Loading...
1998 09 22u u u 5399 MOSES LAKE CITY COUNCIL September 22,1998 Council Present: Richard Pearce,Ron Covey,Daryl Jackson,Grant Nichols, Lee Blackwell,Wayne Rimple, and Bob Chapman MINUTES:Mr.Jackson moved that the minutes of the September 8 meeting be approved as submitted, seconded by Mr.Nichols, and passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF BILLS.CHECKS.AND PREPAID CLAIMS ActionTaken:Mr.Rimple moved that the bills,checks,and prepaidclaims issued be approved,seconded by Mr.Blackwell and passed unanimously. Vouchers audited and certified by the Finance Director as required by RCW42.24.080,and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW42.24.090,have been recorded on a listing which has been made available to the City Council. Claims:The vouchers included on the below list as modified by the Council and noted upon said list forthe Council meeting ofSeptember22,1998forthefunds listed beloware approved inthe amount of$179,843.66. GENERAL FUND $31,314.45 SANITATION FUND 1,457.57 STREET STREET REPAIR/RECON EQUIPMENT LEASES WATER/SEWER FUND WATER/SEWER CONSTRUCTION WATER/SEWER LEASES Prepaid Claims: Prepaid claimsapproved by the City Manager according to the processestablished by Moses Lake Municipal Code 3.42.030 and the internal control policy approved by the City Council have been re corded on a listing which has been made available to the City Council.The claims listed beloware approved in the amount of$111,384.16 for all funds. GENERAL $359.76 CENTRAL SERVICES 11.52 STREET REPR/RECON 12,844.00 EQUIP RENTAL-OPERATIONS 96,949.00 WATER/SEWER FUND 1,219.88 TOTAL $111,384.16 Claims Checks:Checks 23044 through 23327 issued on September 9,1998 were approved for payment at the Council meeting held on September 22,1998 in the total amount of $530,085.62. Payroll:The payroll issued on September 18,1998 having been approved pursuant to the rule of the City Council set forth in Moses Lake Municipal Code 3.42.040,was paid by checks 64728 through 64962 inthe amount of$307,980.38. I.CITIZEN INPUT-None II.PRESENTATIONS -None III.CONSENT AGENDA -None IV.CONSIDERATION OF BIDS SEWER LINING PROJECT Staff recommended that the bid forthe 1998 sewer lining project be awarded to Owyhee Construction. ActionTaken:Dr.Covey moved thatthe bidbe awardedto OwyheeConstruction,seconded by Mr.Blackwell, and passed unanimously. V.PETITIONS.COMMUNICATIONS.OR PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCE -AMEND C-2 ZONE -CARGO CONTAINERS Mitchell Delabarre,representing Wal-Mart Stores, requested an amendment to the C-2 Zone which would allow cargo containers tobeusedona temporary basis for seasonal merchandise.The numberofcontainers allowedwould be based on 5%ofthe gross floor area, notto exceed three innumber,except that additional containers may be allowed on a temporary seasonal basis once inanytwelve month period,notto exceed 90 days. Mr.Delabarrestated thatthe concerns withthe storage containers seemto be their appearance and possible abuse of any change in the ordinance.He pointed outthatthe current ordinance,among other things, requires thatthe containers not be visible to the motoring public and allows for a maximum of three containers.The proposed ordinance amendment wouldallow storagecontainersnotto exceed 5%ofthe 25,080.94 AIRPORT 10.00 2,022.56 CENTRAL SERVICES 9,933.28 17,857.08 EQUIP RENTAL-OPERATIONS 26,609.18 44,260.66 BUILD MAINT-OPERATIONS 10,522.23 10,679.09 M. L.YOUTH PARTNERSHIP TF 79.55 1,457.57 TOTAL $179,843.66 //bis /Or/ &>> 100 5400 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 2 September 22,1998 gross floor area with additional containers allowed on a temporary seasonal basis once in any 12 month period not to exceed 90 days.Wal-Mart has indicated they willcomply with the performance criteriaand the storage containers would not be visible to the public. There was some discussion by the Council.Itwas pointed outthat Wal-Mart stores in other cities usethese same type of storage containers for temporary seasonal needs. Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,distributed an ordinance which incorporates the proposed changes suggested by Wal-Mart. There was some discussion by the Council on the process to change the ordinance. Theordinance amending Chapter 18.32 ofthe Moses Lake MunicipalCodeentitled C-2,General Commercial and Business Zone was read by title only. Mr.Gavinski feltthat another publichearing would be required since the language is different than what was originally requested and the request was previously withdrawn by Wal-Mart. There was additional discussion by the Council. Action Taken:Dr.Covey moved that the ordinance be put through the regular process,seconded by Mr. Nichols. The Council discussed the issue of the process for an ordinance amendment. The motion passed unanimously. Itwas recommended that the Planning Commission set a study session priorto their October 15 meeting to discuss this issue. ORDINANCE -TAXES/1998 REVENUE -1st READING/PUBLIC HEARING An ordinance was presented which