HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005.06.06 Council Meeting Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. June 6,2005
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
Pledge of Allegiance.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the
City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below). There will be
no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by Councilmembers or the public,
the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered separately.
(a) Approval of Minutes:
1. Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated May 16, 2005.
2. Minutes of the Special Pasco City Council Meeting dated May 23, 2005.
(b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the Finance
Manager's office.)
1. To approve General Claims in the amount of$1,479,681.34 ($162,337.95 being in the form
of Wire Transfer Nos. 4330, 4331, 4334, 4337, 4340, 4341 and 4352 and, $1,317,343.39
consisting of Claim Warrants numbered 148842 through 149141).
2. To approve Payroll Claims in the amount of $1,340,107.05, Voucher Nos. 32718 through
32871; and EFT Deposit Nos. 30004392 through 30004817.
(c) Appointment to Planning Commission: (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA)
To appoint Rose Gundy to Position No. 1, with an expiration date of 2/2/10.
(d) Amendment No. 1 to the Transpo Group Professional Services Agreement:
1. Agenda Report from Robert J. Alberts, Public Works Director dated May 19, 2005.
2. Amendment No. 1.
To authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Transpo Group Professional
Services Agreement for transportation and traffic management services.
(e) Stealth Cell Towers:
1. Agenda Report from Thomas Colleran,Planner I dated May 2, 2005.
2. Memo outlining Stealth Tower Ordinances around Washington.
To move that the Planning Commission review regulations pertaining to aesthetic standards for
cellular communication towers and report back to the Council with recommendations within 90
days.
(f) Transportable Storage Units:
1. Agenda Report from Thomas Colleran, Planner I dated May 2, 2005.
2. Memo outlining transportable unit Ordinances around Washington.
To move that the Planning Commission review regulations pertaining to the location of metal
storage containers in all non-industrial zoning districts and report back to Council with
recommendations regarding appropriate locations, if any, and design standards within 90 days.
(g) Resolution No.2875,a Resolution approving a Drought Management Plan.
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated May 20, 2005.
2. Proposed Resolution with Drought Management Plan.
To approve Resolution No. 2875, approving a Drought Management Plan.
(h) Resolution No.2876, a Resolution implementing the National Incident Management System.
1. Agenda Report from Gregory L. Garcia, Fire Chief dated May 17, 2005.
2. Proposed Resolution.
To approve Resolution No. 2876, authorizing the implementation of the.National Incident
Management System.
(RQ MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read.
Regular Meeting 2 June 6,2005
4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
(a) "Yard of the Month" Awards: (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA) The following
Pasco residents have been invited to attend the Council meeting to receive Certificates of
Appreciation from Mayor Mike Garrison for"Yard of the Month,"May 2005.
1. Jose and Elia Mancilla, 1620 W. Irving Street
2. Dolly Rodriguez, 1124 W. Jan Street
3. Jim and Barbara Hay, 1915 W. Agate Street
4. Chad and Stephanie Roan,4503 Yuma Drive
5. John and Mary Peltier, 3904 W. Nixon Street
6. Lanny and Judy Spriggle, 6208 Sandifur Parkway
7. Bob and Ursula Sand,4 Zinnia Court
5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS:
(a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers.
(b)
(c)
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
RELATING THERETO:
(a) Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2006-2011.
1. Agenda Report from Robert J. Alberts,Public Works Director dated May 18, 2005.
2. Proposed Plan.
3. Resolution.
4. Map.
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING
Resolution No. , a Resolution adopting the revised and extended Comprehensive
Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs for the City of Pasco.
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. thereby adopting the City's Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Plan for 2006-2011.
8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(a) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending Sections
1.10.020 through 1.10.060 of the Pasco Municipal Code defining voting districts.
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated June 1,2005.
2. Proposed Ordinance (Option A).
3. Proposed Ordinance (Option B).
4. Council District Boundary Maps (2) [maps of current realignment options may be viewed in
the City Clerk's office,on the City's website(www.ci.pasco.wa.us) or at the Pasco library].
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , (select A or B) adjusting City Council
district boundaries to ensure equal representation and, further, authorize publication by summary
only.
(b) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance relating to Zoning, amending PMC Title 25 dealing
with Nonconforming Uses.
1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated May 17, 2005.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
3. Memos to Planning Commission.
4. Planning Commission Minutes.
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending the.nonconforming provisions of
PMC Title 25 and, further, to authorize publication by summary only.
(c) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington amending Section
3.02.0 10"Definitions"(regarding Admission Tax) of the Pasco Municipal Code.
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director dated
May 26, 2005.
2. Proposed Ordinance.
3. Proposed Amendment No. I to Golf Course Lease Agreement.
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No, , amending Section 3.02.010 "Definitions"
(regarding Admission Tax) of the Pasco Municipal Code and, further, to authorize publication by
summary only.
-AND-
MOTION: I move to approve Amendment No. 1 to the Golf Course Lease Agreement and,
further, to authorize the Mayor to sign the document.
Regular Meeting 3 June 6,2005
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
(none)
10. NEW BUSINESS:
Q*(a) Special Permit: Location of a 37 foot radio antenna within an existing metering station (MF
05-59-SP):
1, Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated June 2, 2005.
2. Report to Planning Commission.
3. Planning Commission Minutes: dated 4/21/05 & 5/26/05.
MOTION: I move to approve the special permit for the location of a radio antenna at the
Northwest Pipeline metering station as recommended by the Planning Commission.
Q*(h) Special Permit: Car sales lot in a C-1 zone at the corner of 28`h and Sylvester Street (MF
#05-56-SP):
1. Agenda Report from David I. McDonald, City Planner dated June 2, 2005.
2. Report to Planning Commission.
3. Planning Commission Minutes: dated 4/21/05 & 5/26/05.
MOTION: I move to approve the special permit for the location of a car sales lot on 28h Avenue
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
*(c) Road 64 Water Line Extension Project No.05-1-11:
1. Agenda Report from Doyle Heath, City Engineer dated June 1, 2005.
2. Bid Summary.
3. Vicinity Map.
(RC) MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the Road 64 Water Line Extension Project No. 05-1-
11 to Watts Construction, Inc., in the amount of $100,113.71, including sales tax and, further,
authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents.
11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a) Acquisition of Real Estate
(b) Potential Litigation
(c) Sale or Lease of Real Estate
13. ADJOURNMENT.
(RC) Roll Call Vote Required
* Item not previously discussed
MF# "Master File#...."
Q Quasi-Judicial Matter
REMINDERS:
1. 12:00 p.m., Monday, May 6, Red Lion = Chamber of Commerce General Membership Meeting. (Kris
Watkins,Executive Director, Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau)
2. 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 6, KGH— Emergency Medical Services Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER
TOM LARSEN,Rep.; EILEEN CRAWFORD,Alt.)
3. 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 7, Camp Kiwanis in Columbia Park — National Hunger Awareness Day
Proclamation Signing. (MAYOR MIKE GARRISON)
4. 1:00 p.m., Wednesday, June 8, 4311 Sedona Drive, Pasco — BulIdog House VIII Dedication. (ALL
COUNCILMEMBERS ARE INVITED TO ATTEND)
5. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, June 9, Henry's, Richland — BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK)
6. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, June 9, Transit Facility — Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS, Rep.;EILEEN CRAWFORD, Alt.)
7. 12:30 p.m., Saturday, June 11, Amtrak Station — "2005 BNSF Railway Special" Train Ride. (MAYOR
MIKE GARRISON and MAYOR PRO-TEM REBECCA FRANCIK)
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL MAY 16, 2005
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Michael L. Garrison, Mayor.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers present: Rebecca Francik, Tom Larsen, Matt Watkins, Joe Jackson,
Eileen Crawford, Robert Hoffmann, and Michael Garrison.
Staff present: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney; Stan
Strebel, Administrative& Community Services Director; Richard Smith, Community &
Economic Dev. Director; Bob Alberts, Public Works Director; Denis Austin, Police
Chief; Greg Garcia, Fire Chief; Elden Buerkie, Management Assistant; and Reuel
Klempel, Plant Division Manager.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA:
(a) Approval of Minutes:
Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated May 2, 2005.
(b) Bills and Communications:
To approve General Claims in the amount of$1,227,514.99 ($123,866.20 being in the
form of Wire Transfer No. 4323 and 4326 and, $1,103,648.79 consisting of Claim
Warrants numbered 148616 through 148841).
To approve bad debt write-offs for utility billing, ambulance, miscellaneous, code
enforcement and Municipal Court non-criminal, criminal and parking accounts receivable
in the total amount of$184,760.78 and, of that amount, authorize $117,941.87 be turned
over for collection.
(c) Appointment to Parks & Recreation Advisory Council:
To reappoint Stacy Estes to Position No. 1; and appoint Sharon Pace to Position No. 2,
each with the expiration date of 212108.
(d) Proposed Adopt-A-Park Program:
To approve the implementation of the Adopt-A-Park program and to authorize staff to
proceed with implementation.
(e) Resolution No. 2874, a Resolution accepting work performed by Apollo, Inc.,
under contract for Project No. 04-1-08, Waste Water Drying Bed Expansion and
Project No. 04-2-17, Road 108 Decanter Bed.
To approve Resolution No. 2874, accepting the work performed by Apollo, Inc., under
contract for the Waste Water Drying Bed Expansion Project No. 04-1-08 and the Road
108 Decanter Bed Project No. 04-2-17.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Jackson
seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote.
PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
Mayor Garrison presented a Proclamation to Chris Andrews, Firefighter/Paramedic,
proclaiming May 15-21, 2005 "National Emergency Medical.Services Week."
Mayor Garrison presented a Proclamation to Reuel Klempel, Plant Division Manager,
proclaiming May 15-21, 2005 "Public Works Week."
3(a}.1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL MAY 16, 2005
VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS:
Mr. Sven Dailey, 2107 N. 9th Ave., suggested a $300.00 cap on Council campaign
contributions.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS:
Ms. Crawford attended the Pasco Chamber of Commerce Luncheon.
Mr. Larsen attended the Columbia Basin College 50th Anniversary Celebration.
Council and Staff discussed the quarterly Budget Reports.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Ordinance No. 3723,an Ordinance amending PINK Title 8 dealing with the
definition of Kennels.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 3723, amending Pasco Municipal
Code Subsection 8.02.010(7) and, further, to authorize publication by summary only. Mr.
Jackson seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Professional Services Agreement with CH2M Hill for the Primary Digester
Facilities:
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Professional Services Agreement with
CH2M Hill for engineering and consulting services for the design of the new Primary
Digester Facilities not to exceed $199,800 and, further, to authorize the Mayor to sign the
Agreement. Mr. Jackson seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Adjustment of Council District Boundaries:
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to fix 7:00 p.m., Monday, May 23rd, in the Council
Chambers at City Hall as the time and place for a special meeting to hold a public hearing
to consider public comment on the proposed changes in Council District Boundaries. Mr.
Jackson seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Council adjourned to Executive Session at 7:44 p.m. to discuss litigation or potential
litigation with legal counsel.
Mayor Garrison called the meeting back to order at 7:55 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Michael L. Garrison, Mayor Webster U. Jackson, City Clerk
PASSED and APPROVED this 6th day of June, 2005
2
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL MAY 23, 2005
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Michael L. Garrison, Mayor.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers present: Tom Larsen, Robert Hoffmann, Matt Watkins, Rebecca
Francik, Joe Jackson, Eileen Crawford, and Michael Garrison.
Staff present: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney; Stan
Strebel, Administrative & Community Services Director; Richard Smith, Community &
Economic Dev. Director; Bob Alberts, Public Works Director; David McDonald, City
Planner; Denis Austin, Police Chief; Elden Buerkle, Management Assistant and Webster
Jackson, City Clerk.
BUSINESS ITEMS:
Adjustment of Council District Boundaries:
Mr. Crutchfield explained the details of adjusting Council District Boundaries.
MAYOR GARRISON DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED
CHANGE IN COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.
FOLLOWING THREE CALLS FROM MAYOR GARRISON FOR COMMENTS,EITHER FOR OR
AGAINST,AND THERE BEING NONE,THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS DECLARED CLOSED.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Michael L. Garrison, Mayor Webster U. Jackson, City Clerk
PASSED and APPROVED this 6th day of June, 2005
3(a).2
CITY OF PASCO
Council Meeting of:
June 6, 2005
Accounts Payable Approved
The City Council
City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington
We,the un rsigned, ereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished,the
services en eyed the lab Jr performed as described herein and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid
obligatio airs the city a that we are authorized to authenticate and Cefib to said cl .
7 t'tMbld, Jty ager James W. se, Finance Manager
We,the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County,Washington,
do hereby certify that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received;that Wire Transfer
No.s 4330,4331,4334,4337,4340,4341,and 4352 in the amount of$162,337.95, have been authorized;that
Check No.s 148842 through 149141 are approved for payment in the amount of$1,317,343.39,for a combined
total of 1,479,681.34 on this 6th day of June,2005.
Councilmember Councilmember
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS/WIRE TRANSFERS BY FUND:
GENERAL FUND:
Legislative 2,159.83
Judicial 6,348.88
Executive 4,645.77
Police 155,401.84
Fire 18,802.69
Administration&Community Services 61,417.92
Community Development 44,035.68
Engineering 5,990.71
Non-Departmental 159,714.90
Library 72,334.56
TOTAL GENERAL FUND: 530,852.78
STREET 50,360.72
C. D. BLOCK GRANT 84,848.22
KING COMMUNITY CENTER 3,716.03
AMBULANCE SERVICE 1,978.33
CEMETERY 8,337.43
ATHLETIC PROGRAMS 1,317.36
SENIOR CENTER 5,119.88
MULTI MODAL FACILITY 2,618.05
RIVERSHORE TRAIL&MARINA MAIN 86.26
LITTER CONTROL 0.00
REVOLVING ABATEMENT 821.00
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT 9,057.23
TRAC DEVELOPMENT 18,754.66
STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER 322.31
SUN WILLOWS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 43.68
METRO DRUG TASK FORCE 4,593.32
METRO DRUG FORFEITURE FUND 3,334.81
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 12,172.30
WATERISEWER 466,227.96
EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING 28,337.87
PUBLIC FACILITIES DIST 180.00
MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE 210,590.32
CENTRAL STORES 347.64
FIRE PENSIONS 4,116.64
PAYROLL CLEARING 31,265.18
LID CONSTRUCTION 281.36
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS: $ 1,479,681.34
3(b),1
CITY OF PASCO
Council Meeting of:
Payroll Approval June 6,2005
The City Council
City of Pasco
Franklin County,Washington
The foling is a ary of payroll claims against the City of Pasco for the month of
May 2005 i are esented erewith for your review and approval,
i
rutc field, City anager James W. e, Finance Manager
J
We,the undersigned City Council members of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County,
Washington,do hereby certify that the services represented by the below expenditures have been received
and that payroll voucher No's. 32718 through 32871 and EFT deposit No's. 30004392 through 30004817
and City contributions in the aggregate amount of$1,340,107.05 are approved for payment on this
6th day of June 2005.
Councilmember Councilmember
SUMMARY OF PAYROLL BY FUND
GENERAL FUND:
Legislative $ 5,413.22
Judicial 45,230.57
Executive 31,235.96
Police 410,863.40
Fire 190,897.48
Administrative& Community Services 205,338.49
Community Development 52,255.43
Engineering 60,326.26
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,001,560.81
CITY STREET 26,083.72
BLOCK GRANT 11,463.36
MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER 4,453.50
AMBULANCE SERVICE FUND 92,996.34
CEMETERY 3,893.46
ATHLETIC FUND 0.00
SENIOR CENTER 9,352.46
STADIUM OPERATIONS 0.00
MULTI-MODAL FACILITY 0.00
BOAT BASIN 0.00
REVOLVING ABATEMENT FUND 0.00
TASK FORCE 7,682.13
WATER/SEWER 165,501.55
EQUIPMENT RENTAL-OPERATING 17,119.72
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 1,340;107.05
Payroll Summary
Net Payroll 789,375.30
Employee Deductions 313,363.60
Gross Payroll 1,102,738.90
City of Pasco Contributions 237368.15
Total Payroll $ 1,34007.05
3(b).2
AGENDA REPORT NO. 16
FOR: City Council Date: 05/19/05
TO: Gary Crutchfi anager Workshop Mtg.: 05/23/05
Regular Mtg.: 06/06/05
FROM: Robert J. Albertodruc Works Director
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 1 to the Transpo Group Professional Services
Agreement
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Amendment No. 1
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
05/23: Discussion
05/09: Motion: I move to authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment
No. 1 to the Transpo Group Professional Services Agreement for
transportation and traffic management services.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Arterial Street Fund
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
This amendment is to have the Transpo Group provide the necessary traffic
design and transportation review services.
On August 16, 2004, the City signed an on-going services agreement with
the Transpo Group to provide Traffic Engineering services as needed with
an annual budget of$30,000. The proposed amendment is for services that
are not considered on-going and not within the budget.
The amendment is for two specific tasks. The first task is to provide the
design for an additional north bound traffic lane on Road 68 between Rodeo
Drive and Burden Boulevard. The design also includes a free right turn lane
onto Burden Boulevard. The fee for this task is not to exceed $10,000.
The second task is to review the traffic impacts due to events at the TRAC
and the Sports Complex. Recommendation would be provided on both
capital needed improvements along with operational suggestions. The fee
for this task is not to exceed $15,000.
Services performed under this amendment would not exceed $25,000. Staff
recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment and to
include the cost in the year end budget supplement.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING:
Project File
3(d)
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 to
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City and The Transpo Group entered into a Professional Services
Agreement on August 16, 2004, with respect to on-going transportation and traffic management
services.
NOW, THEREFORE, this agreement is amended to allow The Transpo Group to
provide additional transportation consulting and traffic design and engineering services.
1. Scope of Work.
Task A--Provide a design to add a lane on the east side of Road 68 and a free right
turn lane at Burden Boulevard east bound.
Task B—Review the traffic patterns for events at the TRAC and Sports Complex.
Make recommendations regarding any needed capital and operational improvement to
improve traffic flow for events.
2. Fee.
Task A -The added services by the consultant shall be in an amount not to exceed
$10,000.
Task B The added services by the consultant shall be in an amount not to exceed
$15,000.
3. Time of performance.
Task A - It is anticipated that the traffic design and engineering services shall be
complete for the project within 30 days of approval of this amendment.
Task B - It is anticipated that the transportation consulting services shall be complete
for the project within 60 days of approval of this amendment.
DATED THIS DAY OF ,2005.
The Transpo Group 1
Amendment No. 1
Professional Services Agreement—On-going Services
CITY OF PASCO: CONSULTANT—The Transpo Group:
Michael L. Garrison, Mayor Signature Title
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Webster U. Jackson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
The Transpo Group 2
Amendment No. 1
Professional Services Agreement—On-going Services
AGENDA REPORT NO. 33
FOR: City Council n Date: May 2, 2005
TO: Gary Crutchfi I Manager Workshop:
�� Regular: 06/06/05
THRU: Richard J. Smi h, Director
Community & Economic Development
FROM: Thomas Colleran, Planner r"
SUBJECT: Stealth Cell Towers
I. REFERENCE( .
A. Memo outlining Stealth Tower Ordinances around Washington
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
05-23-05: DISCUSSION
06-06-05: MOTION: I move that the Planning Commission review
regulations pertaining to aesthetic standards for cellular
communication towers and report back to the Council with
recommendations within 90 days.
III. FISCAL IMPACT
None.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. As more people begin to carry cell phones and the cell phone
carriers expand there network coverage and capacity, cell phone
towers are becoming more abundant and noticeable as they are
scattered around the landscape. Some members of Council have
expressed concern about the appearance of the towers and asked
staff to look into options for concealing the towers.
B. Currently in Pasco, PMC-25.70.070 regulating communication
towers states:
(2) Wireless Communication Towers are permitted under the
following conditions:
(a) Such structures shall be permitted in all industrial or C-3
zoning districts provided the location is 500 feet or more from a
residential district. Any location closer than 500 feet requires
special permit approval.
(b) Such structures may be permitted by special permit in all
other zoning districts provided said structures are:
(i) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building
that is higher than thirty-five (35) feet; or
(ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water
reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port
facility.
C. Currently in Pasco there are ten wireless communication towers.
D. About a quarter of the estimated 130,000 cellular towers across
the U.S. are camouflaged to not be readily noticeable. Such cell
towers are known as "Stealth Towers."
E. The first Stealth Tower was developed in 1992 by Larson
Camouflage. Concealing an antenna can be expensive. The least
expensive option is the basic flagpole, which adds $10,000 to e
$20,000 to the price of a tower. Stealth Towers designed to look
like trees can cost double that amount. The more customized the
installation, the higher the price.
F. The most common types of stealth installation are as part of a
building such as a penthouse, the top of a church, or on a water
tower. The other common stealth installations resemble objects
found in the community such as trees, flagpoles and church
crosses.
G. Some common regulations to help minimize the visual impact of
cell towers include: (1) requiring stealth (or camouflage) towers and
antennas; (2) encouraging co-location; (3) imposing significant
setbacks of at least 150 percent of the tower's height; and (4)
limiting tower heights to no more than 10-20 feet above other
features such as trees and buildings.
H. Currently in the City of Pasco there are no provisions in the zoning
code requiring that stealth technology to be considered when
constructing a tower.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The attached 4/26/04 memo outlines ordinance requirements
pertaining to cell towers in other Washington municipalities. Most
of the stealth provisions of other ordinances establish camouflage
as a goal or a performance standard but allow cell tower
companies to find the means to camouflage the tower subject to
the Planning Commission and City Council's approval.
B. The City Council reviewed the Stealth Tower research at a
workshop on May 23, 2005. Council indicated in the workshop
that they would like to send the Stealth Tower research to the
Planning Commission explore the possibility of a code amendment
that requires a cell phone company to employ the best available
technology to camouflage a tower or require a company to look into
co-locating an antenna on an existing tower. Council indicated
they would like to have proposed changes to the code back from
the Planning Commission within 90 days.
To: Rick Smith
From: T.C. Colleran
Date: April 26, 2005
Re: Stealth Tower Aesthetics
Included below are ordinances on cell phone towers from other cities around Washington State
A) Kennewick- 18.75.350:
The purpose of this section is to provide predictability to service providers in the permitting process and to allow
for site development issues to be addressed through clear and objective sighting criteria and development
standards. Co-location on existing structures is strongly encouraged to allow for the increased need for
wireless communication facilities while minimizing the adverse visual impacts of such facilities.
(1) Co-location of wireless antennas on existing structures is allowed in all zoning districts.The parent structure
can be a cellular tower, building, public power line,light pole,other public utility structure, or any multiple-
family structure of four units or more.Approval is subject to the following:
(e)All antennas must be painted a neutral, non-reflective color that will blend with the surrounding
landscaping and parent facility. Recommended shades are gray, beige, sand,taupe,or light brown. A
color chip or other sample of the proposed color must be approved by the Community and Economic
Development Director.
(3) New wireless communication facilities, as defined in KMC 18.09.537 up to fifty-five(55)feet in height, are
permitted uses in all Commercial, Industrial, and Public Facility Districts except"CN" (Commercial,
Neighborhood) Districts.The only type of tower allowed for wireless communication facilities are monopoles.
New guyed towers or latticed towers are prohibited. New wireless communication facilities, other than
collocated facilities, are prohibited in all other zoning districts. A site plan must be approved in accord with
KMC 18.80.120.
B) Richland-23.76.070
A. Visual Impact:
2. Site location and development shall preserve the pre-existing character of the surrounding buildings and
land uses and zone district to the extent consistent with the function of the communications equipment.
Wireless communications towers shall be integrated through location and design to blend in with the
existing characteristics of the site to the extent practical. Existing on-site vegetation shall be preserved or
improved, and disturbance of the existing topography shall be minimized, unless such disturbance would
result in less visual impact of the site to the surrounding area.
4.All monopoles and lattice type facilities shall be screened with trees, shrubs and landscaping planted in
sufficient depth to form an effective and actual sight barrier within five (5)years. Said landscaping shall
have a minimum mature height of eight(8)feet.
C. Availability of Suitable Existing Towers or Other Structures: Applications for a special use permit shall
demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Commission that alternatives are not capable of
accommodating the applicant's needs. Evidence and information shall be submitted to establish the
following:
1. Permitted shorter support structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering
requirements.
2. No existing support structures are located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's
engineering requirements.
3. Existing support structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the proposed antenna and
related equipment.
C) Federal Way- 22-967 Development standards
4)Screening standards for all PWSFs. PWSFs shall be screened or camouflaged through employing the best
available technology and design, as determined by the city.This may be accomplished by use of compatible
materials, location, landscaping, color,stealth techniques such as, but not limited to, artificial trees and
hollow flag poles, and/or other methods or techniques to achieve minimum visibility of the facility as viewed
from public streets or residential properties. In addition, the provisions for landscaping as outlined in the use
zone charts,Article XI of this chapter, District Regulations, shall apply.
Rick Smith
April 26, 2005
Page 2
D) Maple Valley- 18.50.020 Personal wireless service facilities
F. Site Development Standards.All wireless facilities shall be constructed, erected or built in accordance with the
following site development standards:
1.Wireless facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by employing the best available technology.This
may be accomplished by use of compatible materials, location,color, stealth technologies,and/or other
tactics to achieve minimum visibility of the facility as viewed from public streets or residential properties. The
City of Maple Valley shall approve all screening and camouflaging.
E) Redmond-20D.170.45-070 Wireless Communications Facilities—development Standards.
(a) Placement of a freestanding wireless communication facility shall be denied if placement of the antenna(s)on
an existing structure can accommodate the operator's communications needs. The co-location of a
proposed antenna(s) on an existing broadcast and relay tower or placement on an existing structure shall be
explored and documented by the operator in order to show that reasonable efforts were made to identify
alternate locations.
(b) No wireless equipment reviewed under this section shall be located within required building setback areas.
(c)The combined antenna(s)and supporting structure shall not extend more than 15 feet above the existing or
proposed roof structure.
(d)No wireless equipment shall be used for the purposes of signage or message display of any kind.
(e) Location of wireless communication antenna(s)on existing buildings or other structures shall be screened or
camouflaged to the greatest practicable extent by use of shelters, compatible materials, location, color,
and/or other stealth tactics to reduce visibility of the antenna(s) as viewed from any street or residential
property.
F) Sumner- 18.37.040 Performance standards.
A.Wireless Communication Facility Preference. Proposed antennas, associated structures and placement shall
be evaluated, based on available technologies,for approval and use in the following order of preference:
1. Stealth antennas.
2.Attached wireless communication facilities,only when subsection (A)(1)cannot be reasonably accomplished.
3. Co-location wireless communication facilities, only when subsection (A)(1)or(2)cannot be reasonably
accomplished.
4. f=reestanding wireless communication facilities which extend no more than 15 feet above adjacent existing
vegetation or structures,only when subsections (A)(1), (2)or(3)cannot be reasonably accomplished.
5. Freestanding wireless communication facilities which extend more than 15 feet above adjacent existing
vegetation or structures, only when subsections(A)(1)through(4)cannot be reasonably accomplished.
If the applicant chooses to construct a new freestanding wireless communication facility,the burden of proof shall
be on the applicant to show a wireless communication facility of a higher order of preference cannot
reasonably be accommodated on the same or other properties.The city reserves the right to retain a
qualified consultant, at the applicant's expense,to review the supporting documentation for accuracy.
G) Fife- 19.72.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is:
B. The provisions of this chapter shall not be interpreted to prohibit or to have the effect of prohibiting a WCF in
the city. This chapter is to be applied in such a manner as to not unreasonably discriminate between
providers of functionally equivalent wireless communication services. To the extent that any provision of this
chapter is inconsistent or conflicts with any other city ordinance,the provisions of this chapter shall control.
However, each provision of this chapter,to the extent reasonably possible, shall be construed to be
consistent with other city codes and regulations;
C. To encourage the use of stealth technology so that WCFs blend into the surrounding environment,thus
minimizing the visual impact to surrounding properties;
D.To encourage creative approaches in locating and constructing WCFs so that they will be compatible with
surrounding land uses;
E.To encourage co-location of WCFs in order to prevent the unnecessary proliferation of WCFs within the city.
(Ord. 1317§3, 1998).
19.72.070 Facility preference.
A proposed WCF shall be evaluated for approval and use in the following order of preference:
A. Stealth Support Structure and Antenna. A WCF which is completely blocked or sufficiently camouflaged from
view from public rights-of-way, residential uses and districts such that a casual observer cannot identify the
WCF from any of the above locations.
B. A WCF which extends not more than 15 feet above adjacent existing vegetation or structures,only when
subsection A of this section cannot be reasonably accomplished.
C.A WCF which extends more than 15 feet above adjacent existing vegetation or structures,only when
subsections A or B of this section cannot be reasonably accomplished.
AGENDA REPORT NO. 34
FOR: City Council Date: May 2, 2005
TO: Gary Crutchfie Manager Workshop:
Regular: 06-06-05
THRU: Richard J. Smith, