Avenue east to Wehe Avenue; Lewis Street — from Cedar Ave. to Billings Street; Madison Avenue - both sides from Burden Boulevard to Road 44; Ninth Avenue — Washington Street to Ainsworth Street; Octave Street - the south side of Octave Street from 1 point 280 feet east of the east curb line of Road 34 to a point 420 feet east of the east curb line of Road 34; Oregon Avenue between "A" Street and Ainsworth Avenue; Oregon Avenue — (west side) 350 feet north of Bonneville Street; Oregon Avenue — Hagerman Street to James Street; Road 22 - east side from the north curb line of Jay Street to a point 50 feet south of the north curb line of Jay Street; Road 26 — from Court Street to Brown Street Road 28 — west side from Sylvester Street to Brown Street; Road 28 — east side from Sylvester Street to Brown Street except for 315 feet starting from apoint 360 feet north of the intersection of Sylvester Street and Road 28; Road 34 - both sides of the street from Henry Street to Court Street; Road 36 - both sides of the street from its intersection with Argent Place to a point 1,200 feet north of Argent Place; Road 36 — Burden Boulevard. to 200 feet south of Meadow Beauty Drive; D—_A AA __.__. _•a_ r__ — _ _ f Road 44 — Burden Boulevard to Sandifer Boulevard; Road 44 — Argent Road to Burden Boulevard Road 52 — Burden Boulevard to Sandifer Boulevard; Road 60 — Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 68 Place — Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 68 — FCID canal north to City Limits; Road 68 —1-182 to Sandifur Boulevard; Road 76 - east side from Sandifur Parkway to a point 620 feet south of Wrigley Drive; Road 76 - (west side) Wrigley Drive to Burden Boulevard; Road 76 - west side from Sandifur Parkway to Wrigley Drive; Road 80 - from Court Street south; Road 84 - from Sunset Lane south; Road 84 — Argent Road to Chapel Hill Boulevard; Road 100 — Court Street to FCID canal; Rodeo Drive — Road 68 to Convention Place; Ruby Street - between Fourth and Fifth Avenues; Sandifur Boulevard — Broadmoor Boulevard to Robert Wayne Drive; Sandifur Boulevard — (north side) Robert Wayne Drive to Road 60; Sandifer Boulevard — from Road 60 to Road 62; Sandifirr Parkway - from Road 60 to Road 44; Seventeenth Avenue - (west side) "A" Street to Washington Street; Shoshone Street - 22nd Avenue to 23rd Avenue; Sun Willows Boulevard - both sides of street from its intersection with 20th Avenue to its eastern terminus; Sylvester Street — (south side) 20th Avenue to 28th Avenue; Sylvester Street — (north side) one hundred feet east of 26th Avenue to 28th Avenue; Sylvester Street - From the east line of 20th Avenue to a point 290 feet east thereof; Tenth Avenue - both sides of street from "A" Street to `B" Street; Tenth Avenue - from `B" Street to and including the Inter -City Bridge; Tenth Avenue - both sides of street from Lewis Street to Clark Street; Third Avenue — (east side) fifty feet south of Columbia Street; Third Avenue - (east side) fifty feet north of Columbia Street; Third Avenue — both sides of street 100 feet north of Sylvester Street; Third Avenue — both sides of street 100 feet south of Sylvester Street; Third Avenue - On the west side from a point five hundred seventy-five feet north of Margaret Street to a point six hundred fifty feet north of Margaret Street; Twentieth Avenue — From Lewis Street to Argent Road except on the east side of 20th Avenue only from a point one hundred seventy feet south of Hopkins Street to Lewis Street; Twenty Second Avenue — (west side) to 550 feet south of West Henry Place; Twenty Eighth Avenue — (west side) Lewis Street to Sylvester Street; Washington Street — 9th Avenue to 10th Avenue; Wrigley Drive — Road 76 to Clemente Lane; Road 26 - Both sides of Road 26, from a point 120 feet south of the south curb line of Court Street on the east side and 245 feet south of Court Street on the west side, to 250 feet north of the north curbline of Court Street. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this day of July, 2014. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 30, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: REZONE: (MF# Z2014 -002) Rezone Property from C-3 (General Business) to R- 3 (Medium - Density Residential) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Fortune Rezone -Vicinity Map 2. Fortune Rezone - Proposed Ordinance 3. Fortune Rezone - Report to the Planning Commission 4. Fortune Rezone - Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 5/15/14 & 6/19/14 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/7: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , rezoning the property located at the northeast corner of Utah Avenue and Spokane Street from C -3 to R -3, and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On May 15, 2014 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend rezoning the northeast comer of Utah Avenue and Spokane Street from C -3 to R -3. B. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it would be appropriate to recommend a change in zoning for the property in question. C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. 8(0 0 b1 Y� 1 r r� • PEA M� ow M N N u � C U � N U r� b1 Y� 1 r r� • PEA b1 Y� 1 r r� ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF UTAH AVENUE AND SPOKANE STREET FROM C -3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) TO R -3 (MEDIUM- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL). WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such petition; and, WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and, WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that: (A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium- Density Residential) for the real property as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: Blocks 4 and 5 together with vacated north south alley adjacent, Frey's Addition Section 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7t' day of July, 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FOR: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney z 3AduaMo 21Ad H3:1219 E.-. a x M N N x � � O d' aAV gHgM O � O N N �i U „ �w w REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 2014 -002 APPLICANT: Chester & Jaqueline Fortune HEARING DATE: 5/15/2014 313 N 61b Avenue ACTION DATE: 6/19/2014 Walla Walla, WA 99362 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium - Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel #'s 113 - 504 -020 & 113 - 504 -011: Block 4 and Block 5 together with vacated north south alley adjacent, Frey's Addition General Location: The northeast corner of the intersection of Spokane Street and Utah Avenue Property Size: The combined area of the parcels is approximately 1.9 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from Utah Avenue and Spokane Street. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site from Utah Avenue and Spokane Street. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C -3 (General Business) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C -3 - Vacant SOUTH: R -3 - Multi - Family Residences EAST: R -1 -A - Single - Family Residences/ Vacant WEST: C -3 - Office /Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for Mixed Residential uses. Goal LU -3 -13 encourages infill and (higher) density to protect open space and critical areas in support of more walkable neighborhoods. Goal LU -3 -E encourages the city to designate area for higher density residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11 -158. ANALYSIS Chester and Jaqueline Fortune have applied to change the zoning designation of Blocks 4 and 5, Frey's Addition from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium - Density Residential) to allow for multi - family residential development. The subject site is comprised of two parcels with a combined area of slightly less than two acres. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates this site for Mixed Residential land uses which allows a variety of residential (density) zones ranging from RS -20 (Suburban) through R -3. Of the allowable zones under the Mixed Residential designation, the R -3 zone allows for the highest residential density at a rate of one dwelling unit for every 3,000ft2 of land area or 14.5 units per acre. The site lies on the border of two zoning districts, C -3 (General Business) and R -1 (Low- Density Residential). Generally, the uses permitted in the C -3 zone are heavy commercial in nature such as contractor's yards and heavy equipment sales and services, which are potentially disruptive to lifestyles enjoyed in single - family neighborhoods. It is common urban planning practice to assign higher- density residential zones or sometimes office zones, to transitional areas such as this to serve as buffers between contrasting zoning districts. For this reason it may be appropriate to assign the R -3 zone to the site. Land directly south of the site is currently zoned R -3 and contains the Bishop Topel Haven apartments which is a 43 townhome -style residential development. The success of the Bishop Topel Haven development may indicate land use /zoning compatibility in the general vicinity. A bulk of the site borders two existing roadways; they are Utah Avenue and Spokane Street which are paved but lack frontage improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights and landscaping. Construction of these improvements will be required at the building permit stage. All property lines of both parcels border public rights -of -way. Prior to development it is foreseen that right -of -way may be required to be dedicated and that the owners may also wish to vacate portions of Duluth Street and /or Nevada Avenue. These activities may affect the area of land available to accommodate future development. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The date the existing zone became effective: The current zoning classification was established over 40 -years ago. 2 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: A 43 -unit multi family residential named Bishop Topel Haven was developed immediately south of the site. The success of the Bishop Topel Haven has provided an attractive example of the possibility for residential development in the area. Also, the single-family residential neighborhoods east of Wehe Avenue have experienced substantial infill over the years; generating a need for alternate housing options. 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: The rezone will create a medium - density (residential) transition /buffer between residential areas to the east and commercial zones to the west. The rezone from C -3 to R -3 will encourage "infill and density including planned unit developments to protect open space and critical areas," as per Land Use Policy LU -3 -B, and allow for "higher - density residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources," in keeping with Land Use Policy LU -3 -E. This rezone would still align with that intended goal and also "Allow for a full range of residential environments including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing," consistent with Housing Policy H-2-A. 4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive Plan: A change in zoning classification resulting in a multi family residential development will enhance the residential character of the vicinity by providing a wider range of housing opportunities. The rezone from C -3 to R -3 will encourage "infill and density including planned unit developments to protect open space and critical areas," as per Land Use Policy LU -3 -B, and allow for "higher- density residential development where utilities and transportation facilities enable efficient use of capital resources," in keeping with Land Use Policy LU -3 -E. This rezone would still align with that intended goal and also "Allow for a full range of residential environments including single family homes, townhouses, condominiums, apartments, and manufactured housing," consistent with Housing Policy H-2-A. 5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: Without transitioning the site to a residential zoning classification residential development will not occur on the property. The applicant may not wish to proceed with any site development if it cannot be residential in nature. 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 comprised of two parcels. 2. The site is vacant. 3. The site is currently zoned C -3 (General Business). 4. The applicant is requesting the R -3 (Medium - Density Residential) zoning district be assigned to the site. 5. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed - Residential uses which allows assignment of a range of residential zones including R -3 (Medium- Density Residential). 6. The R -3 zone is the highest density allowed under the Mixed Residential land use designation, allowing 1 dwelling unit for every 3,000 square feet of land area. 7. The site is approximately 1.9 acres in area. 8. All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site from adjoining roadways. 9. The site to the south is similarly zoned R -3 and contains a 43 -unit multi- family townhome -style residential development. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and several Plan policies and goals. Land Use Policy LU -3 -B encourages "infill" development while H-2 -A suggests the City permit a full range of residential environments. Housing Policy (H -B -A) encourages standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses. The zoning standards for proposed rezone would be similar to the standards for the multi family development to the south. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. rd The proposed R -3 zoning will permit site development matching the density of the Bishop Topel Haven development to the south. Based on past experience with rezoning and development of vacant land adjacent to existing single-family and multi family developments, and evidence provided by tax records of Franklin County, the proposed rezone will not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. Lying on the dividing line between single-family zoned neighborhoods to the east and heavy commercial land to the west, the application of a multi family residential zoning to the site will serve as a buffer between the two contrasting land uses. Land immediately south of the site is zoned R -3 and contains a multi- family development; establishment of similar zoning and development on the subject site will further establish the multi family character of the vicinity. There is merit in providing an increased range of housing opportunities available in those areas currently served my municipal utilities and public transportation and will enable efficient use of capital resources. The proposal is supported by land use goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. No special conditions would be required. 5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A concomitant agreement is not needed. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the June 19, 2014 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone from C -3 to R -3 for Franklin County tax parcel #'s 113- 504 -020 and 113- 504 -011. ^� M� �� �� O� � N N � � O � �� ®� � � N ��N ... �..� � � � a� � � _- -�; �, �� �� , A ..;. :; ��. .. _�. �� �� _- -�; �, �� �� , A ..;. :; ��. .. _�. z LE 3AV NaIAO U U � vs �U it Fil rr aAV H3513g A O � O � 3AV 3HUM 'cn ci .. ANt UzA o U 3AV NUMO i HAS' H33Hg F �' A M 9 M N 3AV 3H:lA9 � o �� W \� ILL a� \ \�? \ \� <® a CCU buO .r..4 �0 � -1 1 3 r � "�tt ^'"1'.l f r4 ±A F 1 Nt"i✓j ylk �p�'r� "4 J"W � ;y a4 �3N ? 4 k R Y n yl 0 • C/) b.0 � 0 0 All 4f 1v 1J, Iz Al ol, a� r O 0 Planning Commission Minutes 5/15/2014 Rezone from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 D. Rezone (Medium Density Residential) (Chester & Jagueline Fortune) (MF# Z 2014 -002) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium Density Residential). The site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Spokane Street and Utah Avenue and contains two parcels separated by some dedicated right -of -way. The land area is currently 1.9 acres but upon future development, the applicant may wish to perform a variety of vacations and be required to do dedications altering the lot size so the exact number of units allowed on this site in accordance with the rezone is only estimated at 30 -40 units. The site is currently zoned for heavy equipment, sales, service and a variety of heavy commercial uses. Most of the surrounding vicinity is vacant. The site to the south contains an apartment complex which is well maintained and fits nicely in the neighborhood. The area to the east is all single - family zoning. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for mix - residential uses which would allow for a range of residential uses from suburban to R -3. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to close the public hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the June 19, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes 6/19/2014 C. Rezone Rezone from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium Density Residential) (Chester & Jagueline Fortune) (MF# Z 2014 -0021 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from C -3 (General Business) to R -3 (Medium Density Residential). He stated that there had been no changes to the staff report since the previous meeting. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as contained in the June 19, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the rezone from C -1 to R -3 for Franklin County tax parcel # 113 - 504 -020 and # 113- 504 -011. The motion passed unanimously. AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 1, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director A FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner SY // SUBJECT: DNR/SCHOOL DISTRICT REZONE: (MF# Z2014-001) Rezone from RT (Residenti al Transition and C -1 (Retail Business) to RS -1 (Suburban Residential) R -I (Low Density Residential) R -3 (Medium Density Residential) O (Office) and C -1 (Retail Business) I. REFERENCE(S): I. DNR/School District Rezone -Vicinity Map 2. DNR/School District Rezone - Proposed Ordinance 3. DNR/School District Rezone - Report to the Planning Commission 4. DNR/School District Rezone - Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 5/15/14 & 6/19/14 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/7: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , rezoning the Department of Natural Resources and School District property south of I -182 between Road 68 and Road 84 from RT and C- 1 to R -S -1, R -1, R -3, "O" and C -1 as recommended by the Planning Commission, and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On May 15, 2014 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend rezoning the DNR and School District south of I -182 from RT and C -1 to RS -1, R -1, R -3, "O" and C -1. B. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it would be appropriate to recommend a change in zoning for the property in question. C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. 8(d) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES /SCHOOL DISTRICT SITE LOCATED IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH RANGE 29 EAST W.M. FROM RT (RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION) AND C -1 (RETAIL BUSINESS) TO RS -1 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL), R -1 (LOW - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), R -3 (MEDIUM - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL), "O" (OFFICE)AND C -1 (RETAIL BUSINESS). WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such petition; and, WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and, WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner, that: (A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification; NOW, THEREFORE, FOLLOWS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from RT (Residential Transition) and C -1 (Retail Business) to R -1 (Low Density Residential) as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: That portion of the Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of said Section 16 which bears S 01013'14" W 382.10 feet from the Northwest Comer of said Section 16, said point also being a point on a curve to the right whose radius point bears S 23 °02'54" W 1000.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 06 002'59" 105.59 feet to a reverse curve to the left having a radius point which bearing N 29° 05'53" E 1000.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 06 003144" 105.81 feet; thence S 66 °57'51" E 1604.89 to a curve to the right whose radius point bears S 23 °02'09" W 500.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 65 °0721" 568.30 feet; thence S 01'50'30" E 473.48 feet to a curve to the left whose radius point bears N 88 °09'30" E 550.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 85 039'07" 822.20 feet; thence S 87 °29'37" E 87.31feet; thence S 00 °32'53" W 1589.90 feet to the southerly margin of the right -of -way of the existing canal shown on the Franklin County Irrigation District No. 1 right -of -way dated October 28,1919, filed under Application No. 10843 with the Office of the Commissioner of Public Lands, Olympia, Washington; thence westerly along said southerly margin, 1408 feet more or less to the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 16; thence along said west line, N 00 °59'56" E 1035.65 feet to the Northwest corner of said subdivision; thence along the south line of said Northwest Quarter of said Section 16,S 89 117'26" W 1321.98 feet to the West Quarter corner of said Section 16; thence along the west line of said Northwest quarter, N 01013'14" E 2254.03 feet to the True Point of Beginning; and, That portion of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the a point on the east line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16 which bears S 00 137'41" W 691.51feet from the Northeast corner; thence N 85 °07159" W 356.38 feet to a curve to the right whose radius point bears N 04'52'01"E 500.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 53 °2629" 466.36 feet; thence N 31 041'30" W 229.74 feet to a curve to the left whose radius point bears S 58 118'30" W 550.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 55 048'07" 535.66; thence N 87 °29'37" W 7.58 feet; thence S 00 °32153" W 1589.90 feet to the south margin of the right of way of the existing canal shown on the Franklin County Irrigation District No. 1 right of way dated October 28, 1919, filed under Application No. 10843 with the Office of the Commissioner of Public Lands, Olympia, Washington; thence easterly along said margin 1406 feet more or less to the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16; thence along said east line N 00 °37'41" E 455.51feet to the northeast corner of said subdivision; thence along the east line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16, N 00 °37'41" E 627.05 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Together with that portion of the NW quarter of the SW quarter of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., lying northerly of the FCID Canal. Section 2. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from RT (Residential Transition) to R -3 (Medium Density Residential) as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: That portion of the North half of section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., lying south of state Highway 182, as shown on Plat of Right of Way for State Route no. 182 on file with the office of the Commissioner of Public Lands, Olympia, Washington, also known as SRI 260 more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the west line of said subdivision which bears S 01 ° 13'14" W 17.15 feet from the Northwest corner of said Section 16, said point also being the intersection of the south margin of said State Highway and the West line of said subdivision; thence continuing along said west line, S 01113'14" W 364.95 feet to a point on a curve to the right whose radius point bears S23 °02'54" W 1000.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 06 002159" 105.59 feet to a reverse curve to the left the radius point bears N 29 °05'53" E 1000.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 06 003'44" 105.81feet; thence S66 057'51" E 1604.89 feet to a curve to the right whose radius point bears S 23 002'09" W 500.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 65 007'21" 568.30 feet; thence S 01050'30" E 473.48 feet to a curve to the left whose radius point bears N 88 °09'30 "E 550.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 85 °39'07" 822.20 feet; thence S 87 029'37" E 87.31feet; thence N O1 021'27" E 904.66 feet to a curve to the left whose radius point bears N88 118'26" W 340.00 feet; thence along said curve through the central angle of 26 013'19" 155.60 feet; thence N 24 °31'45" W 85.62 feet to a curve to the right whose radius point bears N 65 °28115" E 490.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 39 °56'33" 341.59 feet to the south margin of said State Highway, thence along said south margin, N 66 °57'51" W 2738.23 feet more or less to the True Point of Beginning. Section 3. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from RT (Residential Transition) to RS -1 (Suburban Residential) as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: That portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., lying south of the south margin of the right of way of the existing canal shown on the Franklin County Irrigation District No. 1 right -of -way dated October 28, 1919, filed under Application No. 10843 with the Office of the Commissioner of Public Lands, Olympia, Washington more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said subdivision; thence N 00 049'09" E 1193.76 feet to the south margin of said right of way for Franklin County Irrigation District No. 1; thence easterly along said south margin 1390 feet more or less to the east line of said subdivision; thence along said east line S 00 037141" W 863.03 feet to the southeast comer of said subdivision; thence along the south line of said subdivision, S 89 018'18" W 1329.98 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Section 4. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from RT (Residential Transition) to C -1 (Retail Business) as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: That portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., lying west of the centerline of DNR Easement no. 50 -48469 as shown on document dated December 7, 1990 on file with the office of the Commissioner of Public Lands, Olympia, Washington and lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said subdivision which bears N 00 °37'41" E 627.05 feet from the Southwest comer thereof, thence S 85 °07'59" E 931.30 feet to the centerline intersection of said DNR Easement No. 50 -48469 and DNR Easement No. 50- 090771, also being station CRI8 +98.25 as shown on Record of Survey filed in Volume 2, Page 825, records of Franklin County, Washington and the terminus of said line description except the southerly300 feet thereof. Section 5. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from RT (Residential Transition) to "O" (Office) as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: That portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., lying west of the centerline of DNR Easement no. 50 -48469 as shown on document dated December 7, 1990 on file with the office of the Commissioner of Public Lands, Olympia, Washington and lying southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west line of said subdivision which bears N 00 °37'41" E 627.05 feet from the Southwest comer thereof; thence S 85 °07'59" E 931.30 feet to the centerline intersection of said DNR Easement No. 50 -48469 and DNR Easement No. 50- 090771, also being station CR18+98.25 as shown on Record of Survey filed in Volume 2, Page 825, records of Franklin County, Washington and the terminus of said line description except the northerly 327.05 feet thereof. Section 6. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map, accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from RT (Residential Transition) and C -1 (Retail Business) as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: That portion of the North Half of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W.M., lying south of State Highway 182, as shown on Plat of Right of Way for State Route No. 182 on file with the office of the commissioner of Public Lands, Olympia, Washington, also known as SR 1260 and westerly of the centerline of DNR Easement No. 50 -48469 as shown on document date December 7,1990 on file with the office of the Commissioner of Public Lands, Olympia, Washington, also known as Road 68, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the a point on the east line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 16 which bears S 00 037'41" W 691.51 feet from the Northeast corner; thence N 85 °07'59" W 356.38 feet to a curve to the right whose radius point bears N 04 °52'01 "E 500.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 53 026129" 466.36 feet; thence N 31 041130" W 229.74 feet to a curve to the left whose radius point bears S 58 °18'30" W 550.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 55 °48'07" 535.66; thence N 87 029'37" W 7.58 feet; thence N 01* 21127" E 904.66 feet to a curve to the left whose radius point bears N 88 018'26" W 340.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 26 113'19 155.60 feet; thence N 24 °31'45" W 85.62 feet to a curve to the right whose radius point bears N 65 028'15" E 490.00 feet; thence along said curve through a central angle of 39 °56'33" 341.59 feet to the south margin of said State Highway, thence southeasterly along said margin 1930 feet more or less to Station CR28 +00 as shown said Plat of Right of Way for State Route No. 182, also being the centerline of said DNR Easement No. 50- 48469; thence along said centerline, S 11'41'06" E 901.75 feet to the intersection of said DNR Easement No. 50 -48469 and DNR Easement No. 50- 090771; thence N 85 007159" W 931.30 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Section 7. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7'" day of July, 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FOR: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO. Z 2014 -001 APPLICANT: DNR HEARING DATE: 5/15/14 1111 Washington St SE ACTION DATE: 6/19/14 Olympia, WA 98504 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) and C -1 (Retail Business) to RS -1 (Suburban Residential) R- 1 (Low - Density Residential) R -3 (Medium - Density Residential). R -4 (High- Density Residential) O (Office) and C -1 (Retail Business) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: The west half of said Section 16 between the north line of the FCID Irrigation Canal and the south line of Highway I -182 and the southeast 1/4 of said Section 16 west of Road 68 except the southeast 1/4 thereof together with the northeast 1/4 of said Section 16 except that portion lying northerly of Highway I -182 and easterly of Road 68. General Location: South of I -182 between Road 68 and Road 84. Property Size: Approximately 320 Acres. 2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 68, Road 84 and Argent Road. Chapel Hill Boulevard is planned to extend between Road 68 and Road 84 and Road 76 is planned to extend north from Argent providing additional arterial access. 3. UTILITIES: All utilities are available in surrounding developments to the east and west. A 24 inch sewer trunk line is located along the southern 140 feet of the site from the end of Valley View Drive to Road 84. A 15 inch sewer trunk line also runs north and south through the site approximately 1,200 feet east of Road 84. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and C -1 (Retail Business) and is being farmed. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: North The site borders I -182. Properties to the north of the freeway are zoned C -1, RT and R- 1— Lowe's, residential development and vacant land South RP, RS -1, RS -20 (County) -- Pathfinder Mobile Home Park, Chiawana High School and SFDU's East RS -20 (County) & C -1 - SFDUs, Vacant land and 1 Commercial development West R -1 - SFDUs 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low- density residential development, mixed residential and commercial land uses. Land Use Policies discourage the development of strip commercial development (LU -1 -C) to avoid disruptions to residential neighborhoods (LU -4 -A). Commercial development is encouraged to locate at the intersections of major streets. Housing policies encourages the development of medium and high density housing to locate near arterials and neighborhood or community shopping centers (H -1 -A). Other policies encourage the development of a full range of residential environments and the advancement of programs supporting home ownership (H -2 -A & H -1 -E). The Allocation of Land Uses Table in Volume 2 of the Comprehensive Plan indicates low- density residential and mixed residential development zoning is to be established when sewer service is available, when there is a market demand and where land is suitable for home sites. The table also indicates mixed residential (multi - family) development should be located along major circulation routes and be used in transition areas between more intense uses and low density areas. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11 -158. ANALYSIS The property in question was annexed to the City in 1982 and is located more or less in the center of the Pasco Urban Growth Area. Since the mid- 1990's almost six (5.78 sq. miles) square miles of land has developed around the site. This development has included single family residential subdivisions, multi- family developments, schools, community facilities, offices and commercial services. While most of the I -182 Corridor has been developed with residential subdivisions, schools, community facilities, commercial businesses the site has remained vacant and in agricultural production (78 acres are vacant the remained is being farmed). The State has now recognized farming in the center of town is problematic with the rural /urban conflicts associated with farm equipment noise, hours of operation, dust and chemical usage. The Loviisa Farms subdivision is only about 70 feet from the west edge of the main farm field on the site. As a result 2 the Legislature passed Senate Bill # 5035 in 2013 that included Section #3238 directing the DNR to coordinate with the City to rezone the site in preparation for a land sale. The Legislation suggested the rezoning of the site should be consistent with the planning map held by the DNR. That planning map was based in part on a refinement of the land use map contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan and was reviewed by the Planning Commission in December of 2012. The DNR planning map is also the map submitted with the rezone request illustrating the preferred zoning for the site. The requested zoning map attached to this report reflects the DNR request. Notice of the hearing was published to indicate the rezone may involve a change from the current RT (Residential Transition) and C -1 (Retail Business) zoning to RS -1 (Suburban Residential) R -1 (Low - Density Residential), R -3 (Medium - Density Residential), R -4 (High- Density Residential), O (Office) and C- 1 (Retail Business). The C -1 district was listed twice above because a portion of the current C -1 property will eventually be below the realignment of Chapel Hill Boulevard in an area that will be more appropriate for another zoning classification. Twenty-five acres of the property being considered under this rezone is owned by the Pasco School District. The District has consented to have their property included in the overall rezone. The site is located in the center of the Pasco UGA which by definition is an area established for the encouragement of urban development. The site is more or less surrounded by urban development and is located adjacent to the busiest freeway interchange in the City. The City's land use plans for the past 30 years have indicated the site should be utilized for low density residential, mixed residential and commercial development. Following the direction of the land use plan, most of the community's residential and commercial development over the last two decades has occurred in the I -182 corridor. Development skipped over the DNR site because the land was not available for private development. Direction from the State Legislature has now made the land available for sale for private development provided it can be rezoned following the refined land use plan for the site. Rezoning the site would implement policies of the Comprehensive Plan and would support past community development efforts related to infrastructure improvements. Rezoning the property will enable development that will allow for needed utility extensions through the site to provide the looping needed to enhance reliability and safety for the area. Rezoning the site will also enable the completion of Chapel Hill Boulevard between Road 68 and Road 84 ultimately improving the transportation system to more effectively disperse traffic and provide alternate routes for emergency vehicles. The east half of Road 84 would also be able to be completed if the property was rezoned to allow development. 3 The proposed R -1 zoning will match the zoning in the Loviisa Farms subdivision to the west and the zoning of the Chapel Hill subdivision east of Road 68. The areas proposed for C -1 zoning will complement the commercial zoning on the other corners of the interchange to the north, northeast and east. The multi - family zoning proposal will take advantage of a site adjacent to a major arterial and will provide a buffer between C -1 zoning and R -1 zoning. The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in PMC. 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows: 1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional zoning: Adjacent development and growth within the City make the proposed zone change appropriate, timely, and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Surrounding properties in the I -182 corridor have been developed for several years and have essentially skipped over the DNR property. Almost 6 square miles of land have been developed on the west side of Pasco in the past 20 years. Changed conditions in the neighborhood include installation of all utilities in the surrounding subdivision, construction of major streets as well as the construction of homes, apartments, schools, parks, community facilities and commercial buildings. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: The rezone will enable the DNR to sell the property to residential developers who will extend utilities with construction of subdivisions thereby looping the utilities for reliability and safety. Intertying the utilities will advance the safety and general welfare of the community. Development of the property will also improve arterial circulation between Road 68 and Road 84 by dispersing traffic and providing alternate routes for emergency vehicles. The safety and general welfare of the community will also be advanced because this rezone will lead to the elimination of a large farming operation in the center of an urban community. The elimination of the farm will eliminate the application of various chemicals, operation of nosy machinery and generation of dust. Elimination of the farming operation will lead to a more safe and secure environment for residential life. 3. The effect it will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan: Based on past experience with rezoning vacant land and farm land adjacent to existing subdivisions, and evidence provided by tax records of Franklin County, the proposed rezone will not negatively impact adjoining properties. Rezoning the property will assist with the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The effect on the property owners if the request is not granted: 0 The DNR is under a mandate to sell the residential portions of their property by June of 2015. The State legislation adopted for the property requires the DNR to work with the city on rezoning the property prior to the sale. Without the rezone the sale will be delayed. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial, low - density residential and mixed residential development. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Plan. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of Fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial Findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add Findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and has been zoned RT for approximately 30 years. 2. The site is in the Pasco UGA. 3. The site is located in the I -182 Corridor. 4. Since the mid- 1990's 5.78 square miles of land in the I -182 Corridor has been developed with a combination of residential housing, schools, parks, community facilities, offices and commercial businesses. 5. The Loviisa Farms subdivision with over 900 homes is located 70 feet to the west of the site on the west side of Road 84. 6. The Loviisa Farms subdivision was completed in 2007. 7. The Chapel Hill subdivision with over 400 apartment units and close to 300 single - family homes is located to the east of the site on the east side of Road 68. 8. The Pathfinder Mobile Home Park and the new Chiawana High School are located directly to the south of the site. 9. The site is located adjacent to the busiest freeway interchange in Pasco. 10. The site has been bypassed by development due to constraints. 11. The site is currently being farmed. 12. Farming in the center of an urban area is problematic. The generation of dust, noise and use of farm chemicals are all inconsistent with the peaceful coexistence with surrounding residential development. 13. The site is owned by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 14. The State Legislature directed (ESSB 5035) the DNR to coordinate with the City of Pasco to rezone the site. 15. Two sewer trunk lines are located within the site. 16. The current farming operation is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5 17. The rezone will facilitate an infill development which is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. 18. Surrounding subdivisions contain zoning similar to the zoning proposed for the site. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a Rezone, the Planning Commission must develop its conclusions from the Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: 1. The proposal is in accordance with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan including the following: Land Use Policy LU -3 -B encourages "infill" development while H -2 -A suggests the City permit a full range of residential environments including single-family and multi family dwellings. Land Use Policy LU -1 -C discourages the development of strip commercial development and LU -4 A guides the location of commercial facilities to major street intersections to avoid commercial sprawl and disruptions to residential neighborhoods. Policy H -1 -A encourages the development of medium and high density housing to locate near arterials and neighborhood or community shopping centers. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The proposed R -1 zoning matches the R -1 zoning in the Chapel Hill and Loviisa Farms subdivisions and will permit the development of single-family dwellings under similar development standards that applied to the Chapel Hill and Loviisa Farms development. The commercial zoning portion of the proposal will be consistent with the existing commercial zoning on the site and the C -1 zoning on the other corners of the I -182 /Road 68 Interchange. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. Adjacent residential development and growth within the City make the zone change appropriate, timely and consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The rezone will facilitate a residential infill project that will improve utility redundancy in the area and provide for the completion of Chapel Hill Boulevard and Road 84. The proposal will also lead to the removal of a large farming operation in the heart of the urban area. 4. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The proposed zoning is identical to the zoning in the Chapel Hill development and as a result there is no need for conditions. 11 5. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. A Concomitant Agreement is not needed. RECOMMENDATION MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the June 19, 2014 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the DNR and School District property in Section 16 from RT and C -1 to R1 -S, R -1, R -3, Office and C -1 as illustrated in the "Proposed Zoning" exhibit attached to June 19, 2014 staff report. 7 11 fi► t ow f�fd r SS N y ,` N_'e�'r5�t jii e9 Ag orFm On c , • IIIIIN rt n uF „Z. S! w u' er ti 9v C AM {Q � o •s� ,t: a. s a 'a r ,sue x ,� fiY����iii��i�' w. s «� �a dial .y, w �_. x» •y+�0 y"� 'A��'1731F��3gFnr �Ir>< , .,� ky r� m4 �� 3r �� ,y'r zi �w,$y'9' tt• �� p�fFA�"� Kipp � Ott ,,w�rryy � � �, i3!J� %"'�•''Y ``�,'R4s. ��w,'Ja'nW �R,k, , '�','`�3th' -�' '�� p � ,�.e;YC • : Kv ; : avii�l3?�`A�.'k�'.�.� 9;;��•,,� ;'�',��► �rnr�wrn�q "ar�� � F� I 9 SE ,li?73c�.'�• MF �` � °� IJrSI ��'.r8 � � n��� � St�i!`f"�'�"b ,fi xt,, .►N� � ^-�� 4 *� �:��f"'��,3��c+il� �� AO in 0 r� �--i Ld r-1 rll7 o � o O• NOON Icy • �N Me i t A Z ry �F 4 4 a �ydi2•t'� §"I�n +AS �i:W "'3 *�"�;� e*Sf'°EY�?°i�5�4 � . !.r e� �r •m b a �`� :fak yea �t,a w"' s _i5�?I' *�t�3gt '4 ��# . .�.a ;i as .*f +,•fit �e�'�a�` �Yt�" yap +�y s � '��� �i�.E L�7��3F;T ..,�, �. � W, .,.. � �.�yp �•4►° rya ��o%rlCCi''#' '� %,� Lam, s•aoce ^d�.�rt -� � '� wwm- Planning Commission Minutes 5/15/2014 E. Rezone Zoning of Department of Natural Resources Section 16 IMF# Z 2014 -0011 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. David McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application for the Department of Natural Resources property. Staff published this public hearing in the newspaper, on the City website as well as mailed a notice to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed site. The City received a number of letters of correspondence and emails from individuals requesting comments to be placed into the record. Planning Commissioners were given a packet on the bench with the comments Staff had received and Mr. McDonald read the names of those individuals who had submitted comments into the record. Many of the comments received were via email without residential addresses of those individuals; however Staff can determine that there are two of these individuals in city- limits and the others reside in the "donut- hole" to the south. The rezone request comes from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) who is the owner of the property located between the north line of the FCID Irrigation Canal and the south line of Highway 182 and west of Road 68. This property has been under control of the DNR ever since the State of Washington existed and was annexed into the City of Pasco in 1982 when the I -182 Corridor was annexed into the community. Back in 1982 this land was vacant sagebrush and zoned RT (Residential Transition) which was assigned to properties that were typically undeveloped or vacant, sometimes farmland, and is a holding zone to these vacant properties until circumstances in the community change and then the property would be transitioned. Since 1982, much of the I -182 Corridor has been developed and this is one of the last properties that have not been developed. The DNR has realized that it is in the middle of the urban area and is hard to farm due to surrounding development and with a farm comes dust, noise, chemical applications and operations at various hours of the day. The DNR has been working with City for a couple of years to transition this property from rural farming activity to urban development. In 2012, staff with the help of DNR, presented a land use map for this area to refine the Comprehensive Plan designations for the property. Once that was completed the State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 5035 in 2013 that instructed the DNR to coordinate with the City to rezone this property consistent with the land use map. The DNR submitted a letter requesting that the property be rezoned Commercial, R -1 (Low- Density Residential), R -S -1 (Suburban) and either R -3 or R -4 (Medium or High Density Residential). Part of the property in the southwest corner, consisting of two parcels, is owned by the Pasco School District. The School District submitted a letter to the City requesting that their property also be included in this rezone process. Rezoning the property would implement policies of the Comprehensive Plan, enable development to occur, which would allow for the extension of utilities to the site and would allow for the extension of Chapel Hill Boulevard to connect Road 100 to Road 68. That road would provide alternate routes for emergency vehicles located at the fire station at Road 68. Mr. McDonald briefly discussed the various zoning and the location of such zoning that is being proposed and surrounding land uses. The breakdown of proposed zoning is; 76% for Single - Family, 1% for Office, 15% for Commercial and 8% for Multi- Family. After a completed survey it was determined that there should be a buffer along the highway and Chapel Hill Boulevard with R -3 zoning. Commissioner Polk asked if the City Council or if the citizens of Pasco have any goals of developing the area. Mr. McDonald responded that the City Council and community through the Comprehensive Plan established goals, policies and direction for development within the community and this rezone will implement those goals. Commissioner Khan questioned the email responses from citizens that were given to the Planning Commissioner's prior to the meeting, in particular from Roger Lenk, who . commented that the DNR was not the applicant. Mr. McDonald answered that the DNR is the applicant and many of the responses stated incorrect information. The rezone application came directly from the Department of Natural Resources in response to State Legislature directing the DNR to work with the City in the form of a letter. When the letter from DNR was received, Staff spoke with the School District about their adjoining property and in turn they wrote a letter requesting a rezone. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that the packet on the bench given to the Planning Commission from citizens was received by the City email system either late the prior evening or the day of the meeting and they comments have not been vetted due to time. However, several inaccuracies were noted. Chairman Cruz added that while the emails and comments must be part of the public record it does not necessarily make the comments true but all evidence must be looked at critically. Chairman Cruz also added that sending comments on the day of the meeting, especially several, does not give the Planning Commissioner's or Staff proper time to read the comments. Commissioner Khan asked staff what is the responsibility of the City to have mixed residential available, such as; RS -20, RS -12, R -S -1, R -1, R -2, R -3 and R -4. The comments received refer to crime being associated with high density residential but the City may need various housing for people of various income levels. Mr. McDonald responded that the Comprehensive Plan encourages a wide -range and type of residential development for all strata's of income and needs of people in the community. This proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan. An example of this type of development is across the highway, north of I -182 behind Wal -Mart. Chairman Cruz added that the Planning Commission needs to be mindful of transitioning between zoning moving from lower density to higher density to commercial. He also stated that high- density residential or apartments are not always related to crime. He could not think of a single instance that the increase in density increases crime per capita. Commissioner Khan agreed with Chairman Cruz in regards to higher density housing and crime. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she would like to see more Commercial and slightly less R -3 zoning. She felt that the area could use more Commercial along the highway. Commissioner Polk agreed with Commissioner Greenaway in that she would like to see more Commercial. Commissioner Greenaway asked if there has been an additional traffic study for the impact this will have on the south part of Road 68. Mr. McDonald responded that there have been several traffic studies done over the years and in the most recent study in 2012 a full build -out scenario was done. The studies suggested a list of projects that should be done as the community grows. The study suggests completing Chapel Hill Boulevard would take traffic off of Road 68. Chairman Cruz added to the completion of Chapel Hill Boulevard and how it would relieve traffic on Road 68. Mr. McDonald added in response to the need for Commercial development, studies by consultants have determined that the areas in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial will hold up for more than 50 years. This area in the proposed rezone is also not the only area for potential Commercial development. Everything to the east on Chapel Hill Boulevard is zoned for Commercial and there is land near Lowe's, up the Road 68 Corridor as well as Road 100. Placing Commercial development along the highway might make it marginal commercial development because of the distance from Road 68 and Road 100. Chairman Cruz stated that there needs to be enough density to support the Commercial. The urban growth boundary is also set so that development happens in the right places to prevent sprawl. Commissioner Portugal thanked staff for making sure the Commissioners were given all comments received by the public on this proposal. Rich Scrivner, Planning Manager for Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia, spoke on behalf of this application. He stated that staff summed up the proposal accurately and would be available for questions. He added that the DNR has been working with the City for several years for a strategy on this property. Matt Ringle, 3913 Galway Lane, spoke in support of the R -1 zoning proposed in part of this rezone. He was fearful that it was all going to be apartments and did not want to see the increased traffic that comes from apartments. He asked is residents would be notified if the proposed zoning changes from what was being presented.. Mr. White stated that this is the only public hearing and the proposed zoning and the only notification was for this hearing. In July, Planning Commission will deliberate and make a recommendation to City Council. Chairman Cruz added that public comments are welcomed but there will always be some houses that will abut higher density zoning. Mr. Ringle asked if there could be another public hearing. Chairman Cruz responded that the Planning Commission could choose to continue the public hearing but it is no required. Christal Ringle, 3913 Galway Lane, voiced concern about overpopulating the schools in the area. Chairman Cruz answered that all of the residential lots will be subject to the School Impact Fee, which is $4,700 for single - family dwelling units. This impact fee goes to the School District to assist with new schools for the increased population. Mr. Ringle replied that he's heard that Chiawanna High School and the two elementary schools in the area are at capacity as is which is why they are concerned. Mr. White answered that the School District does own property in the area and he believes it is in their plans to work with the City, Department of Natural Resources and any purchaser of the property so that they get a school site in their preferred site which would be an elementary school with a park. Mark MacFarlan, 6208 W. Argent Road, stated that he is a newly annexed resident of Pasco. He stated that he has seen a map that showed where roads were going to be roughly 6 -8 months ago. He stated that the area to the south of this proposed property currently has mostly large lots and asked if there was advantage to adding diversity it zoning to what is already there. He stated that the perception of Pasco is a nice area, smaller homes and crowded and schools are an issue. Mr. MacFarlan felt that there was an overaggressive desire to build in Pasco and wanted to maintain property value. He expressed that the proposed zoning is too dense and used Road 68 traffic as an example. Instead of the proposed zoning he requested R -S -1 zoning. Mr. MacFarlan also requested having a second public hearing. He asked if DNR has sold this property yet. Mr. White responded that they have not. Mr. MacFarlan asked why the property would be rezoned when it has not been sold. Mr. White answered that when the Planning Commission considered this back in 2012 for information purposes, a concept plan was done for the purpose of the City understanding what might in fact look like if developed with the Comprehensive Plan land use designations. Mr. MacFarlan stated that if this land is rezoned, nothing smaller than R -S -1 zoning should be applied. Bruce Clatterbuck, 3001 Road 72, stated that he appreciated receiving the public notification in the mail. Him and his wife are opposed to high density housing in the area. He appreciated the concept but agreed with Mr. MacFarlan. Mr. Clatterbuck spoke on concerns about theft with high density development, traffic congestion, infrastructure, aesthetics, sound walls and aggressive development in the area. Jan Tomlinson, 2116 Road 60, asked for zoning clarifications. Mr. McDonald answered that "O" is Office, R -1 (Low- Density Residential) with 7,200 square foot minimum lot sizes. R -3 and R -4 are higher density residential, such as multi- family. Ms. Tomlinson asked about a map that she saw on KEPR news. Mr. White answered that he was not aware of what map she was referring to or the KEPR news story. Mr. McDonald stated that there was a different map at one time that had the proposed school in a different location. Ms. Tomlinson asked about the location of a park. Mr. McDonald responded that the park would be adjoining to the school but all of the maps and sketches have not been final. Mr. White clarified that these are just sketches to show the public what the developed land might look like and was developed by an architect hired by the City. There have since been changes and it is simply a floating concept sketch, not a zoning map or a plat. Ms. Tomlinson stated that the land was going to be auctioned by DNR and whoever purchases the property will not have any say in what the zoning would be. She asked if it would be better if the purchaser was able to request the zoning. Chairman Cruz responded that it would not because they should buy it knowing what the expectations and intended land use is to match the Comprehensive Plan rather than them buying the land and later being denied. This allows the purchaser to know what they can or can't do with the property. It is more beneficial to developers to know what the zoning is on the property before they purchase. Chairman Cruz also referenced the urban growth boundary used to drive growth and development inward. The density of Pasco will continue to increase due to the urban growth boundary and the Planning Commission and City want it to happen thoughtfully. This is why there are transitions into different zoning districts. Ms. Tomlinson mentioned decreased traffic on Argent due to this proposed development and zoning. She did not see how there would be decreased traffic flow on Road 68 with all of the additional housing and commercial development. Chairman Cruz answered that Chapel Hill Boulevard, once completed, will provide an addition east to west route to relieve traffic from Argent Road. Currently Argent Road bears the brunt of the entire east to west traffic. Ms. Tomlinson asked if a traffic study could be completed. Chairman Cruz stated that with large developments traffic studies are completed. Mr. McDonald added that the 2012 study for Road 68 considered the full build -out of this property in that study and included this development. Ms. Tomlinson requested a second public hearing and post -pone a decision. Rich Scrivner, Department of Natural Resources, submitted his presentation for the record. Doug Redfield, 6909 Valley View Place, spoke on some of the changes in Pasco over the years. He asked what the lane width will be when Chapel Hill Boulevard is extended. Mr. White responded that it would be five lanes. Mr. Redfield asked how many people per home would be living in R -1 zoning. Mr. White answered roughly three per home. Mr. Redfield asked why the schools are so crowded if there are only three people per home. Mr. White stated that there aren't enough schools. The School District is independent from the City. They have an operating levy that they use to pay salaries, produce programs, run their yearly curriculum and they have to go to the voters for a bond for capital facilities, new schools for example, and renovation of existing schools. A number of bonds have failed which has resulted in the School District falling behind with the provision of elementary schools and in roughly 5 -7 years behind in a middle school. They will need to run another bond issue to provide the capital funds needed to construct more schools. Chairman Cruz added that there is a tie between how much debt the School District can carry to the assessed value. Mr. White explained that they are able to borrow on a bond is fixed by a ratio to its assessed value. The School District was near that recently and should be going down in the near future at which time they will try to receive approval from voters on another bond issue for two more elementary schools and a middle school. Mr. Redfield asked what the implementation time of this proposal. Mr. White stated that the Department of Natural Resources estimates that it will take slightly less than a year to bring to public auction. The development community would tell you that if a parcel is purchased it may take another year to go through approvals and studies to bring a product up and then another year after that to build. Roughly three years for the most sought after land within this section and much won't develop right away and could take a decade or more to develop. Mr. Redfield asked if it would be more practical to let the schools catch up. He also mentioned other projects that need to be brought up to date, such as infrastructure improvements. Chairman Cruz discussed some of the new projects, such as beautification of the fencing and School Impact Fees to help the School District get caught up but there is a lag in the system. Some of the infrastructure improvements will occur when the property is platted and gets developed. Mr. Redfield questioned what the grade level would be behind Valley View Place. Mr. White responded that there a consideration for the grade adjacent to Valley View Place. DNR has put forth a possibility that the C -1 (Retail Business) would like to be extended west along the Chapel Hill extension with the office space remaining as a buffer to those properties. The grade may in fact be a real problem to the development and might be a problem that is unsolved and may be undeveloped property, but perhaps not. It will definitely be difficult and most likely the last piece to develop in the whole area. Mr. Redfield asked if the residents nearby would be required to cement their wells. Mr. White answered no. All of the development in the area will be on city water, sewer, storm drainage. There will not be any impact on a well. Mr. Redfield mentioned a veterinary clinic on Road 88 that was required to cement their well. Mr. White was unaware of the reason behind that. The City doesn't make the call on wells, rather the Department of Health. He added that there is most likely more to the story because wells do not have to be closed up due to city water and sewer becoming available. Chairman Cruz agreed with Mr. White in that it would be a Department of Health issue. They may have had a sanitation concern of the existing wells. Mr. Redfield asked when sidewalks would be brought down Road 68. Mr. White answered that the community doesn't put in fully built roads, sidewalks and street lights because they can't afford it. It is almost always done in partnership with the development and when this property develops those will be required as a condition of the development. Mr. Redfield spoke on the crime in apartment areas. Chairman Cruz explained that there is a difference between crime rate per capita and crime calls. With more people there will be more crimes statistically but that doesn't mean that there is more crime per number of people. So while there may be an increase in crime it won't be an increase in density of crime. Also, there is a big misconception that because there is an apartment complex that there is a "big drug haven" and the evidence doesn't support that conclusion. Mr. Redfield asked if there would be a buffer wall around Valley View Place. Mr. McDonald responded that on the north side where the office area will be located there will have to be a landscape buffer built into the code. It would have to be a landscape strip with trees and shrubs with a solid fence. Mr. Redfield asked what the lighting restrictions would be. Mr. McDonald answered that office areas aren't typically lit up like many commercial areas. There are dark sky regulations when abutting housing. Those would all be an issue when and if a development comes in and it will be looked at during that time. Chairman Cruz reiterated staff on the infrastructure and lighting issues and reminded the public what the Planning Commission is looking for at this time. Mr. Redfield asked if there could be another meeting when there are facts of the development rather than just a review of what it might look like. Chairman Cruz answered that the public will be notified during the platting process, not at this time. Christal Ringle, 3913 Galloway Lane, asked if this is the final zoning. Chairman Cruz responded yes. If the zoning changes it would have to come back as a rezone and the public would be notified. Mr. MacFarlan reiterated that he would like to see R -S -1 zoning be the minimum zoning for the residential proposed in this rezone. He asked Mr. McDonald if this follows the Comprehensive Plan the way it is proposed. Mr. McDonald responded that the Comprehensive Plan had a mix of single - family, multi- family and commercial. Mr. McFarlan asked why more of the R -1 couldn't be turned into R -S -1. Mr. McDonald answered that they are making some of the lots R -S -1. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway stated that she would like to make some of the R -3 (Medium Density Residential) C -1 (Retail Business) to see more commercial business in the area and would like to see it along the highway which would help with a sound barrier and take away the need for fencing. Chairman Cruz stated that there is only so much commercial that the city can support and studies have shown that putting it along the highway wouldn't be beneficial. Mr. White added that the consultant made the point that commercial would not be beneficial along the highway due to access. Commissioner Polk asked if a commercial building came into the area if they would get business from the Louvisa Farms neighborhood. Mr. White stated yes there will be neighboring traffic that would see this commercial but there are natural advantages of having the commercial come in from Road 68. Chairman Cruz stated that the proposed zoning reflects the demand in the area. Commissioner Polk reiterated that she would like to see more commercial zoning since there is already a feeling of a lot of residential development in Pasco. Mr. McDonald responded that there are currently 38 acres zoned C -1 in this proposal. On the north side there is nearly 45 acres of commercial. Chairman Cruz stated he would like to see a lot more C -1, however, there has to be a certain amount of residential to fill the need of the C -1. There was further discussion between Commissioner Polk and Mr. White regarding the proposed C -1 zoning and land use. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the June 19, 2014 meeting. The motion passed three to two, with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Polk dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes 6/19/2014 D. Rezone Zoning of Department of Natural Resources Section 16 IMF# Z 2014 -0011 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the Department of Natural Resources rezone application from RT (Residential Transition) to C -1 (Retail Business), RS -1 (Suburban Residential), R -1 (Low Density Residential), R -3 (Medium Density Residential) and O (Office). He stated that there had been no changes to the staff report since the previous meeting. He added that the proposed zoning map that was included in the staff report is the proposed zoning that will be presented to City Council. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the June 19, 2014 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 2, with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Polk dissenting. Commissioner Portugal moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone the DNR and School District property in Section 16 from RT and C -1 to RS -1, R -1, R -3, Office and C -1 as illustrated in the "Proposed Zoning" exhibit attached to the June 19, 2014 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 2, with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Polk dissenting. AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council June 30, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: AT &T Special Permit for the Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in a C -1 (Retail Business) Zone (MF# SP 2014 -005) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. AT &T Special Permit - Vicinity Map 2. AT &T Special Permit - Proposed Resolution 3. AT &T Special Permit - Report to Planning Commission 4. AT &T Special Permit - Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 5115114 and 6/19/14 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving the special permit for the location of wireless communication facilities at the southwest corner of W. Court Street and Road 68 as recommended by the Planning Commission. III. FISCAL IMPACT: l "il IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On May 15, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for the location of wireless communication facilities at the southwest corner of W. Court Street and Road 68. B. Following the 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 cellular tower. C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution. D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. 8(e) _rU xi 89 CIVOU ® a e W ftli 4i I, r ICI y� 5 j/j 3N R-��.•w tiiy��J 4 v� r. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE LOCATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COURT STREET AND ROAD 68. WHEREAS, AT &T, submitted an application for the location of cellular facilities at the southwest comer of W. Court Street and Road 68 (Tax Parcel 119 -701- 412); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 15, 2014 to review the proposed cellular facilities; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on June 19, 2014 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the proposed cellular tower 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 AT &T for the location of cellular facilities in a C -1 (Retail Business) District under Master File # SP2014 -005 with the following conditions: a) The special permit shall apply to parcel # 119 - 701 -412, Lot 2, Short Plat 93 -08, Franklin County WA; b) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the elevations and site plan submitted with the application except as conditioned herein; C) The cellular antennae tower shall not exceed 90 feet in height as measured from existing grade; d) The entire cellular antennae tower shall be treated with faux tree features including branches, foliage and bark; e) The ground -level equipment shall be screened from all adjacent rights - of -way by a block wall; f) The ground -level cellular equipment enclosure shall be surrounded by a landscaping buffer which obscures view of the equipment enclosure. Said landscaping buffer shall be served by an automatic irrigation system and shall be maintained in a well -kept manner by the applicant; g) The ground -level equipment enclosure shall be located no closer than fifteen (15) feet from the property line adjacent to Road 68; h) The driveway connecting Road 68 to the equipment enclosure shall be paved with either concrete or asphalt to the design specifications of the Pasco City Engineer; i) The antennae tower shall not emit white light between the hours of 6pm and 8am; j) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC regulations regarding radio frequency emissions; k) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit is not obtained by July 30, 2015. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7'h day of July, 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2014 -005 APPLICANT: AT&T Mobility HEARING DATE: 5/15/2014 918 S Horton Street, STE 1002 ACTION DATE: 6/19/2014 Seattle, WA 98134 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Wireless Communication Facilities in an RS -12 (Suburban) Zone PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel # 119 - 701 -412: Lot 2, Short Plat 93 -08 General Location: The southwest corner of the intersection of Road 68 and W. Court Street Property Size: The parcel is approximately 1.4 acres 2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from Road 68 and West Court Street. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site from Road 68 and West Court Street. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C -1 (Retail Business) and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: RS -20 (County) - Vacant SOUTH: C -1 - Commercial EAST: C-1- Vacant WEST: R -2 - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial uses. Goal OF -2 suggests the City ought to maintain land use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for public and private utilities. Policy OF -2 -A encourages the sound management of all energy and communication utilities through coordination and cooperation dealing with construction of such facilities. Policy OF -2 -B encourages the placement of utility substations which are necessary for the surrounding neighborhood. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197 -11 -158. ANALYSIS New Cingular Wireless PCS doing business as AT&T Mobility is requesting special permit approval to locate a cellular wireless communication tower on a vacant parcel located on the southwest corner at the intersection of Road 68 and W. Court Street. The proposal involves construction of a new antennae tower approximately 90 -feet in height. The applicant's request is an effort to fill a coverage/ capacity gap south of I -182 (coverage maps Exhibits 1 -3). The installation is intended to better support existing users and would provide siting for two additional cellular providers to locate antennae on the same tower. As illustrated in the elevations submitted with the application (Exhibits 4 -6), the applicant wishes to install an 89 -foot tall wireless communication network tower on a vacant parcel. The tower design is proposed to appear as a pine tree complete with faux branches, foliage and bark. At the base of the tower will be a 40'x40' (1,600ft2) equipment enclosure constructed of a six-foot tall chain -link fence with privacy slats and three strands of barbed wire above. Surrounding the fenced area the applicant proposes to install a live vegetative buffer to further help screen the ground -level equipment enclosure and pole base from view and to enhance appearance. A 31 -foot wide utility service and parking easement will connect Road 68 to the fenced enclosure to establish legal access and use of the property. Staff has entered a condition ( #5) requiring the equipment enclosure be screened from view from surrounding roadways. Cellular facilities are proposed to be located in approximately the southeast corner of the subject parcel; roughly twenty feet north of the nearest mini- storage building. This location may alleviate some the visual impact created by the new tower and enclosure by separating them from Court Street traffic as much as the site will allow. Zoning regulations for wireless facilities were specifically developed to permit, through special permit review, cellular tower /antenna equipment on taller buildings within the community. The PMC special permit review criteria for wireless facilities are written as follows: 25.70.075 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES. Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted under the following conditions: (1) Such structures shall be permitted in all industrial or C -3 zoning districts provided the location is 500 feet or more from a residential district. Any location closer than 500 feet requires special permit approval. (2) Such structures may be permitted by special permit in all other zoning districts provided said structures are: (a) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or structure that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet; or 2 (b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port facility. (3) All wireless communication facilities shall comply with the following standards (a) Wireless facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by employing the best available technology. This may be accomplished by use of compatible materials, strategic location, color, stealth technologies, and /or other measures to achieve minimum visibility of the facility when viewed from public rights - of -way, and adjoining properties such that a casual observer cannot identify the Wireless Communication Facility. (b) Wireless facilities shall be located in the City in the following order of preference: i) Attached to or located on buildings or structures higher than 35 feet. ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility iii) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b). accommodated. The cite reserves the right to retain a aualified consultant, at the applicant's expense to review the supporting documentation for accuracy. (4) All applications for building permits must be accompanied by verification of approval by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and any other state or federal requirements for tower design and location. Additionally all tower construction plans must be designed and stamped by a licensed professional engineer. (5) All wireless communication facilities shall be removed by the facility owner within 6 months of the date the facility ceases to be operational or if the facility falls into disrepair. In this case the applicant is unable to locate an existing building 35 -feet or taller nor a publicly owned facility in the general vicinity which would allow the cellular coverage objectives to be met. The applicant has provided staff with analysis of co- location opportunities; staff is in general agreement with the findings of the analysis. This leaves the last locational preference being a site other than an existing building 35 -feet or taller or a publicly owned facility. A determination of non - significance from TOWAIR for the FAA has been obtained by the applicant; as required by PMC 25.70.075(4) a copy has been included in the application submittal. Per request by the Planning Commission the applicant has provided an AM radio frequency (RF) analysis (Exhibit 7) evaluating the effect of the proposed wireless r communication facility on the nearby AM radio towers. In brief, the analysis concludes that FCC regulation do not require analysis of effects on nearby AM radio facilities. The analysis further concludes that the proposed cellular tower will have no adverse effect on the existing AM signal and service. A copy of the AM RF analysis is included in the report. STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing. 1. The site is zoned C -1 (Retail Business). 2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for commercial uses. 3. The site is approximately 1.4 acres in area. 4. The site is vacant. 5. All municipal utilities are currently available serve the site from adjacent roadways. 6. In the C -1 zone cellular towers may be permitted by special permit provided the tower is either: i) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or structure that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet; or ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port facility. iii) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b). 7. As analyzed by the applicant, there are no publicly owned facilities nor are there any existing buildings taller than 35 feet, within a 1,300 -foot radius of the site that would allow for AT &T's coverage objectives to be met. 8. The cellular antennae tower will be approximately 90 -feet in height. 