Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016.05.02 Council Meeting Packet
Page 10 - 11 12-31 32 Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. (a) Pledge of Allegiance May 2, 2016 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 Council members or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately. (a) Approval of Minutes To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated April 18, 2016. (b) Bills and Communications To approve claims in the total amount of $3,051,065.78 ($1,264,429.70 in Check Nos. 209407-209609; $1,154,690.23 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 809767-809836, 809849, 809852-810000, 810004-810180, 810247-810257; $46,170.32 in Check Nos. 49118-49159; $585,775.53 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30093353-30093834. (c) Oregon Ave Improvements Ph. 1 WSDOT Agreement GCB 2341 for Professional Services To approve Agreement GCB 2341 with Washington State Department of Transportation and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. (d) Planning Commission Appointments To reappoint Tanya Bowers to Position No. 1, and appoint Kurt Lukins to Position No. 2 (term expiration date 2/2/22); and to appoint Pamela Bykonen to fill Position No. 8 (term expiration date 2/2/20) to the Planning Commission. (e) * Benton -Franklin Community Action Connections Board Appointment Page 1 of 186 33-35 36 37-89 Regular Meeting May 2, 2016 To concur in the Mayor's reappointment of Alecia Greenaway to the Benton - Franklin Community Action Connections Board (term to expire January 2018). (f) I Civil Service Commission Appointment To confirm the City Manager's reappointment of Angel Esquivel to Position No. 2 on the Civil Service Commission (term to expire 2/17/22). (RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read. 4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: (a) Presentation of Proclamation for "Public Service Recognition Week" Mayor Matt Watkins to present Proclamation to Edward Holbrook, Tri -City Public Service Recognition Week Planning Committee Member (b) Columbia Basin College Presentation Presented by Rich Cummins, President, Columbia Basin College 5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: This item is provided to allow citizens the opportunity to bring items to the attention of the City Council or to express an opinion on an issue. Its purpose is not to provide a venue for debate or for the posing of questions with the expectation of an immediate response. Some questions require consideration by Council over time and after a deliberative process with input from a number of different sources; some questions are best directed to staff members who have access to specific information. Citizen comments will normally be limited to three minutes each by the Mayor. Those with lengthy messages are invited to summarize their comments and/or submit written information for consideration by the Council outside of formal meetings. 6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: (a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers 7. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: (a) E Rezone: GESA, C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business) (MF# Z 2015-007) CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING: MOTION A: I move to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the rezone for the GESA Credit Union property under Master file # Page 2 of 186 Regular Meeting Z 2016-007. May 2, 2016 MOTION B: I move to continue the Closed Record hearing to May 16, 2016 to allow time for property owner acceptance of a concomitant agreement limiting objectionable the land uses on the GESA property and for the preparation of findings to support a rezone to C-3. 90-115 (b) E Annexation: Mullen Annexation (MF# ANX 2016-003) CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING: MOTION A: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4283, an Ordinance relating to annexation and annexing certain real property to the City of Pasco and, further, authorize publication by summary only. MOTION B: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4284, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, assigning zoning to the Mullen Annexation Area as recommended by the Planning Commission and, further, authorize publication by summary only. 116-122 (c) 0 Street Vacation: A Portion of East Salt Lake Street (MF# VAC 2016-006) CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4285, an Ordinance vacating a portion of East Salt Lake Street and, further, authorize publication by summary only. 8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: 123-134 (a) Powerline Road Municipal Boundary Adjustment MOTION #1: I move to approve the Interlocal Agreement with Franklin County for revision of the Pasco corporate boundary along Powerline Road. MOTION #2: I move to adopt Ordinance 4286, an Ordinance revising the corporate boundary of the City of Pasco to include that portion of Powerline Road between Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 68 and, further, authorize publication by summary only. 135- 153 (b) E Rezone: RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (MF# Z 2016-002) MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4287, an ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, rezoning Lot 20, Coles Estates from RT (Residential Page 3 of 186 154-180 181- 186 Regular Meeting May 2, 2016 Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) and, further, authorize publication by summary only. (c) ® Special Permit: Cantu Daycare Center (MF# SP 2016-005) MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3710, approving a special permit for the location of a daycare center at 220 N. Oregon Avenue, as recommended by the Planning Commission. (d) Council Goals 2016-2017 MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 3711, establishing primary goals of the City of Pasco for the ensuing calendar years 2016-2017. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 10. NEW BUSINESS: 11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 13. ADJOURNMENT. (RC) Roll Call Vote Required * Item not previously discussed Q Quasi -Judicial Matter MF# "Master File #...." Ibi Did 0-1 9 : 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 4, 2601 N. Capitol Avenue — Franklin County Mosquito Control District Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.) 11:00 a.m., Saturday, May 7, Downtown Pasco — Cinco de Mayo Parade. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS) (ALL COUNCILMEMBERS INVITED TO ATTEND) 12:30 p.m., Saturday, May 7, Farmer's Market, Pasco — Cinco de Mayo Celebration Ceremony. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS) (ALL COUNCILMEMBERS INVITED TO ATTEND) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.j!ov/psctvlive. Page 4 of 186 Regular Meeting May 2, 2016 Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Page 5 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager FROM: Rick Terway, Director Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes I. REFERENCE(S): Minutes 04.18.16 April 26, 2016 Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated April 18, 2016. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Page 6 of 186 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL APRIL 18, 2016 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 Hofftnann, Tom Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney. Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director; Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director; Bob Metzger, Police Chief and Dave Hare, Fire Battalion Chief. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Juan Vincent from Boy Scout Troop #275. CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of Minutes To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated April 4, 2016. Bills and Communications To approve claims in the total amount of $2,923,450.30 ($1,539,882.57 in Check Nos. 209190-209406; $691,680.27 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 809840- 809848, 809850-809851, 810001-810003; $40,710.15 in Check Nos. 49071- 49117; $636,320.12 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30092871-30093352; $14,857.19 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 235-241). To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery, General Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non- criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of $208,391.25 and, of that amount, authorize $124,446.58 be turned over for collection. Appointments to Code Enforcement Board To appoint Charles Harding to fill Position No. 1 (expiration date of 1/1/17); to reappoint Russell Glatt to Position No. 3, appoint James Rawlinson to Position No. 4, and reappoint Mary Gutierrez to Position No. 5 (all with the expiration date of 1/1/18) to the Code Enforcement Board. Housing Authority Commission Appointment To reappoint Linda Dukelow to Position No. 5 (expiration date 1/28/21) to the City of Pasco and Franklin County Housing Authority Commission. Annexation: Mullen Annexation (MF# ANX 2016-003) To set 7:00 p.m. Monday, May 2, 2016 as the time and date to hold a public hearing to consider the Mullen Annexation. Page 1 of 3 Page 7 of 186 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL APRIL 18, 2016 MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Garrison seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS: Mayor Watkins reported on the Ben -Franklin Transit Board meeting and commented on the upcoming Pasco Taco Crawl event. Mr. Hoffmann attended the BFCG Tri -Mats Policy Advisory Committee meeting. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO: Street & Alley Vacation: Block 104 NP Plat (MF# VAC 2016-004) Mr. White explained the details of the proposed vacation. Mayor Watkins declared the Public Hearing open to consider the proposed vacation. Following three calls for comments, and there being none, Mayor Watkins declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4280, vacating a portion of Bonneville Street and Main Avenue along with all alleys in Block 104 NP Plat, and, further authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Street Vacation: A Portion of West Henry Street (MF# VAC 2016-005) Mr. White explained the details of the proposed vacation. Mayor Watkins declared the Public Hearing open to consider the proposed vacation. Following three calls for comments, and there being none, Mayor Watkins declared the Public Hearing closed. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4281, an Ordinance vacating a portion of West Henry Street, and, further authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS: Vehicular Parking and Storage MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4282, adding new Sections 10.48.015 "Parking Across Designated Parking Lines" and 10.52.035 "Prohibiting Extended Unauthorized Parking" to the Pasco Municipal Code and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Pasco School District 2016 Capital Facility Plan Update and Impact Fee Report Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed resolution. Page 2 of 3 Page 8 of 186 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL APRIL 18, 2016 MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3707, incorporating the Pasco School District's 2016 update of the 2011 - 2017 Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Pasco Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried 5-2. No - Hoffmann, Larsen. Resolution Authorizing Application for Grant Funds - Lewis Street Overpass Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed resolution. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3708, authorizing staff to apply for grants for the Lewis Street Overpass project. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried 6-1. No - Larsen Participation in the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington Roster Process to Award Public Works Contracts Mr. Zabell explained the details of the proposed resolution. MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3709, authorizing participating in the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington roster process to award public works contracts; a consulting service roster for architectural, engineering and other professional services; and a vendor roster for goods and services not related to the public works contracts. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION: Mr. Hoffmann gave an update on the regional fund raising efforts for the Fire Department Rescue Boat. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Matt Watkins, Mayor Debra Clark, City Clerk PASSED and APPROVED this 2nd day of May, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Page 9 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager FROM: Ron Musson, Interim Finance Manager Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Bills and Communications I. REFERENCE(S): Accounts Payable 05.02.16 April 28, 2016 Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: To approve claims in the total amount of $3,051,065.78 ($1,264,429.70 in Check Nos. 209407-209609; $1,154,690.23 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 809767-809836, 809849, 809852-810000, 810004-810180, 810247-810257; $46,170.32 in Check Nos. 49118- 49159; $585,775.53 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30093353-30093834. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: V. DISCUSSION: Page 10 of 186 CITY OF PASCO Council Meeting of: May 2, 2016 Accounts Payable Approved The City Council City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as described herein and the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the city and we are authorized to authenticate and certify to such claim. Dave Zabell, City Manager Rick Terway, A&CS Director We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this 2nd day of May. 2016 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment: Gen'I Bank Electronic Bank N/A $0.00 $0.00 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERALFUND STREET ARTERIAL STREET STREET OVERLAY C.D. BLOCK GRANT HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT NSP GRANT MARTIN LUTHER KING COMMUNITY CENTER AMBULANCE SERVICE CEMETERY ATHLETIC PROGRAMS GOLF COURSE SENIOR CENTER OPERATING MULTI -MODAL FACILITY SCHOOL IMPACT FEES RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LODGING LITTER ABATEMENT REVOLVING ABATEMENT TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING PARKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER LID GENERAL CAP PROJECT CONSTRUCTION UTILITY, WATER/SEWER EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE FLEX PAYROLL CLEARING GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: Combined Total Checks $ 1,310,600.02 Total EFTs $ 1,740,465.76 Grand Total $ 3,051,065.78 Councilmember 491,982.42 52,175.93 0.00 0.00 3,284.55 935.37 0.00 1,710.06 40, 056.03 7,139.32 1,092.47 78, 365.30 2,271.90 12,512.14 0.00 408.65 0.00 0.00 4,654.80 0.00 0.00 10, 866.89 199.94 0.00 600,094.41 319, 989.67 22,258.97 2,272.58 4,574.61 49.75 152, 561.27 11,469.16 1,230,139.59 $ 3,051,065.78 Page 11 of 186 Claims Bank Payroll Bank Check Numbers 209407-209609 49118-49159 Total Check Amount $1,264,429.70 $46,170.32 Electronic Transfer Numbers 809767-809836 30093353-30093834 809849 809852-810000 810004-810180 810247-810257 Total EFT Amount $1,154,690.23 $585,775.53 Councilmember Gen'I Bank Electronic Bank N/A $0.00 $0.00 SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND: GENERALFUND STREET ARTERIAL STREET STREET OVERLAY C.D. BLOCK GRANT HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT NSP GRANT MARTIN LUTHER KING COMMUNITY CENTER AMBULANCE SERVICE CEMETERY ATHLETIC PROGRAMS GOLF COURSE SENIOR CENTER OPERATING MULTI -MODAL FACILITY SCHOOL IMPACT FEES RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LODGING LITTER ABATEMENT REVOLVING ABATEMENT TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING PARKS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER LID GENERAL CAP PROJECT CONSTRUCTION UTILITY, WATER/SEWER EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE FLEX PAYROLL CLEARING GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: Combined Total Checks $ 1,310,600.02 Total EFTs $ 1,740,465.76 Grand Total $ 3,051,065.78 Councilmember 491,982.42 52,175.93 0.00 0.00 3,284.55 935.37 0.00 1,710.06 40, 056.03 7,139.32 1,092.47 78, 365.30 2,271.90 12,512.14 0.00 408.65 0.00 0.00 4,654.80 0.00 0.00 10, 866.89 199.94 0.00 600,094.41 319, 989.67 22,258.97 2,272.58 4,574.61 49.75 152, 561.27 11,469.16 1,230,139.59 $ 3,051,065.78 Page 11 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 20, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director FROM: Dan Ford, City Engineer Public Works SUBJECT: Oregon Ave Improvements Ph. 1 WSDOT Agreement GCB 2341 for Professional Services I. REFERENCE(S): Agreement GCB 2341 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Agreement GCB 2341 with Washington State Department of Transportation and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Grants - $49,000 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Oregon Avenue Corridor Improvements project is a multiphase project that will incorporate transportation and pedestrian safety improvements to Oregon Avenue (SR - 397) from its connection with the interchange of Interstate 182/State Route 12 on the north to Ainsworth Avenue. The corridor supports heavy freight movement and has experienced a number of crashes over the last several years, highlighting a need for these improvements. An agreement is required by WSDOT to outline their participation which includes inspection, coordination and construction oversight during project impleme V. DISCUSSION: Agreement GCB 2341 contracts WSDOT to perform the following services: Page 12 of 186 Agreement/Monitoring Preliminary Scope and Engineering (PS&E) Construction Oversight by Field Office. This item was discussed at the April 25, 2016 Council Workshop. Page 13 of 186 AGREEMENT GCB 2341 Between Washington State Department of Transportation And the City of Pasco This Agreement is made and entered into between the Washington State Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the "STATE," and the City of Pasco, a municipal corporation located at 525 No. 3rd, Avenue, Pasco Washington, hereinafter called the "AGENCY," collectively referred to as the "Parties" and individually, the "Party". WHEREAS, the AGENCY is planning the design and construction of improvements to US 397, MP 20.4 to MP 22.3, a project titled, Oregon Ave Improvements (Phase 1 — "A" St. Tal- 182/US12) within the City of Pasco, by roadway widening from an existing four lane to provide a five lane roadway that will provide a center two way, left turnlane to accommodate turning movements and add left turn lane at intersections, installation of median in select locations, installation of curb and gutter, driveways, sidewalks and ADA ramps to meet standards, stormwater infrastructure, illumination and streetscaping, installation of traffic signals at the intersections of Oregon Ave (SR 397) and Idaho Avenue, E. Salt Lake Street and Broadway Street and upgrade of existing traffic signals, herein called the "Project," and WHEREAS, the AGENCY will act as lead agency to design, advertise and award and administer the construction of the Project, and WHEREAS, the AGENCY has contracted with CH2M Hill herein called the "Consultant" to design, prepare the plans, specifications and estimate and assist as needed during the bidding process, and WHEREAS, the AGENCY is an approved "Certification Acceptance" (CA) agency, by which the STATE has granted the AGENCY the authority to administer projects, and WHEREAS, the STATE recognizes the AGENCY's demonstrated ability to responsibly design projects and administer construction, and WHEREAS, the STATE's jurisdiction is defined as the area between back of curb to back of curb, and WHEREAS, the AGENCY requests STATE approval to permit the AGENCY to administer construction of the portion of the Project that lies within STATE managed access jurisdiction, hereafter called "Work" and WHEREAS, the STATE authorizes the AGENCY to construct the Work, and WHEREAS, the STATE agrees to provide the design reviews, construction inspection oversight and approvals for the Work, and WHEREAS, the STATE and the AGENCY now wish to define responsibilities for design, construction administration of the Work, AGREEMENT GCB 2341 Page 1 @age 14 of 186 NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of RCW 47.28.140, the above recitals that are incorporated herein as if fully set forth below and in consideration of terms, conditions covenants and performances contained herein, and Exhibits A and B which are attached and incorporated and made a part hereof, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. GENERAL 1.1 The Vicinity Map and roadway paving plans RD -1 through RD -7 attached as Exhibit A, the Estimate for STATE work at the AGENCY's expense is attached as Exhibit B. 1.2 The scope of this Agreement is for design through construction of the portion of the AGENCY's project contained within US 397 jurisdiction defined as back of curb to back of curb. 1.3 The AGENCY agrees that the Work shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the current versions of the State of Washington Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (Standard Specs), the Local Agency Guidelines (LAG Manual), the State of Washington Department of Transportation Design Manual and Standard Plans and amendments thereto, and pertinent design modifications as approved in the Project design file. 2. PROJECT CONTACTS 2.1 STATE Design P.E. Roger Arms P.E. Local Programs Engineer 2809 Rudkin Rd. Union Gap, WA 98903-1648 (509) 577-1780 Arms RCa)wsdot.wa. gov 2.2 STATE Construction P.E. Moe Davari P.E. Project Engineer 1655 Fowler St Richland, WA 99352 (509) 577-1780 DavariM(a)wsdot.wa.gov 3. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PHASES 3.1 DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AGENCY Design Contact. Maria L. Serra, EIT Associate Engineer 525 N. 31d Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 (509) 544-3080 X6412 serramCa-)Pasco-wa.gov AGENCY Construction Contact Kent McCue Construction manager 525 N 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 (509) 544-3080 X6402 mccue Pasco-wa.gov 3.1.1 The AGENCY, through its Consultant, shall prepare all Project design plans and documentation and submit to the STATE Design P.E., Section 2.1, for STATE review and acceptance for the Work. 3.2 PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATE (PS&E) AGREEMENT GCB 2341 Page 2l8fW 15 of 186 3.2.1 The AGENCY, through its Consultant, shall prepare the Project PS&E and submit the final package to STATE Design P.E., Section 2.1, for STATE review and acceptance of the proposed Work at least two weeks prior to the AGENCY advertising the Project for bids. 3.3 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS 3.3.1 The STATE and the AGENCY shall cooperate in the review of the above-mentioned design, and PS&E materials. Required modifications to the Work as the result of STATE reviews shall be performed by the AGENCY, through its Consultant, prior to advertising the Project for bid. Any required modification costs will be the sole responsibility of the AGENCY. 3.4 PROJECT ADVERTISEMENT AND AWARD 3.4.1 The STATE shall review and accept the AGENCY's final package as to the Work within ten days of its receipt. The AGENCY will publish and advertise the construction contract for bids, and if bids are acceptable, award the contract and administer the Project construction contract. 3.4.2 The AGENCY shall prepare and issue addenda to the contract. The AGENCY shall submit addenda that affect the Work to the STATE for its prior review and written acceptance before issuance. The STATE shall assist the AGENCY in answering bid questions that are associated with the Work. All comments and clarifications that affect the Work must go through the STATE. 4. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION 4.1 The AGENCY shall administer the construction of the Project, if awarded, and by this reference, the Project Contract Plans and Provisions and any approved change orders are made a part of this Agreement as if fully attached hereto. 4.2 Prior to beginning Project construction, a pre -construction conference shall be held at which the STATE, .the AGENCY, and AGENCY's contactor shall be present. The AGENCY shall give a minimum of five (5) working days notice to the STATE Construction P.E., Section 2.2, prior to holding the pre -construction conference. 4.3 In addition to the requirements in Section 4.2, the STATE may, at any time, request a construction schedule or updates there to from the AGENCY, showing critical dates and activities that will lead to the timely completion of the Work. 4.4 Copies of this Agreement shall be kept at the AGENCY's project office and by the AGENCY at the construction site. The Agreement shall be shown, upon request, to any state representative or law enforcement officer. 5. PROJECT ENGINEERS 5.1 The AGENCY shall be responsible for the Project contract administration and has assigned an AGENCY Construction Contact, Section 2.2, for the Project, including the Work. 5.2 The STATE has assigned a STATE Construction P.E., Section 2.2. The STATE Construction RE. will provide construction inspection oversite and approvals for the Work. AGREEMENT GCB 2341 Page 3 f 16 of 186 5.3 The STATE Construction P.E. and the AGENCY Construction Contact shall be responsible for familiarizing themselves with the Work, including plans, specifications, bid prices, schedule, and relevant issues. Both shall coordinate and cooperate with each other to ensure completion of the Work. 5.4 The STATE recognizes the AGENCY's role as contracting agency for the Project. All STATE communication will be through the STATE Construction P.E., or designee, to the AGENCY Construction Contact. The STATE Construction P.E., or designee, shall attend regular coordinating meetings, the AGENCY's pre -construction conference, and other meetings deemed necessary for appropriate coordination. 