fixes the estimated amount to be received by the City of Moses Lake from property taxes in 1999.A public hearing has also been scheduled to consider the revenue sources for the city's 1999 current expense budget. Joseph K.Gavinski, City Manager,stated that new construction was not figuredinto the amounts listed inthe public hearing notice on this issue,so those amounts have been increased.Also,information has been received from the Assessor's Office concerning the way the ordinance should be written to account forthe requirements of the new law. A draft ordinance was distributed. Mr.Gavinski suggested that Section 2 be amended as follows:The following estimated taxes for general municipal purposes forthe Cityof Moses Lake forthe year 1999 be and the same are hereby levied upon all taxable propertywithintheCityof Moses Lake,asdetermined inthe year 1998.An estimated increase inthe regularpropertytax levy of $100.252 inadditiontothe increase resultingfromthe additionof newconstruction and improvements to property as authorized bv RCW 84.55.010 and any increase in the value of stated assessed property is hereby authorized for the 1999 levy in the estimated amount of $1,771,119 which is a percentage increase of 6% from the previous year. The public hearing was opened.There were no comments. ActionTaken:Mr.Jackson moved that the public hearing be closed,seconded by Mr.Nichols,and passed unanimously. The ordinance fixing the estimated amount to be received formunicipalpurposes fromtaxations on assessed valuationson property within the Cityof Moses Lake,Washington for 1999 was read by titleonly. Action Taken:Mr.Jackson moved thatthe ordinancebe amended as proposedand the first reading of the ordinance be adopted,seconded by Mr.Blackwell,and passed unanimously. ORDINANCE-ZONECHANGE-WENATCHEEVALLEYCLINIC/BLACK-2NDREADING/PUBLIC HEARING An ordinancewas presented which changes the zoning forpropertylocatedon Hill Avenue between Pioneer Way and Juniper Drive from R-3,Multi-family Residential, to C-2, General Commercial and Business. The public hearing was opened.There were no comments. ActionTaken:Dr.Covey moved that the public hearingbe closed,seconded by Mr.Jackson, and passed unanimously. The ordinance amendingSection 18.09.020ofthe Moses Lake Municipal Code was read by title only. n n n 5401 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:3 September22,1998 Action Taken:Mr.Blackwell moved thatthesecond reading oftheordinance be adopted and the Findings of Fact be accepted, seconded by Mr.Jackson, and passed unanimously. URBAN GROWTH AREA-PUBLIC HEARING The City of Moses Lake's proposed Urban Growth Area boundary was presented./£*?^> Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,distributed a newspaper article concerning growth and industrial developmentand population issues anda letter from Proulx Cearns,Inc.concerning thecounty'scomprehen- i j sive plan.The letter recognizes the effort the city has put forth to substantiate its proposed UGA and the ^-^difficulty in developing land use decisions without final population projections from the county.The Planning Commission has recommended the inclusion of certain other lands.The inclusion of those lands would be difficultto justify and support and substantiate and document the need forthose additional residential lands without some support from Grant County. Gilbert Alvarado,SeniorPlanner,explained the Urban Growth Areaas proposed bystaff.Thechanges in the boundary from the IUGA include the inclusion of all the Port property,CascadeValley,theareaalong L NE thatwas not previously included inthe IUGA,property tothe west ofthe Municipal Airport as requested by the property owner,and property north of I-90 as requested bythe property owner.The city is proposing to excludethe Moses Pointe development andthe Dune LakeFarms area.He explained the Growth Manage ment Act process in adopting an urban growth area. He mentioned that the Planning Commission was concerned aboutthe development in theCrab Creekdrainage areaand Mae Valley butthe inclusion ofthese areaswouldbe difficult to justify.Hementionedthatthereisthe possibility of creating sub-areas for additional planning. There was some discussion by the Council. The public hearing was opened. Phil Bloom,Mae Valley,stated that he lives in Mae Valley and is on the City of Moses Lake Steering Committee.MaeValleyis urban incharacter anditis continuing todevelop. The lotsalong Westshore Drive are80'to 100'inwidth extendingnearly tothe Moses Pointe development. The cityshouldconsiderincluding the Mae Valley area in the UGA out to Road F.He pointed out that the Moses Pointe development is continuing to develop and will be urban in nature and should be included in the UGA. He also felt that (j agricultural lands should be protected.The land to the north and west ofthe city is not suitable for farming ^-^and could be developed.The land to the south and east of the city is good farm ground and should be protected. Michael Moore requested that the Moses Pointe project be included inthe UGA.He pointed out thatthey have agreements withthe cityto provideservices and there will be approximately250 unitsto be developed within the next 12to 15 months.He felt thatthe areasthat are urban in natureshould be included in the UGA. Tim Hansen stated that he would like his property next to the golf course to be included inthe UGA. Steve Shinn mentioned that ifan area is outside the UGAthe city will probablynot provide services.Healso feltthatthe agricultural lands need to be protected. He mentioned thatthe Crab Creekdrainage area and Mae Valley to Road Fare urban in nature and sewer services will eventually be needed inthese areas. He also mentioned that water may be a scare resource in the future due to the requirement to protect salmon and other issues. Jean Babbitt,Westshore Drive,feltthat Cascade Valley should definitely be included and if Mae Valley is considered for inclusion,the boundary should be at least to Road F. Jeff Foster was in agreement with most of the previous comments Robert Schiffner pointed out that Mae Valley is not good farm ground. He stated that he owns 540 acres north of Moses Pointe and does not see that as ever being farmed. He feltthe UGA boundariesshould include Mae Valley from the freeway north along Road E to Moses Lake on the north and west. U Karen Edwards, Nelson Road,stated that at the meetings held in Cascade Valley and Mae Valley by the County Commissioners,the residents requested that they not be included in the UGA.The people in the Admiral and Hamilton Road area also do notwant to be in the UGA. Curtis Robillard,representing SkylineAcresHomeowners Association,statedthat they are opposedto having Skyline Acres included in the UGA in the future. Action Taken:Mr.Jackson moved that the public hearing be closed,seconded by Mr.Nichols, and passed unanimously. Mr.Jackson felt that areas outside ofthe proposed boundaries ofthe UGA will need to be considered in the future but for the present time would agree with the existing boundaries.He stated he would support the inclusion of the Moses Pointe area and the Dune Lake Farms area ifjustification is provided by the county. \^ ))^ 10*f 5402 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 4 September 22,1998 Mr.Rimple wanted to know why the city should provide justification to include Cascade Valley in the UGA when the county has allowed the area to develop to urban standards. Mr.Gavinski statedthatexisting population does notneedjustification butthe vacantlands needto bejustified for infill purposes under the process established by the GMA.The newspaper article indicating that Grant County is the third fastest growing county inthe state supports the boundaries proposed by the city.The city still must provide justification of its proposed boundaries. Mr.Jackson mentioned that, for information purposes,the city is not interested in providing services or annexing the College Heights area. Mr.Nichols was infavorofprotecting agriculturallands but the property along Wheeler Road is already zoned industrial. He pointed outthat just because property is in the UGA does not mean the property willhave to meet city standards.The UGA willallow both the city and county to do future planning. Mr.Chapman pointed out that the county-wide planning policies are to be used forjoint planning purposes between the city and county. He suggested that the MaeValley area from I-90to the lake along Road Fand Dune Lake Farms be included in the UGA. Mr.Nichols pointed out that the city can propose whatever itwants but the county has the final decision. Mr.Rimple did not have a problem with including Moses Pointe since the county has already proposed its inclusion,but he was concerned about going allthe way out to Road F. There was some discussion by the Council. Action Taken:Mr.Jackson moved that the Urban Growth Area as proposed by staff be approved and forwarded to the county with a strong recommendation that the Moses Pointe area and the Dune Lake Farms area be included if the county can justify its inclusion,seconded by Mr.Chapman. Action Taken:Mr.Chapman moved that the motion be amended to recommend to the county that property in Mae Valley be included in the UGA from I-90 north to the lake and east of Road F provided the county can justify its inclusion,seconded by Mr.Blackwell, and passed unanimously. The motion passed unanimously. VI.ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS -None VII.REQUESTS TO CALL FOR BIDS -None VIII.REFERRALS FROM COMMISSIONS VILLAGE PARK#2 FINAL PLAT Fred Skinner,Western Pacific Engineering, has submitted a final plat fora one lot major platlocated off of Grape Drive.The Planning Commission recommended that the final platbe approved. Action Taken:Dr.Covey moved that the Village Park#2 Final Platbe approved with the stipulationthat the Engineer's comments be addressed and the Findings of Fact be accepted,seconded by Mr.Blackwell, and passed unanimously. PIONEER COMMERCIAL PARK 1st ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT Phil Bloom,Columbia Northwest Engineering, has submitted a preliminary platforan 11 lotmajorplatlocated off Sharon Avenue.The area is zoned C-2,General Commercial and Business.A variance has been requested to the requirement to construct the cul-de-sac at the end of Pilgrim Street. The Planning Commission recommended that the preliminary plat be approved and the variance be granted with the stipulation that a covenant runwiththe land for the improvements to the cul-de-sac within three years ifthe street is not extended. Action Taken:Mr.Jackson moved that the variance request be granted with the stipulation that a covenant runwiththe land forthe improvements to the cul-de-sac withinthree years if Pilgrim Street is not extended, the preliminary plat beapproved,andthe Findings ofFactbeaccepted,seconded by Mr.Nichols,and passed unanimously. IX.OTHER ITEMS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION WHEELER ROAD ANNEXATION All property ownerswithin a proposed Wheeler Roadarea annexation were invited tothe Council meetingto discuss the proposed annexation. n n n u Vj 5403 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 5 September 22,1998 GilbertAlvarado,SeniorPlanner, explained the boundaries ofthe proposed annexation inthe Wheeler Road area.He mentioned that most ofthe property is zoned industrialor commercial. He pointed out that the tax rate inthe cityis less than inthe countyand the county does not reassess propertyunless the use changes. He pointed out the property where the city has extra territorial utility agreements. Scott Isherwood, Plant Manager, Eka Chemicals,stated that they are concerned about the 6%utility tax. He stated that electricity isconsumed as partoftheir manufacturing process and makes up30%ofthetotalcost. Hementioned that for1998 Eka Chemicalshasbudgeted $7 million forelectricity. The 6% city utility taxwould add another $400,000 to their costs.He stated that they are also meeting with the PUD to discuss the electricity cost since those costs keep going up. He requested that the city consider this issue when discussingtheannexationofthearea. Thesecond concernisforfire protection.EkaChemicalshas worked with Grant County 5 to deal with the hazardous chemicalsat this plant.Training and response timeisvery important in dealing with the chemicals. Mr.Pearce stated that the city has been aware ofthe concern and has been discussing the 6%utility tax on electricity. Joseph K.Gavinski,City Manager,stated that Councilisaware ofthe concern and has been discussing the issue ofthe utility tax on electricity.He mentionedthat the cityisalso aware ofthe fireprotectionissue and the citywould finda way to satisfy the needs ofthe industries inthe area. Fred Rhodes,owner of a lot in an industrial park,stated that the city provides sewer and waterservice to the area but does not maintain it.He wanted to know how annexation would affect that. Mr.Gavinski stated that the city would take a look at this area and discuss itwith Council to try and find a solution. Joe Wyberg,General Manager at D & L Foundry,stated that they use a lot of electrical power in their manufacturing process and the 6%utility tax would put a financial burden on the company.Since they operateon a very lowprofitmargin, any additional expensescreate a problemfor the company.He requested that the city seriously look at the utility tax issue. Mr.Gavinski stated that the Council is aware of the situation and understands that it must be dealtwith. (j Bob Fancher,Miers Industrial Park,wanted to know why the annexation is being discussed atthis time. Mr.Chapmanstated that the residential and commercial tax base ofthe city is not sufficient tosupportthe services providedto boththe cityresidents and the county residents. Mr.Gavinski pointed outthatthis isjusta discussion item toobtain input from thoseproperty owners who may be affected byan annexation in the Wheeler Road area. Heexplained the annexation process. X.PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS -None XI.COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION With the approval of the Council,Alan Coulter was appointed to the Parks and Recreation Commission.'^" XII.CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND COMMENTS -None The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.n TZLJPtfo Mayor Finance Director u u u BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE,WASHINGTON ) IN THE MATTER OF THE ZONE CHANGE FOR ) NO. ZC 98-5 THE WENATCHEE VALLEY CLINIC AND ) JACK BLACK )FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS, )AND DECISION ) 1.HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 1.1 Date. A public hearing was held upon proper notice before the Commission on August 27,1998. 1.2 Proponent.Jack Black is the proponent of this zone change. 1.3 Purpose.The proponent has requested a zone change of property legally described as follows from R-3, Multi-family Residential,to C-2,General Commercial and Business: Lakeview Terrace Unit #1,Block 1,Lots - 4 1.4 Evidence. The Commission considered the following materials in reaching its decision. A.The application of the proponent for the zone change. B.Comments from the public. 2.FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Based upon the evidence presented to them,the Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: 2.1 The proponent is the owner of property legally described above. 2.2 The property is platted. 2.3 The zone change is in the public interest and will benefit the public welfare. 2.4 The zone change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2.5 The zone change brings the zoning into compliance with existing uses. 3.CONCLUSIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. From the foregoing findings of fact the Commission made the following conclusions: 3.1 The Planning Commission of the City of Moses Lake is vested with the authority to recommend to the City Council the advisability of the proposed change in zoning. 3.2 The rezone request ofthe proponent is properly before the Commission for its recommen dation. 3.3 It is proper at this time for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on this rezone request. 3.5 It is in the best interests and welfare of the city's citizens to rezone the property as proposed. 4.RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions,it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of Moses Lake to the City Council of the City of Moses Lake that the request for a rezone of this property be granted. 5.FURTHER HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 5.1 Date. A public hearing was held upon proper notice before the City Council on September 22,1998. 5.2 Proponent.Jack Black is the proponent of this rezone. 5.3 Purpose.The City Council considered the request for a rezone. 5.4 Evidence.The City Council considered the following materials in reaching its decision: A.The application of the proponent for the rezone. B.The history of the property. C.Comments from the public. 6.FURTHER FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE CITY COUNCIL O No further evidence was presented to the City Council.The City Council adopts those findings of fact made previously by the Planning Commission as its own. 7.FURTHER CONCLUSIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL From the foregoing findings of fact the City Council makes the following conclusions: 7.1 The City Council of the City of Moses Lake is vested with the authority to make a decision on a proposed change in zoning. 7.2 The rezone request of the proponent is properly before the Council for its decision. 7.3 It is proper at this time for the City Council to make a decision on this rezone request. 8.DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. The City Council of the City of Moses Lake agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grants the zone change request. ^Dated:September £2,1998 •IvOM^i-?.--^.-^ Richard H.Pearce,Mayor (****) n u u u BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE,WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE PIONEER COMMERCIAL PARK 1ST ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT PIONEER COMMERCIAL PARK 1ST ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION 1.HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 1.1 Date. A public meeting was held upon proper notice before the Commission on August 27, 1998. 1.2 Proponent.John Hobbs is the proponent of this plat. 1.3 Purpose.The proponent has submitted a plat for property which is legally described upon the plat. City staff has confirmed the propertydescribed on the platis the property submitted for platting. 1.4 Evidence.The Commission considered the following materials in reaching its decision: A.The submitted plat. B.Testimony from the proponent. C.Written comments from various parties. 2.FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Based upon the evidence presented to them,the Commission makes the following findings of fact: 2.1 The proponent is the owner of the property. 2.2 The property is currently zoned C-2,General Commercial and Business. 2.3 The plat is for currently undeveloped property 2.4 The plat is in the public interest 1.5 The plat is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3.CONCLUSIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. From the foregoing findings of fact the Commission makes the following conclusions: 3.1 The Planning Commission of the City of Moses Lake is vested with the authority to recom mend to the City Council the advisability of approving a plat. 3.2 The plat is properly before the Commission for its recommendation. 3.3 It is proper at this time for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on this plat. 3.4 It is in the best interests and welfare of the city's citizens to plat the property as proposed. 4.RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions,it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of Moses Lake to the City Council of the City of Moses Lake that the Pioneer Commercial Park 1st Addition Preliminary Plat be approved. 5.FURTHER HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 5.1 Date. A public meeting was held upon proper notice before the Council on September 22, 1998. 5.2 Proponent.John Hobbs is the proponent of this plat. 5.3 Purpose.The proponent has submitted a preliminary plat for property legally described upon the plat. City staff has confirmed the property described on the plat is the property submitted for platting. 5.4 Evidence.The Council considered the following materials in reaching its decision: A.The submitted plat. B.Testimony from the proponent. C.Written comments from various parties. 6.FURTHER FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE CITY COUNCIL. No further evidence was presented to the City Council.The City Council adopts those findings of f) fact made previously by the Planning Commission as its own. 7.FURTHER CONCLUSIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL. From the foregoing findings of fact the Council makes the following conclusions: 7.1 The City Council of the City of Moses Lake is vested with the authority to make a decision on a preliminary plat. 7.2 The plat is properly before the Council for its decision. 7.3 It is proper at this time for the City Council to make a decision on this preliminary plat. 8.DECISION. The City Council of the City of Moses Lake agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approves the preliminary plat with the stipulation that the City Engineer's comments be addressed. Dated:September 22r 1998 a*Richard H.Pearce,Mayor n n U U u BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOSES LAKE,WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF THE VILLAGE PARK #2 FINAL PLAT VILLAGE PARK #2 FINAL PLAT FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION 1.HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 1.1 Date. A public meeting was held upon proper notice before the Commission on September 10,1998. 1.2 Proponent.Village Park LLC is the proponent ofthis plat. 1.3 Purpose.The proponent has submitted a plat for property which is legally described upon the plat. City staff has confirmed the property described on the plat is the property submitted for platting. 1.4 Evidence.The Commission considered the following materials in reaching its decision: A.The submitted plat. B.Testimony from the proponent. C.Written comments from various parties. 2.FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Based upon the evidence presented to them,the Commission makes the following findings of fact: 2.1 The proponent is the owner of the property. 2.2 The property is currently zoned R-2,Single Family and Two Family Residential. 2.3 The plat conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. 2.4 The plat complies with the preliminary plat. 3.CONCLUSIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. From the foregoing findings of fact the Commission makes the following conclusions: 3.1 The Planning Commission of the City of Moses Lake is vested with the authority to recom mend to the City Council the advisability of approving a plat. 3.2 The plat is properly before the Commission for its recommendation. 3.3 Itis properat this time forthe Planning Commission to make a recommendation on this plat. 3.4 It is in the best interests and welfare of the city's citizens to plat the property as proposed. 4.RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of Moses Lake to the City Council of the City of Moses Lake that the plat be approved. 5.FURTHER HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL 5.1 Date. A public meeting was held upon propernotice before the Council on September 22, 1998. 5.2 Proponent. United Homes Corporation is the proponent of this plat. 5.3 Purpose. The proponenthas submitted a plat for property which is legally described upon the plat.City staff has confirmed the property describedonthe plat isthe property submitted for platting. 5.4 Evidence.The Council considered the following materials in reaching its decision: A.The submitted plat. B.Testimony from the proponent. C. Written comments from various parties. 6.FURTHER FINDINGS OF FACT BY THE CITY COUNCIL No further evidence was presented to the City Council,the City Council adopts those findings of (\) fact made previously by the Planning Commission as its own. 7.FURTHER CONCLUSIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL. From the foregoing findings of fact the Council makes the following conclusions: 7.1 The City Council of the City of Moses Lake is vested with the authority to make a decision on a final plat. 7.2 The plat is properly before the Council for its decision. 7.3 It is proper at this time for the City Council to make a decision on this final plat. 7.4 It is in the best interests and welfare of the city's citizens to plat the property as proposed. 8.DECISION. The City Council of the City of Moses Lake agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approves the final plat. rDated:September 22,,1998 Richard H.Pearce,Mayor f*) o