9. The cellular antennae tower will be treated with features to disguise the tower as a tree. 10. Equipment serving the proposed antennae will be located within a 1,600 square foot ground -level equipment enclosure fenced with chain -link fence and barbed wire. 11. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City ought to maintain land use flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and private utilities. 12. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular equipment. 13. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure. 4 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular equipment. The Comprehensive Plan goal OF -2 and policy OF -2 -A discuss the need for sound management and coordination in the location of utilities and community facilities. Policy ED -1 -C promotes the need to support Pasco's urban area as a good business environment by enhancing the infrastructure of the community. The applicability of policy ED -1 -C is enhanced due to the fact that the new tower will provide more /better service primarily to commercially zoned properties. Policy UT -1 -C encourages coordination of utility providers' functional plans with the City's land use and utility plans to ensure long term service availability. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposed use is a part of the communication network utilized by the general public. The proposed equipment will be located in such a manner so as not to impact other public utilities or services. The proposed use does not require water and sewer. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The character of the vicinity is a combination of residential suburban development and commercial businesses. The two notable businesses near the site are commercial in nature; they are a nursery and the adjacent mini - storage facility. Much of the surrounding vicinity remains largely vacant. The nursery business to the northeast has contained an AM radio tower, approximately 100 feet in height, for many years. It is unlikely that placement of a new antennae tower on the proposed site will significantly alter the existing and /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? There exist a number of cellular antennae towers throughout the community. Staff has not received complaints from potential developers about any of the existing towers being a deterrent to development opportunities. Perhaps the inverse is a more likely result. The added 4G Wi cellular data service of increased signal strength may be an attractant to potential commercial developers. (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 proposed cellular equipment will create no notable fumes, dust or noise. Emergency power generators are included in the ground -level equipment. The generators will be periodically activated to test functionality. Noise associated with the generators should be no greater than noise generated by normal vehicle traffic on Court Street. The generators and other equipment will be fully housed within a solid containment enclosure. An antennae tower will generate far less noise, dust and fumes than many of the land uses allowed in the C -1 zone. Cellular facilities have been located throughout the community in residential, commercial and industrial zones without generating any complaints received by the City. (6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposal is required to be designed by a professional engineer to withstand the forces of nature. The applicant is also required by law to coordinate with the FAA and FCC prior to obtaining a building permit. A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the tower has been issued to AT &T by the FAA for the proposed facility. Radio waves at frequencies utilized by local cellular networks have not been proven to be harmful to human health. Radio wave activity is focused on the antennas which are elevated approximately 50 to 90 feet above grade, away from human activity. The cellular antennae and equipment pose no true threat to public health and safety. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to parcel # 119- 701 -412, Lot 2, Short Plat 93 -08, Franklin County WA; 2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the elevations and site plan submitted with the application except as conditioned herein; 3) The cellular antennae tower shall not exceed 90 feet in height as measured from existing grade; 4) The entire cellular antennae tower shall be treated with faux tree features including branches, foliage and bark; GO 5) The ground -level equipment shall be screened from all adjacent rights -of- way by a block wall; 6) The ground -level cellular equipment enclosure shall be surrounded by a landscaping buffer which obscures view of the equipment enclosure. Said landscaping buffer shall be served by an automatic irrigation system and shall be maintained in a well -kept manner by the applicant; 7) The ground -level equipment enclosure shall be located no closer than fifteen (15) feet from the property line adjacent to Road 68; 8) The driveway connecting Road 68 to the equipment enclosure shall be paved with either concrete or asphalt to the design specifications of the Pasco City Engineer; 9) The antennae tower shall not emit white light between the hours of 6pm and 8am; 10) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC regulations regarding radio frequency emissions; 11) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit is not obtained by July 30, 2015. MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the June 19, 2014 staff report. MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow wireless communication facilities on tax parcel # 119- 701 -412 with conditions as contained in the June 19, 2014 staff report. n y C •�-- +i.,... � v � ,Ar 89 GVON Ct Con L L .- t x � 5` • r'-1 0 �?Sr � � � f Y FbciWR�Y{.EJx�"i, I` ��.. eC a • .e v yy �u�J] �'1 • �� � i � W S Y�I I,�Y. - iPOO Z 'Id H199 kn � H H � 89 (IVOH o .CIS Z o � U .. N v � H Z Id H199 ,-- 89 QvO ct ® -- U • - U �Ao rLI2 U 1H py O QRd i-sa N 0 �g R �Vh' in r N a. OU L iai a .y.. oy I 4 ��c�•+ sr �g R �Vh' in r 4 O CO O O biC 5.4 O O l� w J of N a N J N p1 A, W � N cn a O to L QO -D O `W V 1� r/ 1_ x W J E E E E E E E E �t"�Vdd"d Nunn "ds� t y 3 +a -wrvr N.:_�{ 3 �• ,� ,�jj R+ } a r^ i r s � I r * CL ' iJ •�'$' � � � , 1 1 /+rte- ,�,s�t 'tK i 11 t } -� 2 W IP! r Q mc 4) L 3 4+ U 3 L 41 V V C 3 H N C1 !0 L O U r d L C O C co Ln 0 , Y 0 o4a > 'v► *' 3 c � L c L � U L O O O s- �. a L +d O +.+ 3Mc a^ A I A A :A U vE E E E E E E I 3�3gff���ggE ��mz5ms.m' M W 4 •O am U O MO W 4a I o L Y. C O C 'f0 M V0 O '- J L \� W ' r� U O +, C O� L u a� ~ I p 9 E m E E E E E E Iu U MUM b . ��� e. °2 rc arc °2rc °2¢2 3 Y Y u Li 6 Z g Y R a s d lit i w rW B 9 0 000 ®0® o ® <9> g N cm N A W m £ Al €e 2i a °s q Z a a a§ as Z b Z J g aW Fu <P WS 66 ge Fill $E Elf i-` W a avom IS ¢' b / II�IR�RRRRfTR11T[R R I - AJt - kJ XAr p z � e i 5 IL? U� O� IL HATFIELD & DAWSON BENJAMIN F. DAWSON III, PE CONSULTING ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS THOMAS M. ECKELS, PE STEPHEN S. LOCKWOOD, PE 9500 GREENWOOD AVE. N. DAVID J. PINION, PE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 ERIK C. SWANSON, PE THOMAS S. GORTON, PE MICHAEL H. MEHIGAN, PE Method of Moments Analysis of the Exhibit 171 TELEPHONE (206) 783 -9151 FACSIMILE (206) 789 -9834 EMAIL hatdaw @hatdaw.com JAMES B. HATFIELD, PE CONSULTANT MAURV L. HATFIELD, PE (1942 -2009) PAUL W. LEONARD, PE (1925 -2011) Effect of the Proposed AT &T "West Court Pasco" Monopole KP0444 Pasco, WA on the Operation of KALE -AM Prepared for Ryka Consulting May 2014 This Engineering Report has been prepared on behalf of Ryka Consulting. It contains a method of moments analysis of the potential effect of the proposed AT &T "West Court Pasco" monopole on both the directional and non - directional operations of nearby AM station KALE. This analysis was prepared as directed by §1.30002(b) of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. It should be noted that this analysis has been performed as a precautionary measure only. The above referenced FCC rule requires evaluation of proposed tower construction if the proposed tower is within 10 wavelengths (at the frequency of the AM station in question)' of an AM station which uses a directional antenna and the proposed tower is greater than 36 electrical degrees (0.1 wavelength) in height. Evaluation of a of a non - directional AM station is required if the proposed tower is within one wavelength of the AM tower, and is greater than 60 electrical degrees in height. According to AT &T construction drawings, the proposed West Court Pasco monopole will be 89 feet in height, which is 31.3 electrical degrees in height at KALE's frequency, 960 kHz. Thus, the AT &T monopole is below the height at which evaluation is required by current FCC rules. A model of the KALE nighttime directional antenna array has been made using Expert Mininec Broadcast Professional Ver 14.0, assuming a lossless environment. The tower heights, spacing and orientation of the towers in the KALE array contained in the CDBS (the FCC broadcast database) were used in the model. The bases of the KALE towers were then driven in the model with voltages chosen such that the current moments for the towers calculated by the model are related to each other by the same ratio and phase as the theoretical field parameters of the KALE antenna listed in the CDBS. Based on the geographic coordinates for KALE obtained from FCC records and coordinates for the proposed AT &T monopole obtained from AT &T construction drawings, the AT &T tower is located 0.21 km (242.1 electrical degrees) from the center of the KALE array, at a bearing of 210 °, and is 31.3 electrical degrees in height (89 feet) at KALE's frequency (960 kHz). The AT &T monopole was added to the Mininec model at this location. The model was then used to calculate the field strength of KALE at a distance of 1 km in all directions, both with and without 360 electrical degrees equal one wavelength, which equals 312.5 meters (1025 feet) at 960 kHz Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers the affects of the AT &T monopole. These values are tabulated in columns 2 and 3 of the chart titled "KALE AT &T Moment Method Analysis - Night Directional'. The ratio of these two values is then multiplied by the FCC Theoretical IDF (Inverse Distance Field) for each radial under study. As these values do not exceed the OF values of the FCC Augmented Standard pattern, (the values in the column labeled "Margin" are all positive), it is therefore determined that the AT &T monopole will not negatively affect the nighttime directional operation of KALE. Evaluation of the non - directional daytime operation of KALE is done by comparing the Mininec calculated OF values for the KALE antenna alone with those calculated by the model which includes the AT &T monopole. These values are shown in the chart labeled "KALE AT &T Moment Method Analysis - Day Non Directional'. As the ratio of these OF values is less than 2 dB at each point studied, it is therefore determined that the AT &T monopole will not negatively affect the daytime non- directional operation of KALE. 22 dB is a multiplicative factor of 1.26 Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers Mininec Model - KALE Nighttime Directional Antenna C: \AM Impact \MOM \KALE 05 -30 -2014 11:06:12 no. of segment KALE no. lowest step steps minimum GEOMETRY 1 960. 0 1 4.58E -03 Wire coordinates in degrees; other dimensions in meters Environment: perfect ground sector magnitude phase wire caps Distance Angle z radius segs 1 none 0 0 0 .22 19 0 0 123. 152.711 119.4 2 none 90. 295. 0 .3 19 90. 295. 88. 3 none 90. 115. 0 .3 19 90. 115. 88. 4 none 242.1 210. 0 .75 19 242.1 210. 31.3 Number of wires = 4 current nodes = 76 Individual wires minimum wire value maximum wire segment length 4 1.64737 value 1 6.47368 radius 1 .22 4 .75 ELECTRICAL DESCRIPTION Frequencies (KHz) frequency no. of segment length (wavelengths) no. lowest step steps minimum maximum 1 960. 0 1 4.58E -03 .0179825 Sources source node sector magnitude phase type 1 1 1 668.273 78.1 voltage 2 20 1 299.877 305.1 voltage 3 39 1 152.711 119.4 voltage Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers Certification This Engineering Report has been prepared personally by the undersigned or under my immediate supervision, and all representations are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I am an experienced radio engineer whose qualifications are a matter of record with the Federal Communications Commission. I am an engineer in the firm of Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC, and I am Registered as a Professional Engineer in the States of Washington and Oregon. May 30, 2014 Thomas S. Gorton P.E. Hatfield & Dawson Consulting Engineers Planning Commission Minutes 5/15/2014 B. Special Permit Location of a Wireless Communications Facility (AT &T) (MF# SP 2014 -0051 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of a wireless communications facility in a C -1 (Retail Business) Zone. The applicant proposes to locate the cellular tower adjacent to the mini- storage facility at the southwest comer of Court and Road 68. The cellular tower is proposed to be camouflaged as a faux pine tree including bark, foliage and branches. The base of the tower will contain equipment and an equipment enclosure approximately 600 square feet in area. A chain link fence was originally proposed but, staff is recommending a condition requiring a block wall. The applicant has analyzed the surrounding vicinity in an attempt to locate publicly owned facilities or a structure 35 feet or higher as required by code to analyze the possibility of co- location. The analysis concluded that there are no such sites that would allow for the coverage gap to be met. This particular tower would accommodate two additional providers, reducing the number of cellular towers needed in the area. Located to the northeast of the proposed site is an AM station tower. Staff provided the Planning Commission with the analysis completed by the applicant for the possibility of locating the needed antennae's on the AM tower. The conclusion is that the AM tower has insufficient structural capacity to accommodate the addition antennae's. Chairman Cruz asked for clarification on the analysis given included in the meeting packet given to the Planning Commissioner's. Mr. O'Neill responded that the analysis was of the existing three towers on the property located north of the proposed tower site. Dennis and Marilyn Thorne, 6701 Court Street, addressed the Commission. Ms. Thorne explained that they own the property with the AM towers and although the equipment AT &T is proposing is too heavy to mount to their tower, they would welcome the new tower on their property. There would be some interference with the AM tower frequency. The proposed tower will not become a part of their skyline and they would prefer to see it amongst the other towers where there is already obstruction to the skyline. Mr. Thorne stated that he has spoken to surrounding residents and there is concern as to the aesthetics of the new tower. Bill Glenn, 1324 Cedar, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Thorne's as their technical consultant and representing Ink Stand Broadcasting who are the operators of KALE on the AM towers. He stated that the new tower will in fact cause interference with the current AM Station Tower. The new tower would act as a reflector and push the signal to the north. Since the radio station has been in place first, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) demands that anything that changes the radio station has to be taken care of by the person making the change. There are still some issues that need to be explored prior to final consideration of the installation. Mr. Glenn stated that AT &T is doing their research because they did extensive studies to determine that the existing towers themselves are not appropriate for what they are trying to install. Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Glenn what would happen if the tower was located with the existing three towers to the radio station. Mr. Glenn answered that there are two approaches; one of which is to detune the structure so that as far as the radio station's towers it wouldn't exist and the other method is to adjust the radio station's systems to accommodate the fact that the reflector is there. Either approach would achieve a specified pattern from the signal of the radio station or both methods are very expensive, however, are both achievable. Commissioner Greenaway asked how far away the proposed tower would have to be in order to avoid interference. Mr. Glenn responded approximately 1/3 to 1/2 mile. As currently specified it is about 600 -700 feet. The center tower is the reference to that whole installation and everything would be measured from that. Mr. Thorne added that there needs to be cooperation between the radio station and the proposed tower. George Pierce, 10259 35th Avenue SW, Seattle, WA spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the design of the pole is to integrate with the surrounding environment. AT &T and their new 4G technology requires some larger antennae's and more space between the antennae's so using a canister type design is possible but minimizing the design is best through camouflage. AM interference is quite common and towers are mounted and installed on AM stations which create interference as well. Those are mitigated through an AM study. He stated that he spoke to a firm in Seattle who stated that any structure under 100 feet tall per the FCC does not require an AM study at this time, however Mr. Pierce said he would check for confirmation. If the study is necessary, AT &T will perform that and any mitigation necessary on the tower. As for locating the tower on the nursery property, an extensive amount of time was spent studying the AM towers there and the issue is disturbing the ground ring, necessary for the signal of the AM station, which extends across Road 68 and through most of the parcel, so anywhere on that area they would want to put a tower they would have an issue. Commissioner Greenaway asked if it would be cost prohibitive to detune the tower. Mr. Pierce responded that he would need to see the study first. He has yet to see one happen in his career and they have walked away from sites in the past because of it. Chairman Cruz asked if there are other locations that are comparable to performance to AT &T that don't create an issue for the existing radio towers. Mr. Pierce answered through a search, in which he is the fourth firm to work on this project for AT &T. The original consultant was a tower company hoping to locate a new tower but when they came across the AM station tower and their structural integrity they handed the project back over to AT &T. AT &T found the US Cellular stealth pole but it was too far north. Chairman Cruz asked if cell phone towers have been located on zones other than C -1. David McDonald, City Planner, responded yes, but typically they are matched with a structure that is already in place, such as a water tower. Chairman Cruz stated then that if the Planning Commission should not choose to move forward with the cell tower at the proposed site due to the AM station then they would perhaps consider another site through the special permit process. Mr. Pierce stated that he understood but asked how that decision could be made. Chairman Cruz answered that it would be in the form of a recommendation and would possibly involve more questions. Mr. Pierce added that the applicant would accept a condition of approval that would require the passing of an interference study. Chris Smith, 1706 Road 68, spoke on this special permit application. He stated that the proposed property is by his home. He asked if they put the tower across the street on Court Street, if they would take down one of the three AM towers so that the eye sore would remain the same. Mr. Glenn answered that all three AM towers are in use and will not be removed. Mr. Smith asked if there were any potential health problems due to its proximity to local residences. Mr. Pierce answered that the facility will meet or be below the FCC minimum requirements for health and hazard. Mr. Glenn added that the radio station has also passed the exposure limits. Melinda Puckett, 6520 W. Court Street, spoke on behalf of the special permit application. She stated that she was the property owner of the proposed site and did not foresee any problems with the proposed cell tower being located on her property. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway asked to check if an AM study needs to be done as a proposed special permit condition. Chairman Cruz the Planning Commissioner's if they had any objections to the proposed location. Commissioner Khan, Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Polk stated that they would prefer to see an AM study to ensure there is no interference. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated that staff would check with the City Attorney to see the ability of AT &T locating their tower and about the AM study. Chairman Cruz stated that the Planning Commission is willing to work with the applicant. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to close the public hearing on the proposed wireless communications facility and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the June 19, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes 6/19/2014 B. Special Permit Location of a Wireless Communications Facility (AT&T) IMF# SP 2014 -0051 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location of a wireless communications facility in a C -1 (Retail Business) Zone. Mr. O'Neill stated that the only change to the staff report has been the language in condition #5 regarding the block wall fencing around the facilities. Staff received the AM Frequency Analysis Report that was completed by request, however wasn't required by the FCC. The report indicated that there would be little to no interference between the proposed wireless facilities and current AM towers. Commissioner Portugal asked is a study was completed or if the report was the same as a study. Mr. O'Neill clarified that they were the same. Commissioner Greenaway requested clarification that the AM Frequency Analysis Report indicated that there would be little or no effect on the surrounding towers. Mr. O'Neill stated that is correct and is further substantiated in that a report wasn't even required due to technical reasons. If the special permit is approved the applicant would still be required to follow FCC regulations, as one of their approval conditions. Commissioner Greenaway asked staff what would happen if the proposed facility was approved and did cause interference with the AM station. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, responded that as a condition they will be required to fix the problem. Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the June 19, 2014 staff report. The motion passed 7 to 1, with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. Commissioner Kempf move, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow wireless communication facilities on tax parcel # 119 - 701 -412 with conditions as contained in the June 19, 2014 staff report. The motion passed 6 to 2, with Commissioner Greenaway and Commissioner Khan dissenting. AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council July 1, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Interim City Manager Rick White, 1 Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 Community & Economic Development Director FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Templo de Alabanza - Location of a Church in a C-3 (General Business) Zone Zone (MF# SP 2014 -004) I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Templo de Alabama Special Permit - Vicinity Map 2. Templo de Alabama Special Permit - Proposed Resolution 3. Templo de Alabama Special Permit - Report to Planning Commission 4. Templo de Alabama Special Permit - Planning Commission Minutes: 5/15/2014 and 6/19/2014 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 7/7: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. . approving a Special Permit for the location of a church at 1202 W. Lewis Street, Unit B, as recommended by the Planning Commission. III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. On May 15, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend approval of a Special Permit to allow the location of a church at 1202 W. Lewis Street, Unit B. B. Following conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the church in question be granted a Special Permit with a number of conditions. C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution. D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. 8() N Cld N 4, � ® O L • • N ct U •POO �o V a �. LU N � S m fi 7 v Y , t r y /.T n r J�U- , 13TH LN__ ' r I i �o V a �. LU N � S m fi 7 v Y , t r y /.T n r J�U- , 13TH LN__ ' r RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A CHURCH AT1202 W. LEWIS STREET, UNIT B. WHEREAS, Templo de Alabanza submitted an application for the location of a church to be located at 1202 W. Lewis Street, Unit B (Parcel # 200 - 000 -220: BNSF Operating Lease #BF34019, southwest' /, of the southeast ' /< of Section 30, Township 9 North, Range 30 East); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 15, 2014 to review the proposed preschool; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on June 19, 2014 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the preschool with certain conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO: I. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Templo de Alabanza for the location of a church in a C -3 (General Business) District under Master File # SP 2014 -004 with the following conditions: a) The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel #200 000 220 for the building at 1202 Unit B, West Lewis Street located within BNSF right -of -way; b) The church shall not object to the issuance, transfer, or renewal of a liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of the property; c) The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements for the occupancy class applicable to the use; d) Paved and striped parking shall be provided at the rate of one space for each four seats based upon maximum seating capacity or at least one space for every ten lineal feet of bench searing, as per PMC 25.78.170(2); e) Street frontage and utility improvements meeting City standards shall be required if tenant improvements for Templo de Alabanza exceed 33% of the leasehold value as established by the Franklin County Assessor under Tax Parcel # 200 000 220; f) The Special Permit shall be null and void if an occupancy registration has not been obtained by July 30, 2015. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7'" day of July, 2014. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE # SP 2014 -004 APPLICANT: Templo de Alabanza HEARING DATE: 5/15/2014 P.O. Box 1666 ACTION DATE: 6/19/2014 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a Church in a C -3 (General Business) Zone I. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Parcel # 200 - 000 -220: BNSF Operating Lease #BF34019, southwest '/4 of the southeast 'A of Section 30, Township 9 North, Range 30 East; General Location: 1202 W. Lewis Street, Unit B Property Size: Approximately 0.5 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Lewis Street & 11th Avenue (11th Ave is located on Railroad right -of -way) 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned C -3 (General Business) and contains a commercial structure. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as follows: NORTH: C -1 - Pasco School District Administrative Office SOUTH: C-3- Vacant EAST: C -3 - Commercial Businesses WEST: C -3 - Vacant 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for 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. ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to operate a church with up to 30 congregants in an existing commercial structure located in a C -3 zone. Churches require special permit review regardless of the zone. 1 In 2011 PowerZone obtained a Special Permit to operate a youth after - school program in the same building, employing eight (8) staff members and serving up to 36 students. The youth center occupied a 1,200 square foot portion of the structure. The center was open from 3:00 pm to 5:30 pm Monday- Thursday except on Wednesdays when the center was open between 3:00 pm and 8:30 pm. The church will operate Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays. Required parking for church uses is one space for each four seats based upon maximum seating capacity or at least one space for every ten lineal feet of bench seating. With 30 congregants (30 seats) the church would be required to furnish 8 paved parking spaces. The site is located on right -of -way owned by BNSF Railway and leased to Milne Enterprises Inc. The site is bound by arterial streets to the north and to the south. 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. I. The site is addressed 1202 West Lewis Street. 2. The site is zoned C -3 (General Business). 3. The site is located on right -of -way owned by BNSF Railway Company and leased to Milne Enterprises Inc. 4. The Templo de Alabanza is a non - profit organization. 5. Templo de Alabanza will provide religious services for up to 30 congregants weekly on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays. 6. Templo de Alabanza is defined as a church in the Pasco Zoning Code. 7. Churches are considered Unclassified Uses and thereby require special permit review (PMC 25.86.020). 8. The proposed church will occupy approximately 1,200 square feet of the existing commercial structure. 9. A Level One Community Service Facility (Power Zone) was previously granted a Special Permit to operate on the site. 2 CONCLUSIONS BASED ON INITIAL STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT The Planning Commission must make Findings of Fact based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria and staff listed findings are as follows: 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 commercial use. The Commercial Land Use designation includes all commercial uses listed in the C -3 zones. Parking improvements may be required as part of the permitting process. The proposed use as a church is not specified for the C -3 zoning district but may be allowed in any zoning district with a special permit. 2. Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The proposal will generate little demand for public utilities, operating for only a few hours three days per week. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will be negligible compared to permitted uses such as restaurants. Impacts to the adjoining streets will likewise be minimal due to the fact the facility will only be open a few hours per week. 3. Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity? The building proposed for worship use is currently in place and has existed for over 40 years. No changes are planned for the exterior of this commercial building. The proposed use will have minimal impact on the existing and intended character of the neighborhood. 4. Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof? Templo de Alabanza is proposing to occupy an existing building. No changes are planned for the height and size of the structure. The current building has not discouraged development in the general area. The lack of development between West Lewis Street and West "A" Street west of 101h Avenue is due to the fact the property is railroad right -of -way. 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 proposed facility will only be open for religious services a few hours per week. There will be no excessive fumes, vibrations, dust, noise, or flashing lights as a result of this activity. 6. Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and developed where proposed, or in any way will become a nuisance to uses permitted in the district? The proposed church will be open a few hours per day, three days per week. Minimal activity will occur at the site, reducing any chance for the creation of nuisance conditions. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1. The Special Permit shall apply to Tax Parcel #200 000 220 for the building at 1202 Unit B, West Lewis Street located within BNSF right -of -way; 2. The church shall not object to the issuance, transfer, or renewal of a liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of the property; 3. The applicant shall comply with all building code requirements for the occupancy class applicable to the use; 4. Paved and striped parking shall be provided at the rate of one space for each four seats based upon maximum seating capacity or at least one space for every ten lineal feet of bench seating, as per PMC 25.78.170(2); 5. Street frontage and utility improvements meeting City standards shall be required if tenant improvements for Templo de Alabanza exceed 33% of the leasehold value as established by the Franklin County Assessor under Tax Parcel # 200 000 220; 6. The Special Permit shall be null and void if an occupancy registration has not been obtained by July 30, 2015. RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the June 19, 2014 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 for the location of a church at 1202 Unit B, West Lewis Street (Parcel It 200 000 220), with conditions as listed in the June 19, 2014 staff report. M s p *� ctr, t 0TH AVER -37 • F•� ajs� Uh I u P 13TH AVE-. sa-+. 1 k 13TH LN,__ tot yx(y` d •""I � '' 3 HiVl Arf Y v SNP n O lcA Cl) N ct w s �d CO 7 v PvF A N a� moo N ct U � 4J v SNP n O lcA Cl) 0 CL SON M10 L u 1� 7 Y� O L O E V L .W woo •w+ Q �� w s �d CO 7 v PvF A 0 CL SON M10 L u 1� 7 Y� O L O E V L .W woo •w+ Q 10TH AVE /SR -397 12TH AVE 1 a:i s 13TH LN �� a , L < ou '9TTHH 1I{' 2 .rA 10TH AVE /SR -397 12TH AVE 1 a:i s 13TH LN z N �r �N N N t ® 9TH AVE 9jN PvE iUO3 ct 10TH E SR -39 aj PvE co JI O N - N 11TH AVE `J O e LU rN "' 12TH AVE r-1 4-4 12 N PEE 0. CA- M v U • 13TH AVE N13�NPIS 13TH LN N and Hlti6 P 0 P=I F„ r i -17. * -Q -r t ii fNf in ow 10 r� . ): 6. m aj REGULAR MEETING 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 VACANT No. 2 Tony Bachart No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Loren Polk No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Gabriel Portugal May 15, 2014 A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C -3 (General Business) Zone (Temolo de Alabama) IMF# SP 2014-0041 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the location of a church in a C -3 (General Business) Zone. The site is located at 1202 West Lewis Street. The Planning Commission has seen special permit applications for this site before, most recently in 2011 for a facility to operate an after school program for youth called, Power Zone. Churches are an unclassified use, requiring a special permit application in all zoning districts. Staff has come up with findings of facts and conclusions that are required through the Pasco Municipal Code and a list of six development conditions which are typically applied to churches, such as, adequate parking and that the applicant needing to apply to applicable building codes for an assembly structure. There were no comments for the public hearing. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, 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 19, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -1- REGULAR MEETING 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 VACANT No. 2 Tony Bachart No. 3 Andy Anderson No. 4 Alecia Greenaway No. 5 Joe Cruz No. 6 Loren Polk No. 7 Zahra Khan No. 8 Jana Kempf No. 9 Gabriel Portugal OLD BUSINESS: June 19, 2014 A. Special Permit Location of a Church in a C -3 (General Business) Zone (Temnlo de Alabanza) IMF# SP 2014 -0041 Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit for the location of a church in a C -3 Zone. He stated that there had been no changes to the staff report or conditions since the previous meeting. Commissioner Portugal asked about parking improvements. Chairman Cruz responded that parking requirements are included in the approval conditions. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the June 19, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for the location of a church at 1202 Unit B, West Lewis Street (Parcel # 200- 000 -220), with conditions as listed in the June 19, 2014 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -1- AGENDA REPORT NO. 18 FOR: City Council June 19, 2014 TO: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director FROM: Michael A. Pawlak, City Engineer Regular Mtg.: 7/7/14 SUBJECT: School Zone Flashing Equipment I. REFERENCE(S): 1. School Zone Flashing Equipment - Proposed Resolution 2. School Zone Flashing Equipment - Price Quote 3. School Zone Flashing Equipment — Sole Source Memo from City Engineer II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 07/07: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. waiving competitive bidding requirements and approving the purchase of forty (40) AP22 Time Switches, and forty -nine (49) M2M Model TSC2G Cellular Communications Modems. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Street Funds - $87,183.96 Pasco School District committed to reimbursement (50 %) - $43,591.98 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) In 2011 the City completed the installation of 34 school zone flashing beacons from Spot Devices. Spot Devices was subsequently purchased by Carmanah Technologies. However, a group of former Spot devices employees formed a group called SIMA, and SIMA maintained the rights to the programming software for the Spot Devices equipment. SIMA notified all of their existing customers that they would not be supporting the web based software beyond the 2013 -2014 school year unless enough of the existing customers agreed to sign up for an ongoing support agreement. In April of 2014 the City was notified that SIMA would not be supporting the web based software after June 30, 2014. B) In 2014 the City completed the installation of six (6) AP22 Time Switches at newly installed flashing beacon locations. Two (2) M2M Model TSC2G Cellular Communications Modems were also provided by the manufacturer for evaluation, and were installed by the contractor as part of the same project. The equipment has been installed and evaluated, and staff recommends proceeding with the purchase of the equipment from RTC Manufacturing Inc. C) Due to the riming of the notification from SIMA and the significant lead time in obtaining the equipment, Staff recommends purchasing the necessary equipment while proceeding concurrently with the bidding process for the installation of the equipment. This is the best way to assure that all of our School Zone Flashing Beacons will be operational by the beginning of the 2014 -2015 school year. V. DISCUSSION: A) The AP22 Time Switches and M2M Model TSC2G Cellular Communications Modems have been operational for the last 4 months and have proven to be reliable, and easily programmable. B) The AP22 Time Switches and M2M Model TSC2G Cellular Communications Modems from RTC Manufacturing Inc. are high quality products, and come highly recommended by other local municipalities. C) Staff recommends the purchase of forty (40) AP22 Time Switches, and forty -nine (49) M2M Model TSC2G Cellular Communications Modems from RTC Manufacturing Inc. as a sole source supplier due to the efficiencies of inventory and interchangeability. on RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF FORTY (40) AP22 TIME SWITCHES, AND FORTY -NINE (49) M2M MODEL TSC2G CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS MODEMS AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE. WHEREAS, the City has previously evaluated equipment and installed AP22 Time Switches, and M2M Model TSC2G Cellular Communications Modems from RTC Manufacturing, hie., and WHEREAS, the City is now considering the purchase of similar equipment to replace existing outdated controllers, which are no longer supported by the manufacturer, and WHEREAS, it is functionally desirable to be able to exchange/interchange this equipment and have similar equipment for ease of maintenance and efficiencies in order to facilitate consistent and dependable operations, and WHEREAS, the purchase of RTC AP22 Time Switches, and RTC M2M Model TSC2G Cellular Communications Modems will allow the City to reduce the costs of operation, maintenance and repair, and the inventory of parts by having one system that is easily programmable from a remote location, and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 39.04.280 RTC Manufacturing, Inc. is the sole source of time switches and compatible modems that are interchangeable with the equipment already installed, and the sole source that will allow the City to interchange equipment; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, that the City Council does hereby declare that the purchase of time switches and compatible modems is clearly and legitimately limited to a single source of supply, and that the sole source of supply is RTC Manufacturing, Inc., and Be It Further Resolved, that the competitive bidding requirements for the City of Pasco are hereby waived and the Pasco Public Works Department is authorized to purchase forty (40) AP22 Time Switches and forty -nine (49) M2M Model TSC2G Cellular Communications Modems from RTC Manufacturing, Inc. in the sum of $87,183.96. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 7'h day of July, 2014. Matt Watkins Mayor ATEST: Debra L. Clark City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr City Attorney -, Westernsystems Prepared By: Henry Doan Sales Western Systems Cell: 425- 308 -5442 Fax: 425-438-1585 hdoanCa)westernsystems -inc com Western Systems is pleased to submit the following price quotation for the above referenced project: TO: City of Pasco 40 5080080080 AP22 Time Switch 7/1/2014 WSI- WHD_205 Option 2: M2M 10 YT Communication Plan [Bundled) Includes 506435, Cell modem 40 M2M10YR 506472, M2M SIM Card 506473H, M2M Antenna w /mtg bracket 506473HB $ 73,158.00 506475, Adapter cable modem RS232 Option 2: M2M 10 Yr Communication Plan Includes 506435, Cell modem 9 M2M10YR 506472, M2M SIM Card 506473H, M2M Antenna w /mtg bracket 506473HB $ 14,025.96 506475, Adapter cable modem RS232 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Shipping $ This quotation includes only the items listed herein, subject to the conditions noted: Delivery 60 -90 days after release, This Quote is good for 30 days, Tax Not Included Terms: Net 30 Days If Credit in Good Standurg, We impose a surcharge of 2% on the $ 87.183.96 Memo To: Stan Strebel, Acting City Manager Ahmad Qayoumi, PE, Public Works Director From: Michael A. Pawlak, PE, City Engineer Date: June 30, 2014 Re: School Zone Flashers Equipment — Sole Source Public Works Department Engineering Division Introduction and History. In 2011 and 2012, the City of Pasco purchased School Zone Flashers for a number of elementary and middle school facilities throughout the City, using State Safe Routes to Schools grants and matching funds from the Pasco School District. The equipment was purchased from SPOT Devices and installed by a local electrical contractor. The following are additional facts: • In November 2012, the City received notice that SPOT Devices was sold to Carmanah Technologies. The notice advised that SPOT Devices would continue to be available for the foreseeable future, and that Carmanah would maintain the exclusive rights to the System Infrastructure management Application ( "SIMA ") software and "... is committed to providing the highest level of customer support • In August 2013, Cirrus Systems, LLC advised the City that it had now acquired the SIMA software and that the City must enter into an agreement at a cost of $135 per installation in order to continue to receive technical support through June 30, 2014. Cirrus also advised that if enough subscribers selected to continue the service, other service options would be provided beyond June 2014. On April 14, 2014, Cirrus Systems notified the City that no service would be provided after June 2014. System and Equipment Evaluation. Since receiving the notice of discontinued service from Cirrus Systems, City staff has researched a variety of options and equipment (including Carmanah Technologies), and solicited input from other jurisdictions. The City is looking for timing and modem equipment capable of running multiple daily timing plans to accommodate different school calendars and traffic patterns, remotely communicate with a variety of systems (e.g. cellular, Wi -Fi, Ethernet, 2 -way radio), and be compatible with existing school zone equipment. The RTC Manufacturing equipment was the only equipment that provides the flexibility of settings and communication attributes. The proposed RTC equipment is also the same equipment previously installed at six other school zone locations. That equipment has been functioning satisfactorily. • Page 1 Input from other Cities included: • City of Richland — has created its own system. • City of Kennewick — currently uses RTC Manufacturing equipment and recommended it as efficient, reliable and cost- effective. • King County, WA — originally purchase SPOT Devices equipment and have since retrofitted and deployed nearly 200 of the RTC units. King County staff also recommended the units. System Needs. The needed system characteristics include: • Flexibility of Time Settings — The various schools within the District (and City) have different start and end times, partial day classes, early dismissals and late start times, and multiple "off days' and breaks / vacation days. The purchased system needs to accommodate these multiple parameters at any given location. Remote Communication — There are 52 School Zone Flasher locations within the City. The system timing needs to have the capability of being remotely programmed, adjusted, modified, and turned on /off. The individual control boxes are located on the support poles such that a technician would need to access them via ladder. For safety and efficiency reasons, individual location access for the above purposes is not feasible. Proposal. Staff proposes to purchase new RTC Manufacturing, Inc. Time Switches and GPS Modem Devices for all 52 locations plus two (2) spare switches and modems for emergency or repair use. The City would pre - purchase this equipment and contract (via public works contract advertisement) with a firm to install and initially program the devices. The RTC AP22 Time Switch is a solid state time switch capable of ten (10) different day plans and 36 annual exception plans to accommodate the school calendar. AP22's auto - prompting, alpha- numeric display facilitates programming and does not require extensive user training. The RTC M21V1 Cellular Communications Modem Model TSC -2G is a compact communications modem that provides full, two -way communications from a central computer to any Model AP22 Time Switch within the system. The benefits to the City include: • Ability to communicate to all 52 locations from one central location or from an individual location using a laptop computer (without climbing a ladder to access the control box. • Significant saving of time, labor and expense by being able to make programming adjustments and troubleshoot problems from a central location without the necessity of visiting each location. • Significant improvement in system management (currently a manual operation by site location). i.e. programming, troubleshooting, maintenance, and ability to print reports to assist Police with claims and traffic incident reports. • Includes a 10 -Yr. Warranty of service support, firmware, software and technical updates. Estimated Cost. Staff estimates the cost of purchasing the RTC time switches and modems at: • Page 2 • 40 —AP 22 Time Switches @ $350 = $14,000. • 49 — M2M GPs Modems, firmware, software and technical support @ $1,500 = $73,500. The Estimated total Cost of pre - purchasing the equipment is $87,500. The estimated cost of installation and testing which would be accomplished under a separate public works advertisement / bid / install contract is $30,000. Total installed cost is estimated at $117,500. Staff recommends the sole- source pre - purchase and installation of the RTC AP22 Time Switches and M2M GPS Modems at all School Zone Flasher locations. The pre - purchase authority is necessary in order to have units installed prior to the 2014 -2015 school year start in mid - August. • Page 3