6. STATE PROJECT INSPECTION 6.1 The STATE will provide construction oversite to ensure that the workmanship and materials for the Work are in compliance with the contract plans and specifications. 7. TRAFFIC CONTROL 7.1 In construction of the Work, the AGENCY shall comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD), current edition. 8. PROGRESS REPORTS 8.1 The AGENCY shall provide written monthly progress reports to the STATE to include, at a minimum, Project status, and current and projected schedule for Project and Work completion. 9. CONTRACT CHANGES 9.1 Any proposed changes to the Works' plans or specifications previously approved by the STATE require further STATE review and prior written approval before implementing the changes. 10. CONTRACTOR CLAIMS 10.1 The STATE shall make every good faith effort to pursue all requested reviews and approvals to promote the Project advancement on schedule. If the STATE fails to process a submittal or re -submittal for approval within 10 calendar days, the submittal for approval will be considered to be approved by the STATE. 11. PROJECT COMPLETION 11.1 Upon physical completion of the Project and prior to final acceptance, as defined in the LAG Manual, by the STATE, the AGENCY shall provide the STATE with one set of as - built drawings and material acceptance certification documents for the Work. The as -built drawings shall be prepared in accordance with the current edition of the STATE's Construction Manual (Section 10-3.11). 12. MATERIALS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL AGREEMENT GCB 2341 Page �P4617 of 186 12.1 All Work materials and workmanship shall conform to the state Construction Manual and the state Standard Specs and shall be subject to inspection by the STATE as provided herein. 12.2 All Work materials testing shall be performed by the AGENCY or an independent certified testing laboratory of its choice. Copies of Work test results shall be submitted to the STATE Construction P.E., Section 2.2, prior to beginning the next phase of construction. The STATE reserves the right to verify the test results or to perform the testing in STATE facilities. The STATE will be responsible for the cost of the verification tests. 13. PAYMENT 13.1 The Agency shall reimburse the STATE for all actual direct and related indirect costs incurred by the STATE under this Agreement. Such costs include, but are not limited to, agreement preparation, plan review, including review of proposed revisions to plans and specifications, construction inspection, and administration overhead. An estimate of cost for the Work to be performed by the STATE, at the AGENCY's expense, is attached as Exhibit B. The AGENCY has federal funds that is managed by WSDOT Local Programs for the project payments. WSDOT Local Programs has setup a work order for reimbursement to the STATE for agreements preparation, plan review, review of proposed revisions to plans, specifications and construction inspection oversite of the Work. For reimbursement for STATE costs, the STATE will charge to the work order setup by WSDOT Local Programs. 14. INCREASE IN COSTS 14.1 In the event unforeseen conditions require an increase in the cost of 25 percent or more from that agreed to on Exhibit B, this Agreement will be amended to cover the cost increases. 15. RIGHT OF ENTRY 15.1 Subject to the terms of this Agreement, The STATE hereby grants to the AGENCY, it's consultant, employees, and its authorized agents, contractors, and subcontractors, a right of entry upon state jurisdiction, defined as back of curb to back of curb which is necessary for the AGENCY to the perform the Work. 16. INSURANCE 16.1 The AGENCY shall furnish the STATE, a certificate of insurance for the limits set forth in the Standard Specs within fifteen (15) calendar days of the Agency construction contract being signed. 17. OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE 17.1 These improvements are located inside city limits within manages access highway rights of way, ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities shall be apportioned between the AGENCY and the STATE pursuant to chapter 47.2 RCW and the City Streets AGREEMENT GCB 2341 Page Tab@ 18 of 186 as Part of State Highways Guidelines developed between the Association of Washington Cities and the STATE except as described below: The AGENCY shall be responsible for the maintenance of the following items: Parallel Roadside Ditches: Ditches or drains running parallel with the roadway. Cross Culverts: Devices used to channel water to allow water to pass under the roadway. Maintenance of Landscaping All landscaping beyond the face of the curbs or the edge of pavement. 18. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES 18.1 After Work acceptance, in the event of claims for damages or loss attributable to bodily injury, sickness, death, or injury to or destruction of property that occurs within the limits of the Work located on the STATE's jurisdiction. The STATE shall defend such claims and hold harmless the AGENCY therefrom, and the AGENCY shall not be obligated to pay any claim, judgment or cost of defense, unless such claims result from the negligent design or construction of the Work. Nothing in this Section, however, shall remove from the AGENCY any responsibility defined by the current laws of the state of Washington or from any liability for damages caused by the AGENY's own negligent acts or omissions. 19. TERM OF AGREEMENT 19.1 The term of this agreement shall commence as of the date this Agreement is fully executed by the Parties and shall continue until the Work is constructed and accepted by the STATE and the AGENCY makes payment for all STATE costs as provided herein. 20. ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT 20.1 No assignment or transfer of this Agreement in any manner whatsoever shall be valid, nor vest any rights hereby granted, until the STATE consents thereto and the assignee accepts all terms of this Agreement. 21. NON -EXCLUSIVITY 21.1 This Agreement shall not be deemed or held to be an exclusive one and shall not prohibit the STATE from granting permits or franchise rights; or entering into other Agreements of like or other nature with other public or private companies or individuals, nor shall it prevent the STATE from using any of its highways, streets, or public places, or affect its right to full supervision and control over all or any part of them, none of which is hereby surrendered. 22. AUDIT and RECORDS 22.1 Audit and Records: During the progress of the Work and for a period of not less AGREEMENT GCB 2341 Page fib@ 19 of 186 than three (3) years from the date of final payment, the AGENCY shall maintain the records and accounts pertaining to the Work and shall make them available during normal business hours and as often as necessary, for inspection and audit by the State of Washington and/or Federal Government and copies of all records, accounts, documents or other data pertaining to the Work will be furnished upon request. The requesting Party shall pay the cost of copies produced. If any litigation, claim or audit is commenced, the records and accounts along with supporting documentation shall be retained until any litigation, claim or audit finding has been resolved even though such litigation, claim or audit continues past the three-year retention period. 23. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 23.1 Neither Party may terminate this Agreement without the concurrence of the other Party. Termination shall be in writing and signed by both Parties. If this Agreement is terminated prior to the fulfillment of the terms stated herein, the AGENCY shall reimburse the STATE for its actual direct and related indirect expenses and costs incurred up to the date of termination. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior to termination. 24. MODIFICATION 24.1 This Agreement may be amended or modified only by the mutual agreement of the Parties. Such amendments or modifications shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by persons authorized to bind each of the Parties. 25. ASSIGNMENT 25.1 Neither Party to this Agreement shall transfer or assign any right or obligation hereunder without prior written consent of the other Party. 26. SEVERABILITY 26.1 Should any part, term or provision of this Agreement be determined to be invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected, and the same shall continue in full force and effect. 27. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 271 In the event that a dispute arises under this Agreement, it shall be resolved as follows: The STATE and the AGENCY shall each appoint a member to a disputes board, these two members shall select a third board member not affiliated with either Party. The three- member board shall conduct a dispute resolution hearing that shall be informal and unrecorded. An attempt at such dispute resolution in compliance with aforesaid process shall be a prerequisite to the filing of any litigation concerning the dispute. The Parties shall equally share in the cost of the third disputes board member; however, each Party shall be responsible for its own costs and fees. 28. INDEMNIFICATION 28.1 To the extent authorized by law, the AGENCY, its successors and assigns, agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State of Washington and its officers and AGREEMENT GCB 2341 Page 7R&g% 20 of 186 employees, from all claims, demands, damages (both to persons and/or property), expenses, regulatory fines, and/or suits that: (1) arise out of or are incident to any acts or omissions by the AGENCY, its Consultant, contractors, subcontractors, agents, and/or their employees, in the use of the state highway right of way as authorized by the terms of this Agreement, or (2) are caused by the breach of any of the conditions of this Agreement by the AGENCY, its Consultant, contractors, subcontractors, agents, and/or their employees. The AGENCY, its successors and/or assigns, shall not be required to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless the State of Washington and its officers and employees, if the claim, suit, or action for damages (both to persons and/or property) is caused by the sole acts or omissions of the State of Washington and, its officers and employees; provided that, if such claims, suits, or actions result from the concurrent negligence of (a) the State of Washington, its officers and employees and (b) the AGENCY, its Consultant, contractors, subcontractors, agents, and/or their employees, or involves those actions covered by RCW 4.24.115, the indemnity provisions provided herein shall be valid and enforceable only to the extent of the acts or omissions of the AGENCY, its Consultant, contractors, subcontractors, agents, and/or their employees 28.2 The AGENCY agrees that its obligations under this section extend to any claim, demand and/or cause of action brought by, or on behalf of, any of its employees or agents while performing Work on the state-owned owned right of way. For this purpose, the AGENCY, by mutual negotiation, hereby waives with respect to the STATE only, any immunity that would otherwise be available to it against such claims under the Industrial Insurance provisions chapter 51.12 RCW. 28.3 This indemnification and waiver shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 29. VENUE AND ATTORNEYS FEES 29.1 In the event that either Party deems it necessary to institute legal action or proceedings to enforce any right or obligation under this Agreement, the Parties agree that any such action or proceedings shall be brought in Thurston County, Washington Superior Court. Further, the Parties further agree that each will be solely responsible for payment of its own attorneys fees, witness fees, and costs. 30. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR 30.1 The AGENCY shall be deemed an independent contractor for all purposes under this Agreement, and the employees of the AGENCY or any of its consultants, and the employees thereof, shall not in any manner be deemed to be employees or agents of the STATE. 31. WORKING DAYS Working days for this Agreement are defined as Monday through Friday, excluding Washington State holidays per RCW 1.16.050. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the Party's date last signed below. AGREEMENT GCB 2341 Page 81fg� 21 of 186 CITY OF PASCO Name Title Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 4-45 -?PJ LQ Date AGREEMENT GCB 2341 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION W. Brian White, P.E. SCR Interim Regional Administrator Date Page 9ays22of186 Pa e23of186 NNUISIARI ''?bb O 7t+a lit rtt�-s>s sas 'aNIN33NI�N3 - O1i8lld is 5 vr OJ S V - T -WSVHa _ SH80M S1N�W�/�'U�JdWI � A." __>� Y-- Ojsvd do A1I3 L6E !JS ��d NOJ�l�O � Ca� � Baa#= 3 mil� .o �t���9f£�� y8 R, ry'd Y F gee N M ffi C w w�l _ W W W W u� Q O W a W _ @�$�av$ x8�2� o zy +� d r F F F F �� g n d F �. Cr Wz�6ldnk§ LLI4r1 W q;°I g�0°Ou GG Y$ 2 4 w $ s a$ �{$ g & 6 Q i 1 Qi a1 w fn5 HUN aila 55555¢ sa0�� aaa'w3E3333" g3 c F ai�e3e k a�$�3�����3a�$�� s =s e1 HIP; S� a 1 � H"M �� H 11911 IMM ���IM1552aalim H M9��HH8 C3 .COCw p Z x CO U W Q. I_.A.am,..e_____��3 ❑ NIZ . e.. _ �Rs�AARryRR As pR%RRBRR9,:79St9: ::Rn pp cJ ERR6pR9m p�affiffi5Bffi&A U1 00U$ aanwH V Q o 5trca 0 U)� �— 0. as Hone a O i z M © N oa wv�i c7¢ aJ mai i E (1) N Q. c Z r j w N a. ' 0 co \V O y G 0) Q 3 H r -I WLL H H W z m GM, aw N a o as vvoa is�wo�ta'l icez 9 11 w 6 N 1S 05143 LU`J I L- p s o d gz vD LIJ 0 � ar aeon3� F �V W 0 Q O a tj C) amsaoa ode Z Sr o �u u �• LL. z 3 } C9x (o V ao o >o 6 0 z J @ �o ax�a a Pa e23of186 00'65+651 h'1S 0199'SL+ZE4vie � G SNVId JNIAV J AYMOVOW / < NOISIA38 omK-srs sos ;LS SJNrf 01 SS V — T 9S'Hd s yoao b o �rIla�3rEJN3 _ sNM Tana S1NDHDAbu.4 OOSVd LSO UTO L6E US DAY NOOEUO - K a 9 p' } ;R $ i3g�`�YE rc,.. s uz. €3 �7.Wg8; as ¢a¢F¢¢¢ a¢ F aF�aaaF F Raa¢¢a a aF aF $la-�¢�F FSFa caaFFFis �N���y�y�ayra,��;'�,��sNQ�QQ��.en�Io�wF,�����w����,�w��,�aNx��a�0 P� ���.���Q�H�w�CjZ(��� _ 133HS SIHI'09`LDL VIS3NIl H�1tlW o Z-QIL 1334D Me b193Nn H01" �U w rr-,�, I k�. o � o '15 NblYlP3911H'3 3 z ' m l 1S N3al '3I aI , I I xerxu If I 3aola � - ra..-..,F a � m IALp S % N _ I (�� I Ols w 4 CJ ¢ l 13J O xs 1 r- "14NIhiNW'3 co YL•3+P Oni n GHf �—OHP— ~ 44 7,i I I U0729• aas d� x w .a kL. f k ` , F r r 82 1� I Yoe I I INps s I' 7 j ' ��� � 133HS SIHl'OS+LDl M133NI1 N51VIM :L�s e 24 of 186 Oa'a9+vl VJ.9 0140-05+t51 V1S SNV7J OM W AVMCIVOH m . - NOISEA3tl ` i� r>rE-sv5 Eos :1s s'S1N� :4S , V. �dW EvHd d �JNI�33NI�JN3 - SkaOM atlBHd OOS'�d 3O A,LID 46 US EgAY NOOHO a9 R N PPPPPP - 4F51 �am� eag,rt WJ "dSg-gig 4�$-r a�gYT-6i67 � J;--2baPo02 i w v " 68$ $ x 3�B F- k w 2n2$di z-. z �YYa F` ,`177 a3~��,5� $$���y�� ��Y �+. q'a� n $, � .$$m$�'��r�'R&��..A �$� Y�oaiM W���Y«5 Z a rc .-Ru = w�i a 2 $' MIN � 12�B � aaacaaaaaa « ¢¢ac Faaa%a¢¢aaaaa�¢aaaa�i✓aaa¢�.samaaaaaaea a ¢ a¢aae aeea aa�aeee ©Z 133HS ;a3 LLL !1S 3Nn H71W1 133HB BIHl 'sZ+iat V133NI1 Haim- 3d0,6 ~ r i 1 m` / -'Idols I rr=T--O i1 7 i,af � •1 _tir it cn „i •} 4 .� n � .E R T �, w �TO "4 M -ry 4 h"+t: t YF�1nMk%!Mln cn 14 iL ea �a .a .a a N a s p 4 eol 3s o SWN-siR --S'tiW-SNP, •.'.MA '.•'� Nft s .R -SNR bn O3e013 _--------- - V a - Htfit' } 7777 I � I 3d01S 2�1 I' �aF �VeTTAq�) N a Q Q w b = E 1 W Ib •"C R i m~ -- 1331V13NN09 i u W I4 %B {' I 34073 - j:'�Lr�� � S.xHvla3 GL133H3333 �ligi•Y13aNn H31WI 13BHS SIHl SL'M V15 SNIT HgWR :�s e25of186 W, Lu is O CO of Z o) P ^off' wWs o= - a Y � U �wQa�a� w�awpcpiw Nil N �o aw H Za - OU09+0 Vis of oo,os+(u vis sN+fld UNrnva ),VMOVdd *` NOWA36 m �m vroro�-sros (609)13S6Hd 9NIJ33NIJN3 - SN216M Anand �IV�YY�f\V�f�ini� zQ���:on z CV ans a NOJDUO oa°"o=�a W N -�¢-d +Y g -3P $$ un 'a- �p�os$�asm���a $ n ��aM �a n�o�p l/�OFF4F-- <�OL6I¢�I¢. ¢I¢-FnF�wF<FK�FKK�$K�Fafff wwNWG� ��i vlwNwtAmwM�wrnm�yw KKr�rtti l¢ -G 4F¢F.... 1¢. Haff �iwm �umw�ibwW O�i�wwwwwMWMwQ wwww� W, Lu is O CO of Z o) P ^off' wWs o= - a Y � U �wQa�a� w�awpcpiw Nil N �o aw H Za Oa'oS+LIZ 1'15 01 00'094L9 vis SNnd JNIAVd l7MOtlOH m Nolsln3a $a 444E-549 609) Ys s:Vw�1eiw �OILtn;�LS Y� L-J jt �,.,�sVffd 0NI2l33NI0N3 .- S�[lIOM aVllifld S11VAY■��OC7<YYI a S NF co or M212 4 N Sig SBp $ :: J 9 g x '� m8 8N 8n d�F3 �$�6�8`"� III NN j ! 8� ar'me'd'°oa a<FaFaa as ¢a ¢��aa�¢aaF a a m ogma�a aA a „�w�w=��In����N U 3 bV px mai'--w ;;ee �rvrwN i *NON I. ad: J F-<iaou= Ro T 1 I1r 1� «13$v'&S8 ads wa m. r �aa�aaaa�a A018: gw-- J n LL -� ! m •� �4dm MOM LLl „.R.g / j + xz 88SS88888 IIIIMAY�l 3wa$ I. m ! O CD a � N 1. HEPIPI $&4 $$$$$asa o�88 S 88� I "g0. Pesti e F 1 133H3333 I-dge 27 of 186 00OS+�ZZ Vie O.L 00'()gw VJ2 N9ld ONIAVd AMM(3VOU a _NUISIAAU�.�= g 444 IS ",716i �LLuT�iE-Sb5 60S fd �y JNI833NION3 - SMOM zMard S1N�W�.nVi�d WI a z� `7' QQSvd L40 ALLIQ /-6Q Hs ZJV NOQQ ]H© W 9 c ra w �qj e!p e� J 'WL�pl. a <,$ L k�e m.o ci �iS "�, cizK oa W ng iq ��,",et�U?w 68��mr'S� a��.co Z�&r&�o�tiHnn�ary W 5 n � U ' 2r` }m �•�O�z��n / Z WHO \ � -•ate / H¢�d�¢owi / co Z r w H W o 1 >y 9iM 1 2W ll CN C7 0w x xr,r sM „patr; U 'SEM �W a � Z - w - " :1 ilmiR9dt1lICD I � 1 i � re' K �ry A5t4 riRRk S Yo - & z 13''H3 SUy1 ^pSa®L2 yy�.3A71,y F 1M' LZ 133N3 934 ^M4LLL H}S 3Nll }y�}gYY :�s e28of186 Page 29 of 186 -I€nI-:ga F >MMEGIs a3E KYs AG IHOIU $ ty IT of NOISIA N 4>Y£-SiS (,605 iW .�.�1' of O—r '—Ts I (r — r 9S6'IId O 51 JN9tl33NI0N3 - TSNh?lOM OTll6 fld S1N,DV4DAbU IIALIto €s�^I� z OOsvd do 1 110 L6£ FIs a d NOD � wa3oo' wy I: ssyrr vsfisl o}f}�� . .. . ss w 2 cwi L6 LTi \J dP W ON a 460410 08'2i13 MS Qy me P .' �y j . , oY arl MS C) 1 cv 11 i 11 Py i i L Q� I SL"SLIi3 MS i � Z / - Q l �I d h � I �I I � Ei.r OD �e!!I 0 ` 5L'pZY13 M6 I z 98ZA'H M9 r4 m - 6 3 M$ , 06�i13 MS I I �i trt1Sy_p'1�/Jy .. 4 85"iS4'13 NS I § V 4 W ��� -.S iLtrlil$_ Pmv rWS tlT3 � 4f-atYKi l)0: CF�Ktia I ��iY 0896673 M5 y Sri � � nh S V e� F 9�$ F Lu h Jrcdu aF}rrdd oil3 u Page 29 of 186 -1ivJ-3a )IIa G(3[S aaHOrIRa t=r=-n t� 494E–S4S (6mS- rs Y's VHcI o ONI833NIE)N3 - Y�SMOM 3110nd S1N�W�Ab IdWl w� � OOSVd dO A113 ! S �/\ld No's o cq W wo c�Rs H u� tixY'n . U z� fill O W W F L 3 F yjk 3 11�9j ylj . i Eib7� M9 I � � Y `O I f,- _ W LZYl3 M9 ZWV I L-1 A.$ 'LZbl3 M8 H o�� U; I (� 11� eLza"ra Ms m xC s v aom aMa 1` J1iEb_l3 MS g Z I BB'Lzb't3 Ms eaLZ4l3 MS HOmdmMs z v yo Ms j 4 m I 'ry S S U w sac `CMV0 ms ana "ams 6 1+ l6 i'LLFl3 M6 L9'iZ4l MS $ aki Z&M MB 1y1 & cve _ YC'url9 itts 044 41 �I' ❑�g a O Jzoa uta vm irzmra Ms O U= l3 Ms 4—. a��rc°dd �o o Page 30 of 186 AGREEMENT GCB 2341 EXHIBIT "B" - COST ESTIMATE US 397 Oregon Ave Improvements (Phase 1 - A Street To James Street) ITEM NO. 0001 Agreement/Monitoring 0002 PS&E Reviews Estimate ITEM 0003 Construction Oversite by Field Office 0004 Admistrative Overhead (10.36%) BASE TOTAL AGREEMENT TOTAL THRESHOLD (BASE TOTAL Cost for Agreement plus 25%) AMOUNT $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $33,000.00 $3,700.00 $39,200.00 $49,000.00 If it is anticipated that this threshold will be exceeded, the Project Manager must initiate a Supplemental Agreement. Agreement 2116 Exhibit "B" SheaPdgef3l1 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 26, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments I. REFERENCE(S): II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to reappoint Tanya Bowers to Position No. 1, and appoint Kurt Lukins to Position No. 2 (term expiration date 2/2/22); and to appoint Pamela Bykonen to fill Position No. 8 (term expiration date 2/2/20) to the Planning Commission. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Planning Commission is composed of nine members; terms are for six years. The Commission meets on the third Thursday of each month at 7:00 pm. The Planning Commission conducts workshop meetings and public hearings on land - use policy and development proposals and issues recommendations for the City Council. V. DISCUSSION: Following conduct of interviews at the April 25 Workshop meeting, the Mayor has suggested the appointments be made as outlined in the motion above. Page 32 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 25, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Civil Service Commission Appointment I. REFERENCE(S): PMC 2.33 Application, Angel Esquivel (Council only) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: I move to confirm the City Manager's reappointment of Angel Esquivel to Position No. 2 on the Civil Service Commission (term to expire 2/17/22). III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: State Law (RCW 41.08 Civil Service for City Fire Fighters and 41.12 Civil Service for City Police) requires the City to maintain a Civil Service Commission for its Police and Fire Departments. PMC 2.33 provides for the Pasco Civil Service Commission and appointment of its members to six-year terms. The Civil Service Commission is to be composed of three citizens to assure fairness and impartiality in the hiring and promotion of uniformed police and fire employees. The Commission also decides appeals of discipline administered to uniformed Police and Fire employees, when such employees elect to use the Civil Service Commission hearing process (rare occasions) rather than the grievance arbitration process afforded in their respective bargaining contracts. In addition, the City has designated the Civil Service Commissioners to fill the role of a personnel board to consider certain appeals of workplace issues relating to non -uniformed employees who are not otherwise covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement. V. DISCUSSION: Page 33 of 186 The key attributes of a Civil Service Commission/Personnel Board member are experience in managing people in the workplace and the ability to make a fair and impartial decision based on the facts surrounding an issue. Mr. Esquivel has demonstrated that ability for the past six months as a member of the Civil Service Commission (was appointed in October 2015 to fill the vacancy left by Cos Edwards), and is eligible for reappointment. Although appointments to the Civil Service Commission are made by the City Manager, PMC 2.33 provides for "...consent of the City Council." Consent of the City Council is hereby requested (in the form of the proposed motion). Page 34 of 186 CHAPTER 2.33 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & PERSONNEL BOARD Sections: 2.33.010 CREATED - PURPOSE.....................................................................28 2.33.020 MEMBERSHIP................................................................................28 2.33.030 CIVIL SERVICE RULES....................................................................28 2.33.040 POWERS AND DUTIES OF PERSONNEL BOARD................................28 2.33.050 FIRE CHIEF EXCEPTED...................................................................28 2.33.060 POLICE CHIEF EXCEPTED...............................................................28 2.33.010 CREATED - PURPOSE. There is created pursuant to RCW 41.08 and RCW 41.12 a Civil Service Commission for the Fire Department and Police Department, and a Personnel Board for all employees of the City. (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5, 1997.) 2.33.020 MEMBERSHIP. Residents of the City of Pasco being citizens of the United States will be eligible for appointment. The City Manager will make all appointments to the commission with consent of the City Council, following rules established in RCW 41.08 and RCW 41.12. Members of the Civil Service Commission will also serve as members of the Personnel Board. (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5, 1997.) 2.33.030 CIVIL SERVICE RULES. The Commission shall adopt rules as provided for in RCW 41.08 and RCW 41.12 respectively. Commission Rules may be amended and updated from time to time. (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5, 1997.) 2.33.040 POWERS AND DUTIES OF PERSONNEL BOARD. It shall be the duty of the Personnel Board to: A) Hear grievances in accordance with rules of procedures and practices to be adopted by the Board, but informality of proceedings or in the manner of taking testimony shall not affect any action of the Board. B) Advise the appointing authority on matters brought before the Board by the appointing authority. C) Keep such records as may be necessary for the proper execution of the powers and duties of the Board. (Ord. 3266 Sec. 5, 1997.) 2.33.050 FIRE CHIEF EXCEPTED. Any person appointed as Fire Chief after January 25, 1994 shall be excepted from inclusion within the perview of the Civil Service System created by this chapter. (Ord. 3545 Sec. 33, 2002.) 2.33.060 POLICE CHIEF EXCEPTED. Any person appointed as Police Chief after January 25, 1994 shall be excepted from inclusion within the perview of the Civil Service System created by this chapter. (Ord. 3545 Sec. 33, 2002.) PMC Title 2 12/1/14 28 Page 35 of 186 "Pu6Cic Service Xecognition Week" May 1 - 7, 2016 WHEREAS, Americans are served every single day by public servants at the federal, state, county and city levels. These unsung heroes do the work that keeps our nation working; and WHEREAS, public employees take not only jobs, but oaths; and WHEREAS, many public servants, including military personnel, police officers, firefighters, border patrol officers, embassy employees, health care professionals and others, risk their lives each day in service to the people of the United States and around the world; and WHEREAS, City of Pasco employees (currently some 300 in number) represent numerous occupations and trades, possess a broad array of skills and expertise and put these to use with efficiency and integrity for all who reside in or visit our City; and WHEREAS, without these public servants at every level, continuity would be impossible in a democracy that regularly changes its leaders and elected officials; and WHEREAS, we all owe a substantial debt of gratitude to City of Pasco employees; and NOW, THEREFORE, I, Matt Watkins, Mayor of the City of Pasco, Washington, encourage all citizens to recognize the accomplishments and contributions of government employees at all levels, and to observe the week of May 1-7, 2016 as "Public Service Recognition Week" IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Pasco, State of Washington, to be affixed this 22nd day of April 2016. \C'AL S 1 Matt Watkins, Mayor /T�©F PP"'CO City of Pasco ZH1N��� Page 36 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 13, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Rezone: GESA, C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business) (MF# Z 2015-007) I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Proposed Rezone Ordinance with a Concomitant Agreement Report to Planning Commission Transcript of Planning Commission Hearing 1/21/16 Transcript of Planning Commission Deliberations 2/18/16 Video of Planning Commission Meeting: htt2://bit.ly/1TebcBH II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: CONDUCT A CLOSED RECORD HEARING: MOTION A: I move to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the rezone for the GESA Credit Union property under Master file # Z 2016-007. MOTION B: I move to continue the Closed Record hearing to May 16, 2016 to allow time for property owner acceptance of a concomitant agreement limiting objectionable the land uses on the GESA property and for the preparation of findings to support a rezone to C-3. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On January 21, 2016 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend rezoning the GESA property on Sylvester Page 37 of 186 Street from C-1 to C-3. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it would not be appropriate to rezone the property and recommended denial of the requested rezone. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation was received. After further review the Council directed staff to schedule a Closed Record hearing for reconsideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation. No date was established for the hearing. The rezone would have allowed the property owner greater latitude in security measures associated with the property, specifically in this case the use of barb -wire fencing which is limited to one strand in the C-1 District, while three strands are allowed in a C-3 designation. The GESA property is in compliance with current zoning requirements. V. DISCUSSION: Consideration of an appeal occurs in the form of a "Closed Record Hearing" consisting of a review of the written record of the rezone application including the Planning Commission's deliberation. When considering this appeal, the City Council has the option of accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation, denying the application, approving the application with additional conditions or remanding the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review on a specific issue. In acting on the rezone application as per the criteria of PMC 25. 88.060 Council should determine whether or not: 1. Is the proposal in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 2. Will the effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity be materially detrimental; 3. Is there merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole; 4. Should conditions be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impact from the proposal; 5. Is a concomitant agreement required and if so what should be the terms and conditions? The Council has the option of accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation or rezoning the property to C-3. Page 38 of 186 Many of the permitted uses in the C-3 District are inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the nearby elementary school. Rezoning the property to C-3 would require conditions to eliminate all heavy commercial uses and activities that are not in harmony with the immediate neighborhood. If the Council chooses to approve C-3 zoning findings will need to be developed to support the approval and signatures will need to be obtained for a concomitant agreement. To complete the rezone approval process it will be necessary to continue the Closed Record Hearing for two weeks to allow time to prepare findings and for GESA to sign a concomitant agreement that would eliminate the objectionable uses. The concomitant agreement would essentially create a C-3 zone limited to C-1 uses and activities but would permit the barbed wire fencing. Page 39 of 186 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, REZONING THE GESA PROPERTY ON SYLVESTER STREET FROM C-1 (RETAIL BUSINESS) TO C-3 (GENERAL BUSINESS) WITH A CONCOMMITANT AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such petition; and, WHEREAS, during the closed record hearing the City Council developed the following findings (list findings here); 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; and, 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 -1 Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business) for the real property as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: Block 2, O'Keefes 3rd Addition, including vacated streets and alleys. Section 2. That the change of the zoning classification as provided in Section 1 is contingent, and conditioned upon the execution and compliance with a Concomitant Agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the City which will attach to and run with the real property described in Section 1 above. Said Concomitant Agreement is attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit No "2". Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval, passage and publication as required by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 2°d day of May, 2016. Page 41 of 186 Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 42 of 186 "Exhibit # 2" CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Pasco, Washington, a non -charter code city, under the laws of the State of Washington (Chapter 35A.63 R.C.W. and Article 11, Section 11 of the Washington State Constitution) has authority to enact laws and enter into agreements to promote the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and thereby control the use and development of property within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the Owner(s) of certain property have applied for a rezone of such property described below within the City's jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the City pursuant to R.C.W. 43.12(c), the State Environmental Policy Act, should mitigate any adverse impacts which might result because of the proposed rezone; and WHEREAS, the City of Pasco and the Owner(s) are both interested in compliance with the Pasco Municipal Code provisions relating to the use and development of property situated in the City of Pasco, described as follows: Block 2, O'Keefes 3rd Addition, including vacated streets and alleys. WHEREAS, the Owner(s) have indicated willingness to cooperate with the City of Pasco, its Planning Commission and Planning Department to insure compliance with the Pasco Zoning Code, and all other local, state and federal laws relating to the use and development of the above described property; and WHEREAS, the City, in addition to civil and criminal sanctions available by law, desires to enforce the rights and interests of the public by this concomitant agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, In the event the above-described property is rezoned by the City of Pasco to C-3 (General Business) and in consideration of that event should it occur, and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter stated, the applicant does hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. The Owner(s) promise to comply with all of the terms of the agreement in the event the City, as full consideration herein grants a rezone on the above-described property. 2. The Owner(s) agrees to perform the terms set forth in Section 4 of this agreement. 3. This agreement shall be binding on their heirs, assigns, grantees or successors in interest of the Owner(s) of the property herein described. Page 43 of 186 4. Conditions: A. All uses permitted under PMC 25.46.020 (2-14) are prohibited. B. All uses permitted as conditional uses under PMC 25.46.040 are prohibited. The person(s) whose names are subscribed herein do hereby certify that they are the sole holders of fee simple interest in the above-described property: Owner: Owner: STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. County of Franklin ) On this day of , 2016, before me, the undersigned, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the individual(s) described above and who executed the within and foregoing instrument as an agent of the owner(s) of record, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they signed the same as his/her/their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she/they is/are authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN under by hand and official seal this day of 92016. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at CONCOMITANT ZONING AGREEMENTPAGE 2 OF 3 Page 44 of 186 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 2015-007 HEARING DATE: 1/21/2016 ACTION DATE: 2/18/2016 APPLICANT: GESA Credit Union 2202 W. Sylvester Street Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from C-1 (Office) to C-3 (General Business) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Block 2, O'Keefes 3rd Addition, including vacated streets and alleys General Location: 2200 block of W. Sylvester Street Property 3.3 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sylvester Street. 3. UTILITIES: Municipal sewer and water lines currently serve the site. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business) and contains a GESA Credit Union building and a GESA Administrative Service Building. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: C-1 - School Playground SOUTH: R1 -A-2 - Manufactured Homes EAST: C-1 - Vacant/ Office WEST: R-4 - Multi -Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the property for commercial uses. Those portions of the community designated for commercial development by the Comprehensive Plan could be zone "O", C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and BP. Land Use Goal ED -2 encourages the appropriate location and design of commercial facilities within the City. ED -2-B encourages the development of a wide range of commercial uses strategically located to support local and regional needs. LU -4-A suggests commercial facilities should be located near major street intersection to leverage the use of major infrastructure and to reduce commercial sprawl. 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 1 Page 45 of 186 Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. r_`,) r_` Wk -1 L11 The GESA credit union is seeking to rezone their property at 2202 W Sylvester Street from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business). Under the current Comprehensive Plan land use designation of commercial property could be zoned for "O", C-1, C-3, CR, and BP zoning. The specific zoning designation for the site is to be determined through the hearing process taking into consideration the site location, general purposes of each zoning district, street network and surrounding uses. The foregoing considerations should be factored into the rezone review criteria required by PMC 25.88.030. GESA originally built a credit union office on the property in 2000. In 2014 GESA obtained a permit to construct an administrative services building directly to the west of the credit union. The administrative services building is essentially a small computer server building that provides services to all of the GESA branches and small financial institutions that contract with GESA for computer services. The administrative services building is a secure building in the sense it is not frequented by the public, contains no windows and is surrounded by fencing. By contrast the adjacent credit union building is open and inviting in appearance and design with no security fencing. When the administrative services building was constructed a fence with three strands of barbed wire was installed around the property. Three strand barbed wire fencing is not permitted in the C-1 zone and as a result GESA was asked to remove the wire. Heavy security fencing with barbed wire creates an industrial/ heavy commercial look and as such is permitted only in C-3 and I zones. When the zoning code was amended in 1999 barbed wire was prohibited in C-1 zones except for one strand that may be place within 2 inches of the top rail of a fence. GESA was given the opportunity to keep on strand of barbed wire but that did not suit GESA's security needs. Having been unsuccessful in obtaining a wavier or variance from the Hearing Examiner to avoid installing a landscaped buffer along the south and west side of their property GESA opted not to apply for a variance on the barbed wire fencing. Because of serious concerns about their server equipment GESA feels it is necessary to have secured fencing with barbed wire. As a result the C-3 rezone option is being pursued. C-3 zoning is a permitted zoning classification on the comprehensive plan and it permits the installation of barbed wire fencing. 0) Page 46 of 186 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 (C-1) zoning classification was established around 1969. 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: The only significant change on the property is the recent construction of the GESA administrative services building. The building requires a high degree of security because of the contents of the building. Barbed wire fencing is need for that security. 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: The construction of the new GESA building has created the need for a higher level of security on the GESA property. For the safety and security of the contents of the administrative services building a barbed wire fence is needed. C-3 zoning is the only commercial zone to permit security fencing with barbed wire. Protection of the GESA administrative services building is critical for GESA, GESA members and other banks that contract with GESA for computer service needs. The importance of the administrative services building reaches far beyond 2202 W. Sylvester Street and in that sense there could be a wider general welfare benefit to a rezone. 4. The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the Comprehensive Plan: The only way the proposed rezone will not impact the value and charter of neighboring properties is if the rezoned is conditioned to prohibit the heavy commercial land uses allowed under C-3 zoning. Heavy equipment sales and service, lumber yards and trucking firms are no appropriate at this location. 5. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: Under the current zoning GESA is unable to provide the type of security they feel is necessary for the sensitive nature of the administrative services building at 2202 W Sylvester Street. 3 Page 47 of 186 STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL 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 currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business) . 2. The site contains a DESA credit union and an administrative services building. 3. The site is located on W. Sylvester Street. 4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Commercial uses. 5. Commercial zoning falling under the commercial land use designation of the Plan includes the following zones: "O", C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and BP. C-2 zoning only applies to the Central Business District. 6. GESA has some critical security needs that are addressed by C-3 zoning that are not available in C-1 zones. (C-3 zoning permits a higher level of security fencing than C-1 zoning.) 7. C-3 zoning permits trucking operations, warehousing, heavy equipment sales and service lumber yards and similar uses. 8. The properties to the south and west have been developed with housing. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR APPROVAL Before recommending approval or denial of a zoning amendment the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060. 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 land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is also supported by ED -2-B that encourages the development of a wide range of commercial uses strategically located to support local and regional needs. The building that is in need of the rezone provides services locally and regionally. 2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. The construction of the new GESA building has created the need for a higher level of security on the GESA property. For the safety and security of the contents of the administrative services building a barbed wire fence is needed. C-3 :I Page 48 of 186 zoning is the only commercial zone to permit security fencing with barbed wire. Protection of the GESA administrative services building is critical for GESA, GESA members and other banks that contract with GESA for computer service needs. The importance of the administrative services building reaches far beyond 2202 W. Sylvester Street and in that sense there could be merit and benefit to the wider community. 3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. Many of the permitted uses within the C-3 zone would not be appropriate at this location adjacent to residential uses and across the street from a school playground. Conditions are therefore necessary to mitigate the adverse impacts of trucking firms, warehousing, lumber yards and similar uses. 4. 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 should be required with this rezone essentially limiting the uses on the property to those currently existing (the credit union and the administrative services building). STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL 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 currently zoned C-1 (Retail Business) . 2. The site contains a GESA credit union and an administrative services building. 3. The site is located on W. Sylvester Street. 4. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Commercial uses. 5. Commercial zoning falling under the commercial land use designation of the Plan includes the following zones: "O", C-1, C-2, C-3 CR and BP. C-2 zoning only applies to the Central Business District. 6. GESA has some security needs that the Credit Union can address by surrounding the property with three strands of barbed wire. C-3 zoning permits barbed wire and C-1 zoning does not. 7. The properties to the south and west have been developed with housing. 8. Barbed wire fencing is typically not found in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods. E Page 49 of 186 9. The placement of barbed wire adjacent to residential properties may not support the security of home life or create a more favorable environment for the neighborhood as identified in the purpose statement of the zoning regulations. 10. Other properties on Sylvester Street that contain barbed wire are either zoned C-3 or were developed before the zoning code was changed in the 1990's prohibiting three strands of barbed wire in C-1 zones. 11. One strand of barbed wire is permitted in C-1 zones providing an alternate form of security from the three strands of barbed wire. 12. The GESA Administrative Services building is an industrial looking building that was not built in harmony with the general character of the neighborhood. Permitting barbed wire fencing around the building will add to the industrial look of the property and further alienate the property from the general character of the neighborhood. 13. The GESA Administrative Services building was the catalyst for the recent code amendment that requires commercial buildings on major streets in C-1 zones to contain design features to preserve and protect property values by through the construction of aesthetically attractive buildings. Adding or maintaining barbed wire in the site detracts from the intent of the code amendment designed to foster an aesthetically pleasing environment. 14. C-3 zoning permits trucking operations, warehousing, heavy equipment sales and service lumber yards and similar uses that are not compatible with surrounding residential uses. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT FOR DENIAL Before recommending approval or denial of a zoning amendment the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.88.060. 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 land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is also supported by ED -2-B that encourages the development of a wide range of commercial uses strategically located to support local and regional needs. The building that is in need of the rezone provides services locally and regionally. 2. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. The construction of the new GESA building on Sylvester Street was the catalyst for a code amendment requiring commercial buildings on major streets in C-1 zones to contain design features to preserve and protect property values through no Page 50 of 186 the construction of aesthetically attractive buildings. There is no merit or value in the proposal to rezone the property to C-3 to allow barbed wire fencing. 3. Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. Many of the permitted uses within the C-3 zone would not be appropriate at this location adjacent to residential uses and across the street from a school playground. Conditions are therefore necessary to mitigate the adverse impacts of trucking firms, warehousing, lumber yards and similar uses. 4. A Concomitant Agreement should be entered into between the City and the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement. C-3 zoning is inconsistent with the surrounding residential zoning and the nearby elementary school. Rezoning the property to C-3 would require conditions to eliminate all heavy commercial uses and activities such as barbed wire fencing that are not in harmony with the immediate neighborhood. This would essentially create a C-3 zone limited to C-1 uses and activities. The property is already zone C-1. S. The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted: If the property is not rezoned GESA will need to remove two strands of barbed wire from the existing fence and look for an alternate method for security. RECOMMENDATION Motions for Approval MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2016 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 Parcel 119451059 from C-1 to C-3 with conditions limiting the uses to those permitted in the C-1 District. Motions for Denial MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2016 staff report. 7 Page 51 of 186 MOTION for Denial: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny the rezone request for Parcel 119451059. N. Page 52 of 186 Land Use Item: Rezone from C- 1 to C-3 Applicant: GESA Credit Union Map File #: Z 2015-007 �n nmm�nnn SYLVE Apartments ElementaryIzN- Vacant School ��\N N Ns, NSITE\ =IRRVINGST M N D N N D o 0� [SFDUs�o< I ry I Commercial W Q Vacant = 0 N Comm. YAKIMA ST Zoning Map Ul R-3 R-4 -3 Item: Rezone from C- 1 to C-3 Ain pplicant: GESA Credit Union File #: Z 2015-007 wI ERM 0 C-1 SYLVE C-1 SITE\ =IRRVING ST M N N N D O o R -1-A2 0 Q� I ry C-1 C-3 C-3 YAKIMA ST w Q 0 N ■ -Air-DO NOi ENTER . ...... . . . . . . fIj Looking West v co cn 0 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF PASCO In Re: Rezone from C-1, ) To C-3, ) GESA Credit Union ) Master File # Z 2015-007 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m., Thursday, January 21, 2016 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall Pasco, Washington CALLED BY: City of Pasco REPORTED BY: Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 1 Page 60 of 186 1 2 3 N 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 APPEARANCES FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: CHAIRWOMAN LOREN POLK COMMISSIONER TANYA BOWERS COMMISSIONER PAUL MENDEZ COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY COMMISSIONER GABRIEL PORTUGAL ALSO PRESENT: MR. RICK WHITE MR. DAVID MCDONALD MS. KRYSTLE SHANKS Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 2 Page 61 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the Pasco Planning Commission Meeting was taken before Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II of the Community & Economic Development Department for the City of Pasco. The following proceedings took place: PROCEEDINGS CHAIRWOMAN POLK: Our last public hearing item for tonight, Master File Number Z 2015-007, a rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business), the applicant is GESA. And I'll turn it over to city staff for comments. MR. WHITE: Thank you Madam Chairwoman and Planning Commission. This rezone involves a property that actually is not accessed on 20th Avenue, as the staff report says. It is accessed from Sylvester Street but it is in the 2200 block of Sylvester Street and is developed with a GESA branch credit union building west of that on the same parcel. It is a GESA administrative service building. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for commercial use, which means a whole variety of commercial districts would be applicable Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 3 Page 62 of 186 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 here, such as Office "0", C-1, C-2, C-3, CR (Commercial Regional) and The administrative service building was recently built as a white building directly west of the GESA branch and it operates as a, I'm going to call it a data center, for a large array of computer servers and it not only serves GESA but it serves as I understand it at least a number of other financial institutions with a secure system for protecting data from all sorts of outside influences, including any kind of break in or any kind of tampering. It is not frequented by the public. The building is not frequented by the public. I even understand it is not frequented by employees unless there for maintenance so it's not a populated or people building. The reason for the zone change was first of all, the use itself, which is more along the lines of, I'm going to call it, a heavier commercial use. And the fact that GESA has installed security fencing around the parameter of the site, not necessarily visible from the front because of the block wall, but along the parameter of the site there's a three strand barbed wire security system that's not only important for GESA but for their contract server clients. The barbed wire itself is not allowed in a C-1 zone, at least not in the configuration that it has been installed on this building. The solution as proposed by staff would be to establish C-3 zoning in this Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department W Page 63 of 186 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 area where the barbed wire parameter fencing is allowed and then pursue a concomitant agreement that would essentially rule out just about everything in the C-3 zone except for the kind of, let's say, data center building that it's now being used for. So staff has developed the responses to the zoning criteria required by Pasco Municipal Code towards that end along with findings of fact focused on that end result and would recommend that the Planning Commission favorably consider a rezone to C-3 based upon delivery of a concomitant agreement to the Commission for deliberation next month. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Alright any questions for city staff? COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: I have a questions I guess. If you could go back to the picture, this is an old picture? Because there is a building missing there, right? MR. WHITE: Well, yeah, this is the most recent aerial we have. It does not show the building right where the curser is. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Ok, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:And can you specify where the fencing that we're talking about goes? MR. WHITE: Well the fencing surrounds the building. However, it's really only apparent as you drive down Sylvester and if you look, pardon me I'm not trying to be funny, but if you're in your car and Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 5 Page 64 of 186 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 you glance right about there you will be able to see the parameter fencing or if you are driving west on Sylvester and you look right about here you will be able to see the parameter fencing. I don't recall it being readily visible from Sylvester and certainly not from ordinary views from the south of the site. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Why is not viewable from the southern part of the site. MR. WHITE: It is between the regular fencing and landscaping. COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: But as I understand it, it is a standalone building that houses a data center? Is that correct? MR. WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: And this is the building that we were really upset about? MR. WHITE: This was the building that was the impetus for the design standards in the C-1 zone. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: And would we be happier if there weren't the barbed wire fencing and permanent gates put up? MR. WHITE: Well, everything's up already including the decorative block wall. We haven't noticed or we are not aware of anyone complaining about anything on the site. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:And was GESA aware that they were noncompliant with the zoning when they installed the fencing? Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department X Page 65 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 MR. WHITE: No, I don't believe either them or their contractor were aware of the restriction on barbed wire fencing in the C-1 zone. COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: You would have had to apply for a permit? MR. WHITE: They applied for a permit. It was not called out on neither the contractor's submittal nor the city's response to the plans submitted. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Any more questions? With that I'll open it up for public hearing and invited the application if they are here tonight to provide any further comments or answer any Commission questions. MR. THOMPSON: My name's Rick Thompson. I'm the Vice -President of Facilities for GESA Credit Union. I preside at 1616 Young Court in Kennewick, Washington. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:And were you sworn in? MR. THOMPSON: I was not, no. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Ok, let me go back to the beginning here. Do you also plan to speak tonight? (Directed towards audience member) So I'll have you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth in the testimony that you give? If so, please answer I do. MR. THOMPSON: I do. I'm basically here to answer any questions. It is a very unique facility that's built on that site. And basically it was originally proposed as a high security fence, you know, what Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 7 Page 66 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 that curtailed wasn't exactly, we went through the best practices there are in the industry for the use of the facility. It is, as Rick alluded to, a very high security facility and that's one of the very first, the parameter fence is a part of that. So, you know, if you take off the barbed wire it's not really a secured fence, you just jump over it. There happens to be a solid fence around two sides of it right now so there's two fences side by side. There's a solid wood fence on the property of the residential side with the apartments and the residential behind us and then there's our fence that sits right behind that which is a 6' chain link fence with secure slots with the barbed wire on the top of it. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Alright, any questions? You mentioned that you needed a secure fence. Were there any other security considerations that you considered before deciding to put barbed wire up? For example, video surveillance or flood lights or anything like that. MR. THOMPSON: We have all of the above. In fact, there's also berms around the property so if you drive through the fence you're not going to get to the building. This is considered to be a very high security by federal standards. So like I said, we took the best practices that are in the field and incorporated into the design. We tried to hide almost the entire facility as doing so but it also had to blend in to the community. There's barbed wire fences on three Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 3 Page 67 of 186 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 parts of the property. This site was up for sale for 6-7 years beforehand. We didn't get any bites on it, I guess you might say. We developed it as according to the federal guidelines for credit unions. We have to either use our property or sell it. We couldn't sell it so a vacant lot before so this turned it into something that's a benefit to the city as well as GESA and its 135,000 members. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:And have you considered, I know that Mr. White mentioned that you can see it when you're driving down Sylvester on one side or the other but the picture that we have here that we have been given looking south, shows that you can see quite a bit of the fencing, kind of in between the buildings there. Have you considered installing buffers, landscape buffers or something else there to obscure the view? MR. THOMPSON: There's actually a buffer on the back on the other side of the fence and then we have landscaping, grass on the side of the building. But that's between our two pieces of properties so there's no actual requirement. We did put the 8' block wall on the frontage street. Every one of those light poles has multiple cameras on it. Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department E Page 68 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Any more questions? No? Well we'll have you stay close in case anyone else want to say anything. We only have two people in here, so ... name and address for the record. MR. POLK: Again, my name is Matthew Polk, 811 W. Margaret Street in Pasco. I live just a few blocks west of here and I'm here to adamantly speak out against GESA's request to rezone the property. Not too long ago, GESA constructed this truly hideous building on Sylvester Street that is wholly out of character with the rest of the neighborhood it sits in. And it should never have been allowed to be built within city limits anywhere outside of the Port of Pasco. Though some people would argue the property owners should be free to make whatever reckless decision they want to with their own property, this Commission is set up to prevent such anti -social behavior. The kind of behavior that's been demonstrated by GESA's administrators. This windowless, metal -sided facility is essential a gargantuan shed, it is a disgusting eye sore to all of us who are forced to endure it and any objective person would agree that the design and construction of this building is a prime example of corporate irresponsibility. It is a testament to the fact that the leaders of GESA Credit Union have utter contempt for the working class people that live nearby who have to live with GESA's bad decision for years to come. If anything, this industrial barn should be dismantled, not expanded. Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 69 of 186 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 And Mr. White, if you have not heard any complaints I would like to go on record officially as being a complainant. I agree with the previous gentleman's comment that this facility is unique but it's uniquely offensive to the character of our city. By erecting this ugly warehouse in prime commercial area, GESA broke the confidence of our community and can no longer be trusted to act in the best interest of the people of Pasco. Therefore, their request to rezone this property from commercial to general business needs to be categorically denied. There is absolutely no justification to zone this property as general business considering the prominent place that its located. Sylvester Street is a major roadway for central Pasco and should be a showcase of our city. Instead, GESA has marred this whole stretch of town that thousands of residents drive and walk by each week. GESA's building is not just a scar on the neighborhoods that surround it, it is a stain on the City of Pasco and should serve as a reminder to all of us here why strict building codes need to be in place so that such disgusting structures are never to be permitted, to be erected in the future anywhere that people would be around them. This proposed change in zoning would allow for such blight as massive, multi -tiered barbed wire fences among other problems. Barbed wire only belongs on farms and in war zones. And my neighborhood is neither and GESA shouldn't treat it as such. Allowing this rezone Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 11 Page 70 of 186 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 would continue to diminish the character of this neighborhood and it would be another slap in the face to the children and families living near Sylvester who should not be subjected to any more harm from GESA's blunders than they have been already. The senior citizens living incredibly close to this industrial style facility should not be made to feel like their residential neighborhood is being "ghettoized" and such "ghettoization" should certainly not be sanctioned by government officials who should have the best interest of our citizens at heart. That clearly didn't happen by this facility being permitted to being built in the first place but we need to make sure that it doesn't get worse as it sits there. I encourage you to place more value on the everyday people who invest their life and livelihood improving Pasco's neighborhoods than on the irresponsible corporate interest whose actions have indisputably made our city worse and have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Thank you for hearing the concerns of Pasco residents and thank you for making the responsible choice to deny GESA any further opportunity to degrade the residential and commercial neighborhoods that they occupy currently. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Alright, thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward with any further comments? Respond to any of that? If not we can close and ask city or deliberate. Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 12 Page 71 of 186 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. THOMPSON: I just have one last thing. It was a vacant lot before. It was no value to anybody. We've actually went and talked to the neighbors next door and we've got no negative responses from them. And even the apartments that overlook it. Everybody has their own opinion but like I said, I think we're a pretty good corporate neighborhood. So, anyway, thank you. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak? MR. POLK: We just sat through two hours of people talking about it's not. It's about making a bad decision even worse and I request that you make the responsible choice this evening to deny GESA to more opportunities to encroach in our neighborhood. We need to show them what corporate responsibility looks like because they clearly haven't demonstrated it so far. So please make the responsible choice. Don't allow them to put up barbed wire in neighborhoods. It's not only people who are driving by that can see it. There are many people who walk by there every day. It's very prominent. It's very gross and as you've stated before because I've seen the meetings, this building is a huge problem. It's not what our city is about and if GESA doesn't know what our city is about because they don't value us enough then we need to show them. Thank you. Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 13 Page 72 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Ok, anybody else? Going once. Going twice. The public hearing is now closed. Alright, so anybody have questions for city staff? Or comments? COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: I have a question. So, the building has been built with barbed wire around it. If we deny the application GESA will still be noncompliant. Is that about the size of it? MR. WHITE: They will be noncompliant, yes that is correct. And they will either have to remove it, limit it to one strand of barbed wire as allowed in C-1 zones or apply for a variance which is kind of a doubtful path to go down. The hearing examiner hears variances and they're only approved with a certain specific set of circumstances that don't seem to be applicable in this case. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:And why was one strand of barbed wire not considered security fencing? MR. WHITE: Well, I can't answer that. It took place quite a bit before my time. I anticipate, Mr. McDonald might be able to shed some light on it and maybe some history. MR. MCDONALD: I don't know what year is was but many years ago there was a concern about having barbed wire in C-1 neighborhood commercial zones because of the perception it created when you drove down the street and saw barbed wire all over the place. Kind of what Mr. Polk was mentioning. So we were asked to take a look at the code Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 14 Page 73 of 186 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 and propose some amendments and a few commercial business people got involved and were still concerned about security so as a compromise the three strands were out but just one strand could be placed I believe 2" above the top rail of a chain link fence so it wouldn't look, it wouldn't catch your eye. You wouldn't see it that much. Three strands are on an arm like this and it's quite visible but one strand just above the fence just kind of blends with the fence. That's how it came about and that was approved through the Planning Commission and City Council. I don't know of any places in town that have done it. And then the three strand was limited to C-3 zones which you drive up and down Oregon Avenue that's your C-3 zoning area and industrial zones. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:So, one strand would be in compliance now but that's not compliant for their definition of a security fence? MR. MCDONALD: Apparently their definition and the federal guidelines that they have to follow. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Ok. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: The three strands? MR. WHITE: That's what we've heard. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: Ok. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:And are there, you may not know this, but are there methods of security fencing aside from three strands of barbed wire? Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 15 Page 74 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 MR. WHITE: That are federal compliant? No, I don't know. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Ok, thank you. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: So we have other buildings like banks around the City of Pasco. Do they have a fence like that? That has triple wire? Or the three strands or whatever? MR. WHITE: Banks? COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Is it present where we can see where this is happening in other areas similar to GESA? MR. WHITE: No, I can't think of any bank buildings but this is not a bank building. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Right but the perception is that it is security for GESA and their, cause it's the same property isn't it? MR. WHITE: Well, it's one parcel with two buildings on it. Yes. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Do we have any existing buildings in the city that is similar where they have a security fence like that? MR. WHITE: Well, let me just go back. Actually I think the site on the corner of 20th and Sylvester, you know it used to be, a whatever, Enterprise. It's surrounded by triple strand barbed wire itself. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Thank you. MR. WHITE: I can't think of any others off hand. COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: So if you look at the zoning map there's a couple of C-3 on 20th Avenue as well. And I don't know if they have Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 16 Page 75 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 strand wire or not but they could potentially being zoned C-3 I imagine. MR. WHITE: There might be some also with the storage units to the south of the site. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:And how does that comply with our revisions to our main arterials that we recently worked on revising, some City... MR. WHITE: Yeah, the revisions adopted by Council based on Planning Commission's recommendations are silent on fencing. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Do they correspond to C-3 zones as well? MR. WHITE: Do, does what? CHAIRWOMAN POLK:The requirements that we put in place for buildings to have... MR. WHITE: Oh, no it does not. It is limited to C-1 zones only. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Ok, thank you. Alright, so I would entertain a motion or if we would like to deliberate more we can. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: I move to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact and conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the February 18, 2016 meeting. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Seconded. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. (Commissioner Bowers & Commissioner Greenaway) Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 17 Page 76 of 186 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CHAIRWOMAN POLK:All those opposed? COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: I'm not opposed but I'm going to CHAIRWOMAN POLK:I'm going to say "Nay". COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: I'm going to say "Nay". CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Ok. MR. WHITE: Well the motion fails then. So we need to do what? CHAIRWOMAN POLK:I guess we need to deliberate for minute to decide if we're going to pass or fail this. And this is a movement to... MR. WHITE: Well in either case we're still going to have to close the hearing and bring something back for facts. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Right, right. COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: Could you say that again, please? MR. WHITE: Either, the motion just closes the hearing and set the Planning Commission for deliberations and then we come back for next month with findings of fact for recommendations for Council. So we can develop both findings for approval and for denial and bring those back if that's, because the motion failed. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Yeah, that's what I would probably propose. I am changing my vote to an "Aye". Is that possible to change my vote so that it passes and deliberate it next month? Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department M Page 77 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. WHTIE: The motion maker would have to be agreeable to your friendly amendment. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: I accept it. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Alright, is that acceptable? MR. WHITE: (Shook head yes). CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Alright, let the record show it was moved by Commissioner Bowers, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway. The motion passed with Commissioner Mendez objecting/opposing, Commissioner Portugal abstaining and Commissioner Polk amending her vote to an "Aye". Is that correct? MR. WHITE: Mm hmm. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:And with that it will come back to us next month for further deliberation and consideration for recommendation or not to Council. And with that we finish our public hearing. MR. WHITE: Well, just as, I want to make sure I'm accurate. Even if the recommendation is for denial, that still goes to Council. CHAIRWOMAN POLK:Ok. (CONCLUDED.) Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 19 Page 78 of 186 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 CERTIFICATE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF FRANKLIN ) This is to certify that I, Krystle Shanks, the Administrative Assistant II for the City of Pasco, Community & Economic Development Department, residing at Pasco, reported the within and foregoing Planning Commission Meeting on the date herein set forth; that said examination was taken by me and thereafter transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of the proceedings. I further certify that I am not a relative or attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I financially interested in the outcome of the cause. IN WITNESS WEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and this day of , 2016. Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 79 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF PASCO In Re: Rezone from C-1, ) To C-3, ) GESA Credit Union ) Master File # Z 2015-007 EXCERPT OF THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m., Thursday, February 18, 2016 TAKEN AT: Pasco City Hall Pasco, Washington CALLED BY: City of Pasco REPORTED BY: Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco Community & Economic Development Department Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 1 Page 80 of 186 1 2 3 N 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 APPEARANCES FOR THE PASCO PLANNING COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN JOE CRUZ COMMISSIONER TANYA BOWERS COMMISSIONER PAUL MENDEZ COMMISSIONER ALECIA GREENAWAY COMMISSIONER LOREN POLK COMMISSIONER ZAHRA KHAN COMMISSIONER GABRIEL PORTUGAL ALSO PRESENT: MR. RICK WHITE MR. DAVID MCDONALD MS. KRYSTLE SHANKS Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 2 Page 81 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BE IT REMEMBERED that on Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., at Pasco City Hall, Pasco, Washington, the Pasco Planning Commission Meeting was taken before Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II of the Community & Economic Development Department for the City of Pasco. The following proceedings took place: PROCEEDINGS CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Item number 5D, rezone, Rezone from C-1 (Retail Business) to C-3 (General Business), applicant is GESA, Master File Number Z 2015-007. Mr. White are you going to talk or Mr. McDonald? Who's going to take this one? MR. WHITE: I'll do this one Mr. Chairman. Continuing the process that I started last month. This rezone as most of the Commission recalls, is a proposal to resolve the problem with the three strands of barbed wire around the GESA Administrative Service Building site that is located on Sylvester just south of the intersection with 22nd Avenue. The C-1 zoning district in which this property is located in allows one strand of barbed wire with parameters for that installation. The credit union was, excuse me, the administrative Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 3 Page 82 of 186 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 service building was constructed with three strands of barbed wire, at least on the sides of the building and the zoning change was sought as a way to resolve that difference so it would have been a proposal rezone the site from C-1 to C-3 of course with a concomitant agreement to limit or to exclude basically all C-3 uses from the site with the exception of the administrative service building. As stated last month, the site has a high need for security. There was not clear direction on the sentiment of the Planning Commission so the public hearing was concluded and findings were prepared for both approval and for denial and the Planning Commission, again, is charged with having that deliberation tonight and then making that recommendation to Council. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, so again this is not up for public comment so I would entertain a discussion on behalf of the Commission. Let it out folks. COMMISSIONER KHAN: Since I was absent last time I was wanting to maybe get an idea of what the denial or move to motion, who's on what side of the fence basically. Is that alright to do that right now? CHAIRMAN CRUZ: So, just for giggles, I'm going to start with Zahra since she started it. Are you a "yay" or "nay"? Or you don't know where you are, right? COMMISSIONER KHAN: I'm a "yay". Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department W Page 83 of 186 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 COMMISSIONER PORTUGAL: I'm a "nay". COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: I don't know yet. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, on the fence. COMMISSIONER POLK: You're not going to answer? CHAIRMAN CRUZ: No. COMMISSIONER POLK: Ok, so I am right now I am a "nay" for a couple of reasons. The first is, they are looking to rezone the entire site which would include the existing bank and I would hate to see, I mean I doubt they would surround it with three strands of barbed wire but I think that changes the site designation. And then also it was mentioned in the findings of fact, basically numbers 12, 13 and 14 are relevant but I of course, let's see, number 13 it mentions that this building was the kind if "genesis" for our discussion on changing city code which was pretty unanimously agreed to. And part that code, and city staff can probably give us some specifics, but part of it included that if any further renovations are done to the site to improve the value of the land, they would have to come up to that code. And so it seems that if we change the zoning we're going to be allowing them to evade that. I mean, this code was created based on that building and I would like to see them be subject to coming into compliance with that new code if they decide to make improvements on the land. So, I understand that they need three Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 5 Page 84 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 strands of barbed wire for the site. If there's some way that we could allow them, perhaps by special permit for that, but to remain as a C-1 to give a landscape barrier, buffer or something, I would like to keep that C-1. This is Sylvester Street. It is a pretty major arterial in our city and I think that it would be nice to see that new code continue to be relevant and continue expand its use on this main arterial, so that's why. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, Commissioner Polk, good job. Commissioner Bowers? COMMISSIONER BOWERS: I am inclined to say yes. I would, I just thought of this, but I think since they need the three barbed wire, it would be, and it's across the street from a school, I think it would help, pardon me? COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Across the street from apartments. COMMISSIONER POLK: And from a senior facility and a school across the street on Sylvester. COMMISSIONER BOWERS: For all those reasons, I think it would be really terrific if there could be some landscaping around the barbed wire like some nice vines that just made it feel more intentional. COMMISSIONER MENDEZ: I'm inclined to say no for the same reasons as Commissioner Polk but I'm open to a concomitant agreement to Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department X Page 85 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 mitigate some of the issues with the barbed wire, so that's where I'm CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, so I read through all of the notes which were lengthy on this one. What I'm going to say is, I think that I'm empathetic to GESA's security concerns and recognize the city, meaning we, allowed this to get permitted as it was and so it's not a questions as to whether it's punishment for putting up a building that we're not happy with. I think making it C-3 for the single purpose of putting up barbed wire is a little bit ludacris to me and so I would rather deny the rezone and force them to go back and work something out with the city to come up with an alternative solution. I am familiar with security stuff as well and there's a lot of different ways to protect the building outside of barbed wire. Barbed wire is cost effective, just like the cyclone fence around the building and therefore preferred but I think a more balanced solution is to deny the rezone and find an alternate means that's aesthetically pleasing. You also look at the site, you see a lot of C-3 there. Those are not true C-3 kinds of areas. Over time we will end up pushing all this back to C-1 so putting a C-3 block in here is not in the best interest in the long term for the city. So, if I do the math... Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 7 Page 86 of 186 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 COMMISSIONER KHAN: I change my vote. I vote "nay" on it. No, it sounds really reasonable and I didn't get that context in reading it. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Having a little history helps when you read the notes. So that's good, I'm glad we had the discussion. If anyone else wants to say anything, great, otherwise we can call for a vote. If I do the math, if you make the motion for approval it's going to fail. COMMISSIONER POLK: So yeah, you would move for... COMMISSIONER KHAN: I move to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the February 18, 2016 staff report for denial. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Second. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Move by Commissioner Khan, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway. And again, this is just to adopt the findings of fact this isn't whether you support it or not. So all those in favor say "Aye". COMMISSIONERS: Aye (unanimously). CHAIRMAN CRUZ: All opposed? (No response) Let the record show that motion passed unanimously. Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department 0 Page 87 of 186 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 COMMISSIONER KHAN: Ok, motion for denial. I move based on findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council deny the rezone request for parcel 119-451- 059. COMMISSIONER GREENAWAY: Second. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Moved by Commissioner Khan, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway. All those in favor say "Aye". COMMISSIONERS: Aye (unanimously). CHAIRMAN CRUZ: All opposed? (No response) Let the record show that motion passed unanimously. And sorry GESA. MR. WHITE: So this, Mr. Chairman, this recommendation will go to Council on the March 7t" Council meeting unless an appeal is received in which case a closed record hearing will be scheduled, which will bump out the eventually decision at least a month. CHAIRMAN CRUZ: Ok, thank you very much Mr. White and thank you very much everybody who provided comment on this and went through the lengthy discussion last month. (CONCLUDED.) Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department I Page 88 of 186 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 CERTIFICATE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF FRANKLIN ) This is to certify that I, Krystle Shanks, the Administrative Assistant II for the City of Pasco, Community & Economic Development Department, residing at Pasco, reported the within and foregoing Planning Commission Meeting on the date herein set forth; that said examination was taken by me and thereafter transcribed, and that same is a true and correct record of the proceedings. I further certify that I am not a relative or attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I financially interested in the outcome of the cause. IN WITNESS WEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and this day of , 2016. Krystle Shanks, Administrative Assistant II City of Pasco - Community & Economic Development Department Page 89 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 26, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Annexation: Mullen Annexation (MF# ANX 2016-003) I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Annexation Petition Proposed Annexation Ordinance Proposed Zoning Ordinance Planning Commission Report Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 4/21/16 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING: MOTION A: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance relating to annexation and annexing certain real property to the City of Pasco and, further, authorize publication by summary only. MOTION B: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, assigning zoning to the Mullen Annexation Area as recommended by the Planning Commission and, further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: The addition of $343,083 to the assessed value of the City. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On March 4, 2016, the City Council passed Resolution No. 3703 accepting a "Notice Page 90 of 186 and Intent" to commence annexation proceedings for the Mullen Annexation Area. Following the passage of the resolution a final petition was submitted to the City. The petition has been reviewed by the County Assessor and has been determined to be sufficient to constitute a legally acceptable petition under the petition method of annexation. The petition represents 100 percent of the assessed value for the annexation area. The next step in the annexation process requires the City Council to hold a public hearing on the proposed annexation. V. DISCUSSION: The proposed Annexation Ordinance (Motion "A"), if adopted, will cause the area in question to be annexed to the City subject to the following conditions: 1. The Pasco Comprehensive Plan will continue to be applicable to the area. 2. The annexation area will not assume any existing bonded indebtedness. 3. The annexation area will be assigned to Voting District #5. The Planning Commission conducted a zoning determination hearing for the proposed annexation area on April 21, 2016 and recommended the area be R-1 (Low- Density Residential). Motion "B" will establish R-1 zoning for the annexation area. Page 91 of 186 Vicinity Item: Mullen Annexation Map Applicant: Randy Mullen N File ANX 2016-003 0 0 < 0 CITY LIMITS` Urban Growth Boundary t14 L,.L a\\\\\\\\\\\\\\INN No s xkxxxxxxxs SITE 11 dIN E ,D 0, M CHESHIESC; UO M z :Z=17r, lop 11 W Is 4 Iowa ------ HOME 0. WHOWWWWO no I - ENRON MW11WHINNOW 11MINSHOR: PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF PASCO TO: The City Council of the City of Pasco 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington 99301 The undersigned, being the owners of not less than sixty percent (60%), in value, according to the assessed valuation for general taxation, of the real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, lying contiguous to the City of Pasco, Washington, do hereby petition that such territory be annexed to and made a part of the City of Pasco under the provisions of RCW 35.14.120, et seq., and any amendments thereto, of the State of Washington. The territory proposed to be annexed is within Franklin County, Washington, and is described in Exhibit "1", attached hereto. WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectively petition the Honorable City Council and ask: (a) That appropriate action be taken to entertain this petition, fixing a date for a public hearing, causing notice to be published and posted, specifying the time and place of such hearing, and inviting all persons interested to appear and voice approval or disapproval of such annexation; and, (b) That following such hearing the City Council determine by Ordinance that such annexation shall be effective; and that property so annexed shall become a part of the City of Pasco, Washington, subject to its laws and ordinances then and thereafter enforced. The Petitioners subscribing hereto agree that all property within the territory hereby sought to be annexed shall not assume any existing indebtedness and will not require simultaneous adoption of zoning regulations in accordance with the City Council's acceptance of the Notice of Intention to Commence Annexation as indicated in Resolution No. 3703 as recorded in the April 4, 2016 Council minutes of the City of Pasco, Washington. This Petition is accompanied by and has attached hereto as Exhibit "2" a diagram which outlines the boundaries of the property sought to be annexed. 1 Page 93 of 186 WARNING; Every person who signs this petition with any other than his/her name, or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions, or signs a petition seeking an election when he/she is not a legal voter, or signs a petition when he/she is otherwise not qualified to sign, or who makes herein any false statement, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. PRAYER OF PETITION: (1) Annexation of area described and depicted in Exhibits "1" and "2", without (2) assumption of indebtedness of the City of Pasco and without (3) simultaneous adoption of the City of Pasco Zoning Regulations. DATE OWNER'S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME/ADDRESS SIGNED 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. )`%6 �7- 2 Page 94 of 186 EXHIBIT # I Mullen Annexation CITY LIMITS Ann xation J Areal r r i i \� 3 N LK DR •e � B KINGHtl'M `NN ` �E ILL _ .. . yrs LN � vINCENZO,._ RCIA �F. - MAIESM .A E V� i SANDIFUR PARKWAY gg i jj:-� r ,� Page 95 of 186 EXHIBIT "2" Annexation Legal Beginning at a point on the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. said point being the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 5; Thence easterly along the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of said Section 5, and continuing easterly along the north line of the south half of the southeast quarter of said Section 5 to the intersection with the east line of said Section 5; Thence southerly along the east line of said Section 5 to the intersection with the south line of said Section 5; Thence westerly along the south line of said Section 5 to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence westerly along the westerly projection of said south line to the intersection with the west right- of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence northerly along the northerly projection of the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard to the intersection with the north right-of-way line of Burns Road; Thence northerly along the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard to the intersection with the north line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M.; Thence easterly along the easterly projection of said north line to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence easterly along the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of said Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. to the point of beginning. Page 96 of 186 WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO: City of Pasco Attn: City Planner 525 North 3' Pasco, WA 99301 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ANNEXATION AND ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF PASCO. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has declared, its intent to annex the following described territory to the City of Pasco pursuant to RCW Chapter 35A.14; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the proposed annexation has been published and posted as required by law; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed annexation was held on May 2, 2016; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following described area, situated in Franklin County, Washington to - wit: Beginning at a point on the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. said point being the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 5; Thence easterly along the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of said Section 5, and continuing easterly along the north line of the south half of the southeast quarter of said Section 5 to the intersection with the east line of said Section 5; Thence southerly along the east line of said Section 5 to the intersection with the south line of said Section 5; Thence westerly along the south line of said Section 5 to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence westerly along the westerly projection of said south line to the intersection with the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence northerly along the northerly projection of the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard to the intersection with the north right-of-way line of Burns Road; Thence northerly along the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard to the intersection with the north line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M.; Thence easterly along the easterly projection of said north line to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence easterly along the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of said Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. to the point of beginning; Page 97 of 186 as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled Exhibit "1" be and the same is hereby annexed to the City of Pasco and is hereby declared to be within the corporate limits of the City of Pasco. Section 2. That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Pasco be and the same is hereby adopted for the above described tract of land. Section 3. That said tract of land shall not assume any portion of the existing bonded indebtedness of the City of Pasco. Section 4. That said tract of land shall be in Voting District # 4. Section 5. That a certified copy of this ordinance be and the same shall be filed with the Franklin County Commissioners. Section 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on June 1, 2016. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 2nd day of May 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk -2- APPROVED AS TO FORM Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 98 of 186 EXHIBtT # I MuHen Annexation CITY LIMITS Nol Ann xation read U NORFOLK DR FAIRFIELD D D R� BUCKINGHAM DR O MIA LN VINCENZO DR MAJEBTIA LANE m SANDIFUR PARKWAY HERD Page 99 of 186 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, ASSIGNING ZONING TO THE MULLEN ANNEXATION AREA AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, on April 21, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Pasco conducted a public hearing to develop a recommendation for the assignment of zoning to certain property; in the event the property was incorporated within the City; and WHEREAS, on May 2, 2016, Ordinance No. , effectively annexed certain real property to the City of Pasco; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following described area, situated in Franklin County, Washington to -wit: Beginning at a point on the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. said point being the northeast corner of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said Section 5; Thence easterly along the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of said Section 5, and continuing easterly along the north line of the south half of the southeast quarter of said Section 5 to the intersection with the east line of said Section 5; Thence southerly along the east line of said Section 5 to the intersection with the south line of said Section 5; Thence westerly along the south line of said Section 5 to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence westerly along the westerly projection of said south line to the intersection with the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence northerly along the northerly projection of the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard to the intersection with the north right-of-way line of Burns Road; Thence northerly along the west right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard to the intersection with the north line of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 6, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M.; Thence easterly along the easterly projection of said north line to the intersection with the east right-of-way line of Broadmoor Boulevard; Thence easterly along the north line of the south half of the southwest quarter of said Section 5, Township 9 North, Range 29 East W.M. to the point of beginning; as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled Exhibit No. "1" be and the same is hereby assigned R--1 (Low -Density Residential) zoning. Section 2. That any and all zoning maps be and the same are hereby amended to conform to the aforesaid assignment of zoning. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on June 1, 2016. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 2nd day of May, 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 100 of 186 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2016-002) APPLICANT: City of Pasco ACTION DATE: 4/21/2016 PO Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST: Develop zoning recommendation for the Mullen Annexation Area. 1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population Mullen Annexation 160 acres 0 0 2) UTILITIES: City water and sewer lines are located in the subdivisions to the south of the annexation area. 3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently zoned AP -20 under the County zoning and is being farmed. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: AP -20 - Farm Fields (County) SOUTH: R-1 - Single -Family Dwellings EAST: AP -20 - Vacant/Farm Fields (County) WEST: R-1 8v AP -20 - Vacant/ Farm Fields (City & County) 4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the annexation area for low-density single-family development. 5) 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. ANAT.VCi.q The Mullen Annexation area contains 160 acres of mainly farm fields located directly north of Power Line Road between Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 84. There are no structures within the annexation other than irrigation systems. Thirty-nine acres of the 160 acres are owned by the School District. In determining the most appropriate zoning for the annexation area the Planning Commission needs to consider the existing land uses, development 1 Page 101 of 186 patterns, policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the land use designations of the land use map. The Planning Commission also needs to be guided by the criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a zoning recommendation. The proposed annexation area has been identified as a low-density residential area in the City's Comprehensive Plan for about 35 years. Following the Comprehensive Plan all of the subdivisions directly to the south of Power Line Road were zoned R-1 and have been developed with single-family homes, except for Mediterranean Villas which is zoned R-3 and developed with attached single-family dwellings. Many of the neighboring single-family subdivisions were approved using the "Planned Density Development" process which permits the development of subdivisions with varying lot sizes provided the underlying density requirements of the subdivision zoning is not exceeded. The proposed annexation is being pursued due to the dwindling number of lots available for home construction. A developer is interested in developing the first 40 acres of the annexation area between Broadmoor Boulevard and the School property for single-family homes utilizing the planned density development provisions of the development regulations. The proposed annexation area is within the service areas identified in the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans. Both of these plans based future services need within the annexation area on the low-density land use designation identified in the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan. Upon annexation the City will be responsible for providing all municipal services to the area. These services include fire and police services. Currently the nearest fire station is located on Road 68 to the north of Argent Road. As the annexation area develops along with other vacant properties around the Broadmoor Boulevard and Power Line Road intersection it will become increasing difficult for the Fire Department to meet the standard six minute response time. The City currently has an agreement with the owner of the "Sand Dunes" property (southwest corner of Broadmoor and Power Line) to acquirer five acres to the west of Broadmoor Boulevard that can accommodate a fire station. A fire station in this area of the community is still a number of years away. 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: • The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. • The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco. 2 Page 102 of 186 • The property is located east of Broadmoor Boulevard and north of Power Line Road. • Broadmoor Boulevard has been extended north to Dent Road. • Power Line Road has been extended from Road 68 to Road 100 along the south boundary of the proposed annexation area and Burns Road has been extended to the west. • The Pasco School District purchased a 39 acre parcel within the boundaries of the proposed annexation area in 2014. • With the exception of approximately 65 lots the residential subdivisions to the south of the proposed annexation area are fully built out. • Archer Estates, Goose Hollow, Quail Bluff, Pelican Pointe, Spencer Estates and Eagle Crest are all single-family subdivisions that have been developed to the west of the proposed annexation area. • Maya Angelo Elementary School and Delta High School are both located to the south of the proposed annexation area. • Thirty-eight acres of land on the west side of Broadmoor Boulevard was annexed to the City in 2015. 2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare. The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned. The justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not determined the property could become annexed without a zoning. For the advancement of the general welfare of the community the property needs to be zoned consistent with the established development patterns. 3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining property and the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning the proposed annexation area to low-density residential such as R-1 is supported by the Comprehensive Plan and would be considered a proper implementation of the Plan. The surrounding properties directly south of the annexation area are zoned R-1 and developed with single- family homes. The R-1 District would permit the continued development of single -families homes as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Most of the schools in Pasco area located in residential zoning districts. Rezoning the annexation area to R-1 will not impact the school property because schools require approval of a Special Permit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. The effect on the property owners or owner of the request is not granted. 3 Page 103 of 186 Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district, the area will essentially be un -zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property owners adjoining the proposed annexation area. 5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property. There are no changing conditions related to the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan has consistently indicated the proposed annexation area should be zoned and developed with single-family homes. Providing land for residential lots will support the policy of advancing programs that encourage home ownership. 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 within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. 2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in 1994. 3) The property is being proposed for annexation by the summer of 2016. 4) The annexation area is located in the pathway of residential growth and has been designated for low-density residential development by the Comprehensive Plan for over 30 years. 5) Properties to the south of the annexation area are zoned R-1 and developed with single-family homes. 6) The Pasco School District owns 39 acres within the annexation area for a future school site. 7) Schools are typically located in residential zoning districts. 8) Two schools are located to the south of the annexation area. 9) The Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plans based future services needs within the annexation area on the low-density land use designation identified in the Comprehensive Plan. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON 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 PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not: 0 Page 104 of 186 (1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning the proposed annexation site to R-1 is supports Plan Policy H -1-E. (2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. Rezoning the proposed annexation area R-1 will cause the site to be consistent with the subdivisions to the south and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezone will complement the existing neighborhoods rather than be a detriment. The R-1 zoning will also be consistent with the latest Sewer Comprehensive Plan that calls for the continuation of low- density residential to the north of the current Urban Growth Boundary. (3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. There is merit and value in following the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan when assigning zoning to properties within the community. The Plan has indicated this property should zoned low-density residential for the past 35 years. Rezoning the area R-1 will leading to additional housing opportunities for Pasco residents. (4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts from the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no mitigation measures are needed. (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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The public hearing for this annexation will be May 2, 2016. The zoning determination therefore needs to be completed by the Planning Commission on April 21, 2016. MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Mullen Annexation 5 Page 105 of 186 Area to R-1, as indicated on the zoning map identified as Exhibit # 1 attached to the April 21, 2016 staff report. 0 Page 106 of 186 Vicinity Item: Mullen Annexation Applicant: Randy Mullen Map File #: ZD 2016-002 � p_JFC J =: T _ SITE\ 0 - ..�a�i^.��•®� uw .fes �Nii% .0110N 1 �5 � p_JFC J =: T _ SITE\ 0 - ..�a�i^.��•®� uw .fes �Nii% .0110N Id i*sI �p ®�INNMIi i l iiA = ®Cu 1i I111 iia�i_iN� .'11i1fIN111®�r11 WIN j �a roil l.HR6VIV I O s V PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/21/16 A. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for the Mullen Annexation Area (MF# ZD 2016-002) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the zoning application for the Mullen Annexation Area. The City received an annexation petition for a 160 acre site located directly north of Powerline Road and east of Broadmoor Boulevard over to Road 84. The petition has been certified by the County Assessor as being sufficient under the "petition method" to allow the annexation to proceed. The City Council will be considering the matter in a public hearing on May 2, 2016. The property has been designated in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density residential development identical to the properties to the south. Mr. McDonald reviewed surrounding zoning and recommended the property be zoned to match the R-1 (Low Density Residential) to the south. Chairwoman Khan asked if the current owner of the property is the City of Pasco. Mr. McDonald stated that the School District owns the middle piece and the other two pieces are owned by a group of farmers. The farmers petitioned for annexation. Commissioner Polk asked what the vacant land to the south is zoned. Mr. McDonald answered the northern portion is currently being developed for single- family homes as Majestia Estates. The other portion to the west is the lot that was considered for a rezone to R-1. To the east is a 5 acre site that was rezoned a few years ago to R-3 and the developer will be building a senior housing project on the property. Commissioner Polk stated that it appears as if Powerline Road stops just after Balmoral Court. Mr. McDonald responded the right-of-way stops but the road continues on in an easement. When the land develops to the north the developer will dedicate the right-of- way. Commissioner Bowers asked about the school that was listed on the zoning map. Mr. McDonald answered it was Delta High School. Chairman Khan asked if there were any other questions. Mr. McDonald stated staff received an email from a couple that lives at the end of Page 111 of 186 Balmoral Court, which is directly south of the school site. They identified some concerns about future development in the area as far as traffic, schools and parks. The email is a part of the record. Commissioner Greenaway stated that the more that is built in this area there is potential for the same problem as Road 68. She asked if we should already widen the road with the construction of more homes and another school. Mr. McDonald stated the plan calls for widening Broadmoor Boulevard but that typically doesn't happen until the development occurs. The developer is responsible for providing the additional right-of-way, travel lanes and curb and gutter. The area that says vacant on the zoning map is an area that the City is working in conjunction with the developer in the Broadmoor Development Plan which will include commercial and residential. Commissioner Greenaway stated she was concerned we could overbuild with single- family homes. Mr. McDonald stated that R-1 will allow for lots that you typically see now to the south of the site. The developers have the option of doing a planned density development, which most of them have done, to include some smaller lots and offset with larger lots. Commissioner Greenaway added that another concern is that schools are not being built fast enough. Homes are being built faster than the schools so the schools get overcrowded and portables are required. Mr. McDonald responded that is why the School District has purchased the 40 acres for a new middle school and they are also looking in this general area for additional property. Commissioner Polk asked what would happen if this property was annexed and zoning was determined, if the School District decided to liquidate and sell could it become additional housing. Mr. McDonald responded yes. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, addressed Commissioner Greenaway's concerns over traffic. Traffic control isn't just limited to how many homes are in an area but related also to other land uses and how the road system is laid out. There are many drive ways on Road 68 between Burden Boulevard and Wrigley and that is one of the key issues with the frustration that can be felt at the peak hours Road 68. The master plan that Mr. McDonald mentioned will promote controlled access to Broadmoor Boulevard. Access management, land use, signalization and the physical layout of the roadway all contribute to the proper ways of traffic control that we will want to see. It will still get busier, that is a given since it is undeveloped now. Page 112 of 186 Commissioner Mendez discussed the concerns voiced in the email received by staff, such as lack of parks. If the school develops on the 40 acre parcel they could potentially have grounds there but wondered if there were any plans from the City to have a park developed in that area. Mr. McDonald replied that the current neighborhood park is located to the south of Maya Angelou Elementary School which is about a mile walking distance from the home of the couple that wrote the email. As the property develops to the north there will be consideration given to parks. Developer will provide $1,348 per house to the park fund that would allow the City to purchase land for a future park. The Parks Department is actively looking for a parcel for a community park in the western part of the community right now. Chairwoman Khan added the school site could be used by the surrounding neighborhood. With no further comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Polk discussed commercial and office land uses. She stated she would love to see commercial incorporated at least on the main roads. Mr. McDonald stated the Comprehensive Plan o designates this area for residential which is the only option right now. To rezone it office or commercial, the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended. Access control issues would be another problem with small parcels along Broadmoor. Access points would be controlled better with block walls and landscaping associated with residential development. There are 145 acres of commercial zoning to the south which permits offices and other commercial uses. Chairwoman Khan asked if R zoning could be used. Mr. McDonald answered RT is a transition zone for areas that don't have a chance for utilities for many years. Mr. White stated the Comprehensive Plan contains policy statements directly contrary to what was mentioned. The City is prohibited from stringing commercial out on arterial streets by land use and transportation policies in the Comprehensive plan just because of the kinds of access issues it creates. Instead they are concentrated at nodes (two -intersections) and as Mr. McDonald mentioned, there are 150 acres, which will likely end up being closer to 200 or more acres immediately to the southwest in the Broadmoor Area for commercial. Commissioner Polk asked about a rezone a couple of months ago where a residential property rezoned a portion of the property to C-1. Mr. White explained that it was already zoned commercial and they rezoned a portion of it to residential but left 6 commercial lots. Page 113 of 186 Chairwoman Khan stated that she understands the Comprehensive Plan for the proposed site only allows for R-1 but they would like to see some buffering with commercial in those neighborhoods so it is not a sea of homes. She asked if they need to wait until the Comprehensive Plan expires and suggest at that time new goals. Mr. White responded that is exactly the process. The Comprehensive Plan is set for low-density residential. In 2018 there will be more options when the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed. Commissioner Polk asked what the Commission can do in the short term before revising the Comprehensive Plan to incentivize or support commercial development. Mr. White answered that they will get a chance this year to review in particular the Broadmoor Area Master Plan as well as an Environmental Impact Statement at the same time. Commissioner Greenaway stated that the options for this application are to either approve the zoning or not. It currently is not in city limits. If the Commission approves the application, it can be annexed and zoned low-density residential. Chairwoman Khan asked if there are any impacts on the School District if it is not annexed into the City. Mr. White stated yes, it could develop with half acre lots in the County and there will still be kids in schools. He added that the School District also has 25 acres on the Department of Natural Resources property just south of the interstate east of Road 84. The City is working with them on a school park site. The City met with the School District recently to talk about the possibility of school sites in the Broadmoor Area. They will be seeking out properties for schools in this area. Commissioner Polk asked if the County has a school impact fee. Mr. White responded that they do not. Commissioner Polk clarified that if the property is developed as County, the School District will not receive any impact fees. Mr. White stated that is correct. Commissioner Polk asked if they would have to rezone it to be used for low-density residential. Commissioner Greenaway clarified that if it isn't annexed, it would have to be rezoned by the County. Page 114 of 186 Mr. White added that the half acre lot development pattern is occurring north west of this site. There are several brand new homes on half acre lots and it is a problematic zoning arrangement occurring in the County. The planned density development tool is a way to have some mix and match size of lots which in the end will still yield the same density but you can have places for starter homes or places for larger families. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to adopt the findings of fact as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Greenaway dissenting. Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council zone the Mullen Annexation Area to R-1, as indicated on the zoning map identified as Exhibit #1 attached to the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Page 115 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 28, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Street Vacation: A Portion of East Salt Lake Street (MF# VAC 2016-006) I. REFERENCE(S): Overview Map Vicinity Map Proposed Ordinance IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Conduct a Public Hearing: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance vacating a portion of East Salt lake Street, and, further authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: Several owners of property with the Frey's Addition have petitioned for the vacation of the north 10 feet of East Salt Lake Street between Utah Avenue and California Avenue. As previously recommended, the City Council set May 2, 2016 as the date to consider the proposed vacation. V. DISCUSSION: Two of the petitioners are in the process of building new commercial buildings at 1601 and 1705 East Salt Lake Street. Page 116 of 186 The Oregon Avenue Circulation Plan adopted by Ordinance 3255 indicates East Salt Lake Street is a" keeper street" however, the excess right-of-way for "keeper streets" can be reduced from 80 feet to 60 feet. The south side of East Salt Lake Street between Utah Avenue and California Avenue was previously vacated. An easement will need to be retained for the power lines on the edge of the existing street improvements. Page 117 of 186 Overview Item: Portion of Salt Lake Street Applicant: Arturo Nunez, et al. Map File #. VAC 2016-006 N JAMES ST .. '1 .- r'a'�� � - C . f �• I li I. .i. �x moi? �� 1 w OR Sir LU, -�� EDiE M T� °♦ SHEPPARD—ST �. =4 �LHIGHLAND , ♦ �. ��, ♦ . SITE - j. . t O � a • �.�tr _ L � t E T P p� -PARK N ` ,"�.; VIEW ♦ \ E > QLU W_ Q �`rt, , \ ♦® ; �" qtr ! \ ,1 ��O O ', Q -LU m . N ♦ n. w+ , pP BR04DWAY_ o ,�� ♦ - v oP���. 7,, -2ri vi Vicinity Item: Portion of Salt Lake Street Applicant Arturo Nunez, et al. Map File #: VAC 2016-006 k� � Em Ewa 111 WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO: City of Pasco Attn: City Planner 525 North 3' Pasco, WA 99301 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF EAST SALT LAKE STREET. WHEREAS, a qualified petition has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Pasco requesting vacation of certain public rights-of-way within the City of Pasco; and WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general interest of the City, the City Council may vacate rights-of-way; and WHEREAS, all steps and procedures required by law to vacate said right-of-way have been duly taken and performed; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the north 10 feet of East Salt Lake Street between the west line of Utah Avenue and the east line of California Avenue, as depicted in Exhibit "1" be and the same is hereby vacated subject to the easement retained in Section 2 hereof. Section 2. That the City shall retain an easement and the right to exercise or grant easements with respect to northerly 10 feet of East Salt Lake Avenue vacated in Section 1 above for the construction, repair and maintenance of public utilities and services. Section 3. That the City shall retain a 25 -foot radius for public right-of-way at the corner of North Utah Avenue and East Salt Lake Street and at the corner of North California Avenue and East Salt Lake Street. Section 4. That a certified copy of this ordinance be recorded by the City Clerk of the City of Pasco in and with the office of the Auditor of Franklin County, Washington. Section 5. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after approval, passage and publication as required by law. 1 Page 120 of 186 PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this 2nd day of May 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney 2 Page 121 of 186 Exhibit Item' Portion of Salt Lake Street Applicant Arturo Nunez, et al. #1 File #: VAC 2016-006 x SITE AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 28, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 FROM: Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Powerline Road Muncipal Boundary Adjustment I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map with Roadway and Municipal Boundaries Proposed Interlocal Agreement Proposed Ordinance IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION #1: I move to approve the Interlocal Agreement with Franklin County for revision of the Pasco corporate boundary along Powerline Road. MOTION #2: I move to adopt Ordinance , and Ordinance revising the corporate boundary of the City of Pasco to include that portion of Powerline Road between Broadmoor Boulevard and Road 68, and further, authorize publication by summary only III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The City completed Phase I improvements to Powerline Road between Broadmoor Boulevard (Road 100) and Road 68 which include acquisition of portions of the right of way, installation of utilities and construction of a two-lane roadway in 2015. Portions of the alignment of Powerline Road are outside the city limits which lie immediately to the south of the physical roadway. Prior to construction of the road, the City attempted to negotiate dedication of the road right of way with the owners of the farm circle to the immediate north, however for reasons relating to the tax structure of their partnership and other reasons of their own - the owners elected not dedicate right of way for the roadway - opting instead to allow the City to construct the roadway on an easement negotiated for that purpose. Page 123 of 186 While the arrangement works well for the owners and from an engineering standpoint, it has operational consequences for traffic speed limit enforcement - which has been the subject of several complaints from abutting owners along this stretch of road. The enforcement of traffic laws along Powerline Road is confusing and problematic in that depending on which segment of the road a ticket may be issued, some tickets would be appropriately adjudicated in Pasco Municipal Court while others would be appropriately adjudicated in District Court. RCW 35A.21.210 authorizes code cities and counties to revise any part of a corporate boundary of a city which "coincides with the centerline, edge, or any portion of a public street, road or highway right of way by substituting therefore a right of way line of the same public street, road or highway so as fully to include or fully to exclude that segment of the public street, road or highway from the corporate limits of the city." This can be accomplished by both the City and County approving the attached Interlocal Agreement, the City adopting the proposed ordinance and the County approving the appropriate resolution. V. DISCUSSION: An annexation is pending for property which includes portions of the road outside the city limits. Staff recommends that in order to clear this issue and circumvent any complications or delays with the annexation, the Interlocal Agreement receive favorable consideration from Council and that the draft Resolution be brought before the County Commissioners for consideration. Council considered the Interlocal Agreement and the implementation documents at the Workshop Meeting of April 25, 2016. Page 124 of 186 Power Line Road Segment 1 Broadmoor to 9300 Block 1 f , . oil NgORFOLK DR C� _ ,' •. e`er 1 A\Ifr�1vT�T IIA\I/r�1]I�IIA\A1/1�1'111� • �--- — I 1 1 • i^ N W E S 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet Legend City Limits Power Line Road Pavement Parcel Lines X111 - • =,M E I knToTore :rill[: � b - W a Ell - J s Til l�C:K1�E�R�CT�TiUCKER� 1. pq P i ti, m ,,ar..qp 1!7 -1 'd F61iii - :NJ Me =,wA E I Ink TOTO re�s - • �� vi Ilk LAN r �� ly 6, � U IF` n- p o l` J_ n mi, brim ■ I .6,4.1WA,E Power i Line Road Segment 4 N 7800 Block to Road 68 w E S 0 100 200 300 400 500 Feet Legend 1 Oil City Limits Ar it AV � a - .„� i •, � tri` .... - � J T ��CAD s_ 1A/■ I DO 0_'A XV—@]'J XV-@]'J13 ___I UP X":_ City of Pasco, Washington 525 North 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PASCO AND FRANKLIN COUNTY FOR REVISION OF CORPORATE BOUNDARY WHEREAS, RCW 35A.21.210 authorizes code cities and counties to revise any part of a corporate boundary of a city which "coincides with the centerline, edge, or any portion of a public street, road or highway right of way by substituting therefore a right of way line of the same public street, road or highway so as fully to include or fully to exclude that segment of the public street, road or highway from the corporate limits of the city"; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco (hereinafter "City") has completed Phase I of improvements to Power Line Road between Broadmoor Boulevard (Road 100) and Road 68 including the acquisition of right-of-way, and the construction of a two-lane facility with some utilities; and WHEREAS, a portion of the right-of-way, improved roadway, and utilities are outside of the City limits, and said right-of-way which is legally described on exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the enforcement of traffic laws along the described section of Power Line Road is confusing and problematic in that, depending on which segment of the road a ticket may be issued, some tickets would be appropriately adjudicated in Pasco Municipal Court while others would be appropriately adjudicated in District Court; and WHEREAS, the City and County desire to revise the corporate boundary within street, road, or highway right-of-way by substituting right-of-way line; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 39.34 and RCW 35A.21.210, the City and the County have the authority to enter into this agreement. Interlocal Agreement between the City of Pasco and Franklin County for Revision of Corporate Boundary City of Pasco/Franklin County -1 Page 129 of 186 NOW THEREFORE, City and County agree as follows: 1. City shall pass an Ordinance in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "B" revising the City's corporate boundary by authority of this agreement to include the right -of -Way described on Exhibit "A". 2. County shall pass a Resolution in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C" approving the City's Ordinance revising its corporate limits to include the right -of -Way described on Exhibit "A". 3. The revision of the City's corporate boundary will not become effective until the County's Resolution is passed by the Board of Franklin County Commissioners. 4. The City Manager and the County Administrator are jointly designated as responsible for implementing and administering this agreement. 5. The City and County will not acquire any joint property pursuant to this agreement. 6. The purpose of this agreement is to include right of way currently in Franklin County within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Pasco. 7. Should a dispute arise regarding this agreement, the parties hereto shall first meet and attempt in good faith to resolve their differences. In the event that is unsuccessful, then the parties shall submit this matter to binding arbitration in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act — RCW 7.04. 8. The parties agree that the revision to City's corporate boundary is not subject to review. 9. This agreement may be amended or modified only by written agreement duly executed by the parties hereto. This agreement is executed in duplicate originals. One original shall go to each party. The City shall record this agreement with the Franklin County Auditor after City and County have approved it. Dated: City of Pasco PASCO, WASHINGTON Matt Watkins, Mayor Chair Dated: Board of County Commissioners FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON Chair Pro Tem Interlocal Agreement between the City of Pasco and Franklin County for Revision of Corporate Boundary City of Pasco/Franklin County -2 Page 130 of 186 ATTEST: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Deputy Prosecuting Attorney ATTEST: Clerk of the Board Shawn P. Sant, #35535/#91039 Prosecuting Attorney for Franklin County Interlocal Agreement between the City of Pasco and Franklin County for Revision of Corporate Boundary City of Pasco/Franklin County -3 Page 131 of 186 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description of Right -of -Way to be Annexed Interlocal Annex Power Line Road April 6, 2016 THAT PORTION OF POWER LINE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING EAST OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BROADMOOR BOULEVARD AND WEST OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ROAD 68 NORTH BEING IN THE SOUTH %2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 5, AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH % OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 29 EAST, W.M., FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON Interlocal Agreement between the City of Pasco and Franklin County for Revision of Corporate Boundary City of Pasco/Franklin County -4 Page 132 of 186 WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO: City of Pasco Attn: City Planner 525 North 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, revising the corporate boundary of the City of Pasco to include that portion of Power Line Road between Broadmoor Boulevard (Road 100) and Road 68. WHEREAS, Pursuant to RCW 35A.21.210(1) the City of Pasco and Franklin County have entered into an Interlocal Agreement for the revision of the corporate boundary of the City of Pasco, a copy of which Agreement is attached hereto as exhibit "A" (hereinafter Interlocal Agreement); and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.21.210(2), the revision of a corporate boundary as authorized by this section shall become effective when approved by ordinance of the city council and by ordinance or resolution of the county legislative authority. Such a boundary revision is not subject to potential review by a boundary review board; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21C.222) annexation of territory by a city or town is exempted from compliance with this chapter; and WHEREAS, the revision of the corporate boundary of the City of Pasco to include the property described below is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan since the adjusted area is within the City's Urban Growth Area. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The corporate limits of the City of Pasco are hereby revised to include the following described real property, which consists of roadway and road right-of-way: Page 133 of 186 THAT PORTION OF POWER LINE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LYING EAST OF THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BROADMOOR BOULEVARD AND WEST OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ROAD 68 NORTH BEING IN THE SOUTH '/20F THE SOUTH '/2 OF SECTION 5, AND THE SOUTH '/2 OF THE SOUTH '/2 OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 29 EAST, W.M., FRANKLIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Section 2. From and after the effective date of this ordinance, the above-described property shall be subject to all of the laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force and effect of the City of Pasco. Section 3. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this ordinance shall not as a result of said section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be held unconstitutional or invalid. Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective the latter of 5 days after passage and publication as provided for by law or upon the effective date of the County Resolution approving the revision of the Corporate Boundary of the City of Pasco. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law this day of , 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 134 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 25, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Rezone: RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (MF# Z 2016-002) I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Proposed Rezone Ordinance Report to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 3/17/16 & 4/21/16 H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, rezoning Lot 20, Coles Estates from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential), and further, authorize publication by summary only. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On March 17, 2016 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend rezoning Lot 20, Coles Estates from RT to R-1. Lot 20, Coles Estates is located on Road 92 north of Sandifur Parkway. 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. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. V. DISCUSSION: Page 135 of 186 The site is part of Coles Estates that was platted in 1967. In 1982, Coles Estates was annexed to the City and a portion of the subdivision has been developed mainly with single-family homes. The applicant, Promade Construction is seeking a zone change to enable the parcel to be developed in conjunction with Majestia Estates. The rezone will allow Majestia Lane to extend from Road 92 to Road 90 and will provide seven additional single- family lots. Page 136 of 186 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON REZONING LOT 20, COLES ESTATES FROM RT (RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION) TO R-1 (LOW-DENSITY 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; and (D) the Planning Commission developed findings which are hereby adopted by the City Council; 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 CT (Residential Transition) to R -1 (Low -Density Residential) for the real property as shown in the Exhibit "1" attached hereto and described as follows: Lot 20, Coles Estates 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 2nd day of May, 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 138 of 186 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: Z 2016-002 APPLICANT: Promade Construction HEARING DATE: 3/17/2016 6223 W Deschutes Ave ACTION DATE: 4/21/2016 Suite 508 Kennewick WA 99337 BACKGROUND REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low - Density Residential) 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lot 20 Coles Estates General Location: The 6000 Block of Road 92 Property Size: The combined area of the parcels is approximately 2 acres. 2. ACCESS: The parcel is accessible from Road 90. 3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are currently available to serve the site from Road 92 and will serve the site from Road 90 once the surrounding subdivision is developed. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The lot is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and are vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed as follows: NORTH: R-1 - Vacant SOUTH: C-1 - Vacant EAST: R-1 - Vacant WEST: R-3 - Multi & Single -Family Residences 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the sites for Mixed Residential and Commercial uses. Land Use Policy LU -3-13 encourages infill and (higher) density development to protect open spaces and critical areas and to support more walkable neighborhoods. Other goals and policies suggest the City permit a full range of residential environments including single family homes (H -2-A) and standards that control the scale and density of accessory buildings and homes to maintain compatibility with other residential uses (H-4-13). 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 1 Page 140 of 186 Non -Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197- 11-158. ANALYSIS The owners of Promade Construction applied for a rezone of Lots 11 8, 19, Coles Estates from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low -Density Residential) in 2014. The rezone was approved by the City Council followed by the approval of a 38 lot subdivision (Majestia Estates). At the time of the 2014 rezone the applicant tried but, was unsuccessful in purchasing Lot 20 Coles Estates to include in the rezone. The applicant now owns Lot 20 and is seeking to have it rezoned to R-1 to match the surrounding zoning. Lot 20 is the last lot in the Coles Estates to be rezoned from RT- to R-1. Rezoning the property will enable the applicant to complete a short plat that will add seven more single-family lots to the previously approved 38 lot Majestia Estates subdivision. This rezone will facilitate the completion of Majestia Lane between Road 90 and Road 92 and will allow for the looping of the water line. The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the lot for Mixed Residential land uses, allowing a variety of residential zoning ranging from RS -20 (Suburban) through R-3 (Medium -Density Residential); including the R-1 (Low -Density Residential) zone. The requested R-1 zone permits construction of single-family homes on lots with a minimum land area of 7,200 square feet. The requested R-1 zoning matches the zoning in nearby subdivisions. Mediterranean Villas to the west of the rezone site is zoned R-3 and contains a mix of attached and detached dwellings. 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 in 1982 when the property was annexed to the City. The property was originally subdivided and zoned in the county in 1967, 49 -years ago. 2. The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning: Much of the neighborhood to the north, east and west has been developed with residential neighborhoods containing primarily single-family homes. All public utilities are now available to the site. N Page 141 of 186 3. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general welfare: Approval of the proposed rezone will continue the existing pattern of residential development in the vicinity. The proposed zoning assignment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which has been determined to be in the best interest of advancing public health, safety and general welfare. Allowing residential development on the site(s) will encourage the elimination of vacant land within city limits. Vacant sites can potentially generate fugitive dust and weeds creating nuisance conditions for the neighborhood. 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 single-family residential development will continue the existing residential character of the neighborhood. The rezone from RT to R-1 will encourage infill as per Land Use Policy LU -3-B, and allow for "... 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 also allow for a full range of residential environments including single family homes, 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 primarily 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 tax parcels. 2. The site is vacant. 3. The site is approximately 2 acres in size. 4. The site is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition). 5. The applicant is requesting R-1 (Low -Density Residential) zoning. 3 Page 142 of 186 6. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for Mixed -Residential uses which includes R-1 zoning. 7. All municipal utilities are currently available in Road 92. 8. The rezone will facilitate infill development which is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. 9. The Broadmoor Estates and other nearby subdivisions are zoned R-1 and developed with single-family homes. 10. Single-family lots in surrounding subdivisions range in size from 8,200 square feet to 9,000 square feet. 11. The Mediterranean Villas subdivision to the west is zoned R-3 and developed with a mix of townhouses, duplexes and single family homes. 12. Lots in the Mediterranean Villas subdivision range in size from 2,400 square feet to 7,000 square feet. 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. 2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental. The proposed R-1 zoning will permit site development matching the character of the residential neighborhoods to the north and east. Based on past experience within the community with new development the proposed rezone will not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity in terms of property value and/or character. 3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole. There is merit in developing vacant parcels within the City in accordance with the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is :I Page 143 of 186 consistent with the Plan's Land Use Map. Elimination of vacant land near existing homes will reduce potential impacts of dust and fire danger. 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 are proposed by staff. 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 April 21, 2016 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 Lot 20, Coles Estates from "RT" to R-1. E Page 144 of 186 Land Use Item: Road 92 Rezone - RT to R- 1 Applicant: Pro -Made Construction N Map File #: Z 2016-002 SFDUs II I -I Vacant I S,FDUs VINCENZO DR J<d I [WILSHIRE DR Townhouses MAJESTIA LN N CY) 0 Vacant SITE Vacant Zoning Map IVINCENZO DR R-1 R-3 MAJESTIA LN C-1 Item: Road 92 Rezone - RT to R- 1 Applicant: Pro -Made Construction File #: Z 2016-002 N CY) Q O SITE R-1 C.1 WILSHIRE DR R-1 "4411111IMorm --- T yam• to �,.. _ _ _ _ +,"_ 4' _ _ -- _ 4� _ - Y#MEE J- y,r roo lot AIL p IN It i dl dw _,'fi •'�y��'�i:. _ .. a- Looking NortYI daft"`_"" "_ ,,. Apr sAK Im." "t- Ir Ito eto *W 4 y ,111 f 7 + II . r,�- Jv loll NIP to IMI - 6A Io' _ a Vdl/g. v , It040 1 , It PI lows€ i } y nOU ��rlel IItrIml 167 mar - 1114 III A.sw I. At N _._ ^ .,31 , 3.• _INA,,(gyp. l ftiI __ _ .L .yam � -<N. a _ I ' (r g Y \ r� Sx'r ry rrrl ~ r' }' } s » r � r,r �, or m. 41 ",s •-iy yr. a.4"r;It14 I oII r IAdw �IF . �}" .4x it rf.'ii:� ~ 'r v N •r.' r ^,q 1 .o r r +e7 •l� to rr1 •�' _ Y Y. ��IF Ip Iwo .r a r w" 3'Y Jt _ 'f rf ♦ / :..ty.r rl, - _ < �r , s � -r' o.-rA'. �;J _ �r. kd r, Y V 0 IF '` .I- r -- %�-JA MIN OFF OF. I 7ZAQ"w IF IF - _ qI; IF Fl IF to �^IF 1 Fr c qw N4. sit jI ., rr IF w t' -'. IF J -Iw VF IF FIC. I- _ 4 • - - OF -TI OFF - IF IF .- IFF _ - s'�e . - _ `n y+F°Geb, - _ - _ - . 111 F. FFIF AVA .T7 IT I IF IF W I- _IIN, _ _ IF I OF I III& IF IF IN I OF I IF IF IF IF I IF 't' •.alp,_' Ir _ _ �` _ ,i'ycc- Y.-, s= . - G - - _ ._ - - - '[i:.' FIT teF ._ .- t . - _ a. z _ - - _ -_ OF { FILM, Not y• t 'T IF - y .r 11 1r II ZOFFFIFF Too!• _ s r _ �l� ._ ..T -F- - -F-1 'r�i41� `. i. .�.. , ' - a 1 ` - - ._ :.� s't. •''•- _ ,e_u '�'� - ,yi1� i1L +-.,-+s - - = _--. - �. _ _ _ _ _ IF VLO,Ill, IF IFNI .. OFF _ l '% IF I_ F � �� r a - '� - .--� tITTis- f _ N. IF Ir„ -,t .t 7f.� y' -.,p[ �vti • ri4.” y� _ `. II _r ?` .� . LR-?' .y.GY `I _ 7 ` - - - �..,, :. -a,N. _ , a•It s`_' r - .!. Js. �! -4 - �' _ `=S.? t - p'�g,�.., 'u IF Il `a .vim -. '.�J-' .:.� ..y1� •-1- ;% - --_- - c. _ �_r _ + ' -`'r 4 Ill -Ci,.• - _ ie 'iii ....h ,- :.M' ,t ... _ -:'c' �.:. „�_ �'Iz.,. d"�+�� 'i a _. _ �_. .. OF - _ yITS—- s r -yam - --iFIFF. -je.`rz -.,F'a. .��'� l A. `,a'+ � -a. ' "•4`'?A, IF_'_ e.. 4 •a - �e Y'd!. _ ^+. '+J_ -F,- `-w _ _ _ _ ':b._-� _A_ _- _ f. •e �..`•- r --.i r1l :ems oe-� k_t,[ =$ i .AP ,.- _ _�" '^�a� -_.r.>,' - --'r .. _ - 'w. tia-. <'IN _ ,y". 1;. v }j ``L _--' r--: !:. �amwr S_ _ - �M-- a'b.' '_ 114 '.4. +. f'f _ �+ _ _'� h, _..» r ti 1 (. - "mak _ " r -' " „"7° _ . y�5y l I- - Q''r.-',-s-i' _ rte,,=`=' I L IF FF FOOF _ - F4P•... - `1 Y ..4. ,A _ �tY -t -1 _ _a �` a C�� _ T OFT IF. OFF FOF IF FIT TOTF IF - j7 _ - { _ - _00 111 yL. ify�.` IF OFF T 1't` Far �{ -� r i'•` _T• -tee+'� b�• .1 1r'. r 1'�y� _ h `P_ - _ OFF -s -�'•. - g ssl' .,r �' - !(t; i.., `A''i' i ?el.i _ - 'I�: ..�..n :y e�..• 3\#.- -! -lti - ...R. £+. �rr_In ..���LLL jr�k y r+i.lr's�a as �� ,r "fir .� Al o`IF I _'-... + ! �� 4:. �'..�,r#FI l.;may - rR..- ^`_ 'a _ I III Fell I IF I ON mr, IF FULF I Tell 111 17 _ -] .Y. )ti's _ _ -+fl .IIF 1IF k IT 5 Yi -44,.i 'F Y '.N\'t. - .. C•!- •1. \."� ,�y'.- _ y"6 Fit r 4.SOFF - C" _ _ _ }! k = IF. �To IF _: s Yi^:. e'a� ,:, 1.r ;s.c. =t1 .. '4,� - `-i' Y `t ^_,�- "O.. y-1!`•� ,�� r tr. r. - v _ 2' ow NIF S. �-- - i . • 1. _ - - . ♦ _ r ►a. - - If' r -Ill �_ - iF YIr IN rI Ir I IFIII'eIT IF IF._73. y� -IFF 1 Or.•011 -•.f S'I fy" ,�, -III,TlTr,. r _'f -_.TF - `� ..lIF OF t: . ,. ... '� ^ -t _ .\.IN ,� �OF -`-'H.. `+1�IF .nF' _ r - ..:: _ _ __i, `aar.. _ TO, ,TFO NOT INK ? '•r W. .t r .rIT I. - •--1 I. TM - h _ _ ` - -.? •�''.� '.t' -.o ti: - IF mol NF- OL IL - -� t ayw so - IOFF F r 4 �L FI I J� IFFY _ _ ,.,rryr'. av . «t-. 1 t - -4k 1 \ f il' �i v er- _ F'•a _ ti ». tr OF ` ? N. _ t- 'atit -a. .i=...-. .; c..Lt�4�. i ^: �i::,�.- ��.y ... �` kt ¢: ,s'_ _ 4. a •�- - .�`'y' '.i7c.Y7.- - -"i- _ - -:Nr 'ei s IF IN If WI- orPFFF r .Nl AN t •L:K b.OF ON F „ a d _ f _ -- _� w - �` !r IAL 4 A, low Am ivy 4t Ir1mmAI 2M 49jr.N aim AAAAmsw M- :, , n4 > W;Ik lC 10 C �••gIII�TTT�___ K . • .. rrt.- d -� . _«-. I _a "Arm - _ -1Yr Mme. K II Amt. A AA Am A CIA. ,� jr—AIC .r�. __ _ �..- -.,d rw_ _ _.� � _ III.. _ - K.:•1. ' ~ - _ �_ _ - wisp' i IL th f r . ' 016 , Iota r t PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/16 B. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Promade Construction) (MF# Z 2016-002) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential). Back in 2014 the applicant for this rezone approached the Planning Commission with a rezone for 2-3 other parcels to the north of the site to have those properties rezoned from RT to R-1. That was passed by City Council following the Planning Commission recommendation. In 2014 the applicant was unable to purchase the site currently under consideration but he has now purchased it and would like to have it zoned to match the zoning to the north to complete his project. In 2014, he also received approval for a preliminary plat, Majestia Estates, and this is the one piece that was missing. Attached to the staff report is a short plat that shows that layout that he wishes to use to develop the lots on this property and will tie into Majestia Estates and finish the neighborhood. It is consistent with the Consolidated Plan and fits the neighborhood. Chairwoman Khan asked for clarification on Lot 1, as it appears there is a road to the east and the west of the lot. Mr. McDonald responded that the lines on the west is vacated road. It will not be a street. Bruce Pritchard, 2025 W. 271h Avenue, Kennewick, spoke on behalf of this application. He stated that he owns property to the south, which is zoned commercial. For commercial property it was great with Road 92 going all the way through it had flowing through traffic. Now the traffic has been blocked off and with residential going in, he was hoping Majestia Lane would run through to Road 90 but it appears that has been dashed. Chairwoman Khan responded that there is a short plat. Staff put the short plat on the overhead. Mr. Pritchard asked if there would just be a square way for traffic to go around. Chairwoman Khan said yes. Mr. Pritchard said that was what he was looking for. Chairwoman Khan clarified that there is a street that will connect from Majestia Lane straight through to Road 90. 1 Page 152 of 186 With no further questions or comments to public hearing closed. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the hearing on the proposed rezone and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the April 21, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/21/16 B. Rezone Rezone from RT (Residential Transition) to R-1 (Low Density Residential) (Promade Construction) (MF# Z 2016-0021 Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated there were no additional comments. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Mendez, based on the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council rezone Lot 20, Coles Estates from RT to R-1. The motion passed unanimously. 2 Page 153 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 22, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Special Permit: Cantu Daycare Center (MF# SP 2016-005) I. REFERENCE(S): Vicinity Map Proposed Resolution Report to Planning Commission Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 3/17/2016 and 4/21/2016 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving a special permit for the location of a daycare center located at 220 N. Oregon Avenue, as recommended by the Planning Commission. III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On March 17, 2016 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to determine whether or not to recommend the location of a daycare center at 220 N Oregon Avenue. Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it would be appropriate to recommend the location of a daycare center at 220 N Oregon Avenue. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been received. V. DISCUSSION: Page 154 of 186 Applicant is requesting to locate a daycare center in a commercial zone. The daycare center would operate year-round 7 days per week for 16 hours a day (5am-9pm) and would serve up to 80 children per day. Daycare/preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require review via the Special Permit process. Page 155 of 186 Vicinity Item: Daycare Center in C-3 Zone Map Applicant: Rosa Cantu N File #: SP 2015-005 E GEO i` O tiAir ar ONNE �' O �y SITE !JulAlp �.JA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A DAYCARE CENTER LOCATED AT 220 N. OREGON AVENUE. WHEREAS, Rosa Cantu submitted an application for the location of a daycare center located at 220 N Oregon Avenue. (Tax Parcel 112 081455); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 17, 2016 to review a special permit for the proposed daycare center; and, WHEREAS, following deliberations on April 21, 2016 the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Special Permit for the daycare center 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 Rosa Cantu for a preschool in an C-3 (General Commercial) District under Master File # SP 2016-005 with the following conditions: a. The special permit shall apply to 220 N Oregon Avenue (Parcel # 112 081 455) b. Number of children shall not exceed 90. c. 12 new parking stalls shall be provided in addition to the 12 stalls indicated on the submitted site plan. d. Curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping shall be required along Bonneville Street up to the edge of the additional parking lot area. e. The daycare center, owners, and staff shall conform to all applicable State of Washington Department of Early Learning (DEL) regulations. f. The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit for the authorized improvements is not obtained by April 1, 2017. Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 2°a day of May, 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 157 of 186 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION MASTER FILE NO: SP 2016-005 APPLICANT: Rosa Cantu HEARING DATE: 3/17/16 220 N Oregon Ave ACTION DATE: 4/21/16 Pasco WA 99301 BACKGROUND REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a daycare center in a C-3 Zoning District 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Legal: Lots 20 & 23, Block 118 Pasco Land Company's lst Addition and Lots 1 - 4, Block 2 Longs Addition together with adjoining vacated right- of-way. General Location 220 N Oregon Avenue (Parcel # 112 081 455) Property Size: Approximately .36 acres 2. ACCESS: The site has access from N Oregon Avenue and Bonneville Street 3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer. 4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C-3 (General Commercial). Surrounding properties are also zoned C-3, and developed with commercial uses. 5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address daycare centers, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development. 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 Applicant is requesting to locate a daycare center in a commercial zone. The daycare center would operate year-round 7 days per week for 16 hours a day Page 158 of 186 (5am-9pm) and would serve up to 80 children per day. Daycare/ preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require review via the Special Permit process. The site is located on Oregon Avenue, which is an arterial street. The surrounding properties are all commercial, developed with commercial uses. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee and one space per 6 children. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children, (see table below). WAC 170-295-2090: With a proposed 90 child center the maximum on-site parking requirement for this site would be 12 stalls for employees (assuming the possibility of children under the age of 5 attending) plus 12 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of 24 stalls. There are currently 12 parking stalls indicated on the applicant's site plan. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated weekday trip generation for 12 employees, 80 children and 3,020 square feet of daycare center floor would be between 65.87 and 187.42 trips per day, depending on 2 Page 159 of 186 Then the And the If the age of Cum. Cum. the children staff to maximum Children Adults Max Max is: child ratio group Children Adults is: size is: (a) One month, through 11 1:4 8 8 2 8 2 months (infant) (b) Twelve months through 29 1:7 14 14 2 22 4 months (toddler) (c) Thirty months 1:10 20 20 2 42 6 through 5 years (preschooler) (d) Five years through 12 1:15 30 30 2 72 8 years (school- age child) With a proposed 90 child center the maximum on-site parking requirement for this site would be 12 stalls for employees (assuming the possibility of children under the age of 5 attending) plus 12 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of 24 stalls. There are currently 12 parking stalls indicated on the applicant's site plan. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated weekday trip generation for 12 employees, 80 children and 3,020 square feet of daycare center floor would be between 65.87 and 187.42 trips per day, depending on 2 Page 159 of 186 whether the calculation is based on number of employees, children, or facility square footage. The average of these three calculations is 118.24 trips per weekday (see table below). Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimate Estimate Estimate Trips Per Trips Per Trips Per Using 12 Using Using Average Employee Student 1,000 Sq. Employees 90 3020 Estimate Ft. Children Sq. Ft. 14.6 1.56 18.12 175.2 140.4 54.72 118.24 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. Applicant desires to locate a daycare center in a commercial zone. 2. The daycare center would operate 7 days per week for 16 hours a day (5am-9pm) . 3. The daycare center would serve up to 90 children per day. 4. Daycare/ preschool centers serving over 12 children per day require review via the Special Permit process. 5. The site is located on Oregon Avenue and Bonneville Street. 6. Oregon Avenue is an arterial street. 7. The surrounding properties are all commercial (C-3), and are developed with commercial uses. 8. The Bonneville Street frontage lacks curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping 9. Direct access to the site will be from Bonneville Street. 10. Oregon Avenue will be undergoing major design/ improvement project in 2016. Scheduled improvements in this area include curb, gutter, sidewalk, street widening (from 4 to 5 lanes), and landscaping. 11. Pasco Municipal Code 25.78.170 requires one parking space for each employee and one space per 6 children. 3 Page 160 of 186 12. Depending on the age of the children the DSHS ratio of adults to children is one adult for every 4 children down to one per 15 children, 13. The maximum parking requirement for this site based on 90 children will be 12 stalls for employees plus 12 stalls for children's parents/ guardians, for a total of 24 stalls. 14. Applicant has indicated 12 stalls on their submitted site plan. Twelve more parking stalls would be required. 15. According to the 2003 ITE Trip Generation Manual, the estimated trip generation averages to 119.28 trips per weekday. 16. The Daycare Center, owners, and staff will be required to be licensed by the State of Washington Department of Early Learning (DEL) (formerly Department of Social and Health Services/DSHS), and conform to regulations found in WAC 170-295. CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or not the proposal: (1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan? The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial uses. The Plan encourages the promotion of orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off-street parking and other development standards. (2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure? The site is served by all municipal utilities and the local street network. Oregon Avenue was designed to handle heavy commercial and industrial traffic. The proposed daycare center will operate 16 hours per day 7 days per week (5am-9pm). 8. The Bonneville Street frontage lacks proper curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. (3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity? 4 Page 161 of 186 The intended character of the area is primarily commercial. The proposed use would be operated as a commercial enterprise. (4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity or impair the value thereof The proposed daycare center would be located in an existing structure and run as a commercial enterprise in a commercial zone. The use would not be any more intensive than other uses permitted in the C-3 zone. (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 daycare center would not generate more noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the C-3 Zoning District. (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 proposed daycare center would not create nuisance conditions or endanger public health or safety any more than the operation of any permitted uses within the C-3 Zoning District. APPROVAL CONDITIONS 1) The special permit shall apply to 220 N Oregon Avenue (Parcel # 112 081 455) 2) Number of children shall not exceed 90. 3) 12 new parking stalls shall be provided in addition to the 12 stalls indicated on the submitted site plan. 4) Curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping shall be required along Bonneville Street up to the edge of the additional parking lot area. 5) The daycare center, owners, and staff shall conform to all applicable State of Washington Department of Early Learning (DEL) regulations. 6) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building permit for the authorized improvements is not obtained by April 1, 2017. 5 Page 162 of 186 RECOMMENDATION MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 21, 2016 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 daycare center at 220 N Oregon Avenue, with conditions as listed in the April 21, 2016 staff report. C Page 163 of 186 (D 12 Right Elevation Front Elevation Rear Elevation Left Elevation PROVIDE VENWRIN KF IRC "U / No' IF "' IS PRONOE B —T V4T 41]5/]W-1])50 S'TVENT Drawing Index ELEVATIONS SHEET 1 FOOTING & FOUNDATIONS SHEET 2 MAN FLOOR PLAN I' SHEET 3 ROOF PLAN SHEET 4 TYPICAL BUILDING SECTION SHEET 4 STRUCTURAL NOTES SHEET 4 u MCLEOD HOME DESIGN LLC bz UU aA 2 Copyright Disclaimer 2-1 'j cu LL cu .2 > -d 1 0 00 Cy) El MCLEOD HOME DESIGN LLC bz UU aA C pynghtDisclaimer LL c cu 0 00 Cy) El MCLEOD HOME DESIGN LLC bz UU aA C pynghtDisclaimer LL CU w fp a2 R4125111 3 .E.. Rr LICENSED STOP 12• LOOSE PILL INSUL (R-49) CUM, ROFF. XIS (MIN) OSB PRE YM GiHIN - 2d• ot. TRu� ]/16° WATER BD RI IN N 6a a s'Oc. BEMIIN 2, BLOCONG 1x4 NOR KN TRUSSES 2x4 MEET (CO (3) 1.0 SCREENED 1FNT HOIf o �g N6e s 6. O.C. ARWM NO PFRMETER Of 1N4 VERT Sri SET—iRU55E5 ;zr HOR/VENT BLN I/2' Cro BD o p (2) 216 TOP PL 3 An NA95 IMO TOP PL �m8 5/4 % 8 058 6• BATT INSUL (R-21) SO- VENT VISUUEEN — WRIER 7/I6' WAFER BO 14 wuLER (CO.) RAISED HEEL CONDITION SEE I Nano Detail Al TRUSS BLOCKING SCALE. = r -O• AS CALLED OUT 1/2' CIA x 10 AND., NOLs 6%6 K WWO POST 6 O.C. STARTING 1FROM CORNERS SIMPSON XAB6%6 Y � WASHtlt � � 2x6 TREATED SILL 1U1E 4• CONGSTAB 3 I/2 MIN IB%18 CONIC PIER CAPE, SLOB 24" BELOW GRADE X4 Hai COM 1' FROM NP R \\� \ • �j/� • • 6• GONC PON WALL X4 VER 0 40" O.C. ^ R-10 RICO INSUL d4 M COM 6' x 12' CONIC FTG Detail A2 Detail B2 SCALE: 1° = Y-0• SO^lE: 1' = 1'-0' SHED ROOF OVER "LEACHER STORAGE cDMP ROOFING X15 FELT (MIN) W RON INSUL 1%6 0 Zd• oC.� CD rn 0 00 rn 1/2' Gro RD - (2) 26 TOP PL 6' BATT INSUL (R-21) MOOSEEN VAPOR BARRIER a �D a View 2 View 1 View 3 ADA Lav Rancher Detail Map SCAE. NIS NOTE I. The net free ventilation area shall be not less than 1/50 of the areo of the space ventilated, except that the areo may be 1/300 prodded at least 50= of the mrd venh areo is prodded by ventilators lorded In the upper portion of the space to be ventdoted at least 3'-0" above eave or eornI,, vents with the balonca of the mq'd ventilation protide by eave or cornice .at. 2. Soffit was must be 3'-0* min. Fran ony opening in exteriar envelope (or 3' aonl. if locally ocospled). 3. All ply xood to be APA or DFPA approved only. STRUCTIRAL NOTES: Loadings Floor ® 40# per At LL - 10# per SF DL Root ® 30# per SF LL - 10# per SF DL Stair ® 100# Per SF LL 4. N/A 5. Framing Lumber - IT, and Larch S4S - 1201p. OF Fb for vertical and 1500# per SF horizontal. All lumber in contact with concrete to be Redwood or pressure treated. 6. Approved sill dachas to start t'-0" from all corners and 6'-0' O.0 ,aa 6 TOTAL PARKING 20' STALLS IN STREE 4' 28' S]' s � ,,,' P,RNING sruE GP S,W PER EACH a Z.,siALL °' '______________________ FENCE ' I I 1 I I IgN�=J I I I 0 � I I w I I Day Care Facility I 1 � 0 ""�' 26 TOTAL PARKING I I slcxu� cRNss I a STALLS IN LOT 4'siMWUN �\ m >> Day Care Facility a' sonuuN ,z x N —1 MCLEOD HOME DESIGN LLC wwn.mGeatlM1omeEesigns.mm �U �z UU an b b u euomn inrormago�. 1 III IT I n _IT Copyright LL 77. R4125111 P�NNg ----- 4' cm slowu.N 0 Vicinity Item: Daycare Center in C-3 Zone Map Applicant: Rosa Cantu N File #: SP 2015-005 E GEO i` O tiAir ar ONNE �' O �y SITE !JulAlp �.JA Land Use Item: Daycare Center in C-3 Zone Applicant: Rosa Cantu Map File #: SP 2015-005 , , , , , , , , , , CD Vacant Comm. °2 \ wCO 8 r� Vacant---) ��� �°off �SITE�ym � Comm. Vacant III01m Commercial 0� GEO Zoning Item: Daycare Center in C-3 Zone Applicant: Rosa Cantu x Map File #: SP 2015-005 , , , , , , , , , , o , S� N Iov\��� p,0 C-3 SITE 7Z O C-1 GEO R-1 C-3 Looking North Looking East f I TO % p9 `k a a. ," t-'ryCr3,"�,•u*x.aX` a --�,.. r y �'�•—• v • i,♦ a a t - .. •. �X:+ ,. _tM�1' , , f Looking West V - � � �, � ��� ; � �;; .+ �. �• s _ �P'•' ,;wr ✓. _. ,t ��,; ' � �- '��'�: TAY :^ - Z '�-,✓ry'a"y �K-s � � r� r.-5 - _ -, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/17/16 A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a daycare center (Rosa Cantu) (MF# SP 2016-005) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit to locate a daycare center. The proposal is to locate a daycare center in a C-3 zone at 220 N. Oregon Avenue. The applicant has indicated that the proposal is to operate the daycare center 7 days per week for 16 hours per day and could serve up to 82 children per day. The property is surrounded by commercial uses and is being used commercially. The staff report identifies the state requirements for the number of the features or at least the child/teacher ratio and an estimated traffic generation rate was provided. A list of preliminary findings have been developed as well as a list of possible conditions. Commissioner Portugal asked if there is a fence around the property. Mr. White answered that currently there is not. Commissioner Greenaway added that they would have to comply with state law regarding fencing. Mr. White stated that this daycare application is similar to other daycare centers that have been discussed. Chairwoman Khan responded that one of the approval conditions states that they will conform to Washington State Department of Early Learning regulations. Commissioner Polk asked for clarification on the sketch that was included in the staff report of the proposed daycare. Mr. White clarified the proposed design, including the layout, streets and parking. Commissioner Mendez stated that he was concerned because there were no grass areas for the kids to play and lack of fencing and if the facility would have to be inspected by the State before they issue a license. Mr. White responded that they would need to be approved by the State prior to a license being issued. Commissioner Greenaway added that the State has very specific rules for any daycare. -1- Page 177 of 186 Rosa Cantu, 115 Honeysuckle, spoke on behalf of her special permit application. The facility currently doesn't look the way it's going to look because she is just starting the process. She is trying to get all of the permits taken care of and prior to opening it will have to be approved by the State or else they won't be able to operate. In the front it will have enough playground space and parking. Commissioner Polk asked if she has a new drawing. Ms. Cantu responded that she does and handed the drawing into the record for the Planning Commission to review. She explained that the engineer is still working on the design. Commissioner Mendez asked if the total area is 3,000 square feet. Ms. Cantu responded that it is 2,211 square feet. He asked if it would have the capacity of 80 kids. Ms. Cantu answered that it would have 80-90, depending on what the State approves. Commissioner Polk asked if that would contain school aged children who won't be there for the entire day. Ms. Cantu said that is correct, they will offer a before and after school program. Chairwoman Khan asked if she had any concerns about it being located next door to commercial. Ms. Cantu answered that she did not have concerns because it will be completely fenced in. Commissioner Greenaway stated that the application just had 80 children as the maximum and if she would like to leave that open. Ms. Cantu responded that it was 80 before they started doing the design but with an addition there could be an extra preschool. It will not exceed 90. Commissioner Portugal asked if the State will have a requirement as to how many kids could be in one room and if that is being taken care of. Ms. Cantu stated that is being taken care of. -2- Page 178 of 186 With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Portugal discussed changing the approval condition from 80 to 90 for the capacity for the staff report at the next meeting. Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a recommendation for City Council for the April 21, 2016 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, David McDonald, City Planner -3- Page 179 of 186 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4/21/16 A. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a daycare center (Rosa Cantu) (MF# SP 2016-005) Chairwoman Khan read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special permit application for the daycare center. There were no further comments but he noted that the packet contained revised elevations, floor plan and site layout from what was sent out the previous month. Commissioner Bowers asked where this site was located. Mr. White briefly described the area. Chairwoman Khan asked if the setbacks are the same for commercial zoning as they are for residential. Mr. White answered they are not. Chairwoman Khan asked what the setbacks would be for this site. Mr. White responded that it would depend on landscaping required, if it's an existing building and where the parking was placed. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Mendez dissenting. Commissioner Polk moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, 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 daycare center at 220 N Oregon Avenue, with conditions as listed in the April 21, 2016 staff report. The motion passed 4 to 1 with Commissioner Mendez dissenting. Page 180 of 186 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council April 27, 2016 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 5/2/16 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Council Goals 2016-2017 I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Resolution Proposed Goal Presentation Format II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , establishing primary goals of the City of Pasco for the ensuing calendar years 2016-2017. III. FISCAL IMPACT: IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: In follow up to the Council discussion from the meeting of April 25, staff has provided a format for presentation of the goals for Council's consideration. In addition, while not specifically addressed at the retreat, but based on the current undertaking of the Pasco Public Facilities District (and the perception that Council supports the same) to evaluate the feasibility of an aquatic/community recreation facility, staff has added a new objective under the "quality of life" goal to identify the investigation of a possible aquatic/community recreation facility as part of the two-year cycle. Additionally, as discussed at the meeting, Council has been provided with the most current reading material on fluoride which is available from the Center for Disease Control. If Council wants further research information, staff will further research. It would seem that the issue to continue with water fluoridation or not, however, could be decided by a vote of Council as opposed to including the issue as a part of the two-year work plan. Over the past 20+ years, City Council has conducted biennial retreats in the spring of each even numbered year (following the municipal election in the odd number year). The purpose of the retreat is to consider the community input along with staff advice Page 181 of 186 and develop a list of specific and measureable goals to be pursued by the City organization over the ensuing two years. The Council conducted its retreat on March 18 & 19 following receipt of the results of the 2015 National Citizens Survey effort; conducting multiple Community Forums to collect community advice in February; and receipt of goal statements from the City's governmental partners. V. DISCUSSION: The proposed format for the goals is somewhat different from previous years in that goal statements are more broad and fewer in numbers. Listed under goals are more specific objectives or projects which are considered of primary relevance, and under the City's purview, toward achieving the goal. Approval of the resolution will formally establish the list of goals as the primary work plan for the organization over the ensuing two years. It will be reflected in budget recommendations and policy recommendations as well as day to day administrative actions, all designed to achieve or make significant progress in forwarding those goals before the next biennial retreat (spring 2018). Page 182 of 186 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION establishing primary goals of the City of Pasco for the ensuing calendar years 2016-2017. WHEREAS, the City of Pasco organization desires to focus the allocation of its resources toward primary goals selected to fulfill the vision of Pasco's future, as held by its elected representatives; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted Community Forums on February 10, 17 and 26 to elicit the concerns of residents about the present condition of the City, as well as thoughts and suggestions for Pasco's future; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered goal statements from its local partner governmental organizations and results from the 2015 National Citizens Survey; and WHEREAS, the City managerial staff has shared with the City Council its concerns for the present as well as visions for the future of the Pasco community; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a goal setting retreat on Saturday, March 19, 2016 to discuss all the various concerns for the present as well as visions for the future; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following goals shall be considered primary goals for the City of Pasco for the ensuing two years (calendar years 2016 and 2017): I. The City will pursue efforts to promote a high-quality of life through quality programs, services and appropriate investment and re -investment in community infrastructure by: ■ Use of CDBG and other public and private capital to re -revitalize older neighborhoods ■ Acquisition of an adequate site for new community center, community park and additional soccer fields ■ Coordination with the Pasco Public Facilities District on investigation of the feasibility of constructing/maintaining an aquatic/community recreation facility. ■ Completion of site designation process and interlocal agreements on construction and operation of new animal control facility ■ Efficient and effective use of public resources in the delivery of municipal services, programs and long-term maintenance and viability of public facilities II. As part of its regular budget process, the City will evaluate the long-term financial viability, value and service levels of its services and programs, including: ■ Importance to community ■ Cost of recovery targets Page 183 of 186 ■ Evaluation of costs associated with delivery including staffing, facilities and partnership opportunities III. The City will preserve past improvements and promote future gains in community safety by: ■ Enhancing proactive community policing efforts ■ Continued efforts to improve police/community relations ■ Working to maintain/achieve target fire response times ■ Focus on a long-term goal of improving the Washington State Ratings Bureau community rating to Class 4 ■ Efforts to realize full implementation of a consolidated PSAP/dispatch center IV. The City will promote a highly functional, multi -modal transportation network through: ■ Completion of the Lewis Street Overpass design concept process, securing gap funding for construction and achievement and maintenance of "shovel -ready" status ■ Completion of Road 68/I-182 Interchange improvements ■ Efforts to facilitate traffic flow in major corridors ■ Pro -active traffic management (calming) within neighborhoods ■ Completion of planned improvements on Oregon Avenue ■ Collaboration with Ben -Franklin Transit to enhance mobility ■ Comprehensive planning, analysis and execution on pedestrian, bicycle and other non -vehicular means of transportation V. The City will promote and encourage economic vitality by supporting: ■ Downtown revitalization efforts of DPDA ■ Implementation of downtown infrastructure improvements including; Peanuts Park, Farmers Market, Pasco Specialty Kitchen and streetscape upgrades ■ Completion of the Broadmoor sub -area plan and environmental analysis, including plans for needed utilities and transportation improvements ■ Efforts to promote the community as a desirable place for commercial and industrial development — strengthening existing partnerships and coordinating efforts ■ Continuation of DNR efforts to sell/develop state property at Road 68/I-182 ■ Identification of alternatives for City/Port of Pasco coordination on waterfront plan implementation VI. The City will work with its partners and other agencies to identify opportunities to enhance community identity, cohesion and image through: ■ Community surveying ■ Providing opportunities for community engagement through boards, commissions, volunteer opportunities, social media, forums and other outlets ■ Coordinated messaging ■ Identification and celebration of successes ■ Implementation of a community identity/image enhancement campaign Primary Goals — 2016-2017 Page 2 Page 184 of 186 Section 2. The City Manager is hereby directed and authorized to formulate appropriate implementation strategies to achieve the goals set forth hereinabove, consistent with appropriation policies and procedures. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at a regular meeting this 2nd day of May, 2016. Matt Watkins, Mayor ATTEST: Debra Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Primary Goals — 2016-2017 Page 3 Page 185 of 186 EM QUALITY OF LIFE COUNCIL GOALS 2016-2017 Promote a high-quality of life through quality programs, services and appropriate investment and re- investment in community infrastructure by: ■ Use of CDBG and other public and private capital to re -revitalize older neighborhoods ■ Acquisition of an adequate site for new community center, community park and additional soccer fields ■ Coordination with the Pasco Public Facilities District on investigation of the feasibility of constructing/maintaining an aquatic/community recreation facility. ■ Completion of site designation process and interlocal agreements on construction and operation of new animal control facility ■ Efficient and effective use of public resources in the delivery of municipal services, programs and long- term maintenance and viability of public facilities FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY Evaluate the long-term financial viability, value and service levels of services and programs, including: ■ Importance to community ■ Cost of recovery targets ■ Evaluation of costs associated with delivery including staffing, facilities and partnership opportunities COMMUNITY SAFETY Preserve past improvements and promote future gains by: ■ Enhancing proactive community policing efforts ■ Continued efforts to improve police/community relations ■ Working to maintain/achieve target fire response times ■ Focus on a long-term goal of improving the Washington State Ratings Bureau community rating to Class 4 ■ Efforts to realize full implementation of a consolidated PSAP/dispatch center MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Promote a highly functional transportation network through: ■ Completion of the Lewis Street Overpass design concept process, securing gap funding for construction and achievement and maintenance of "shovel -ready status ■ Completion of Road 68/I-182 Interchange improvements ■ Efforts to facilitate traffic flow in major corridors ■ Pro -active traffic management (calming) within neighborhoods ■ Completion of planned improvements on Oregon Avenue ■ Collaboration with Ben -Franklin Transit to enhance mobility ■ Comprehensive planning, analysis and execution on pedestrian, bicycle and other non -vehicular means of transportation ECONOMIC VITALITY Promote and encourage economic vitality by supporting: ■ Downtown revitalization efforts of DPDA ■ Implementation of downtown infrastructure improvements including; Peanuts Park, Farmers Market, Pasco Specialty Kitchen and streetscape upgrades ■ Completion of the Broadmoor sub -area plan and environmental analysis, including plans for needed utilities and transportation improvements ■ Efforts to promote the community as a desirable place for commercial and industrial development — strengthening existing partnerships and coordinating efforts ■ Continuation of DNR efforts to sell/develop state property at Road 68/1-182 ■ Identification of alternatives for City/Port of Pasco coordination on waterfront plan implementation COMMUNITY IDENTITY Identify opportunities to enhance community identity, cohesion and image through: ■ Community surveying ■ Providing opportunities for community engagement through boards, commissions, volunteer opportunities, social media, forums and other outlets ■ Coordinated messaging ■ Identification and celebration of successes ■ Implementation of a community identity/image enhancement campaign Page 186 of 186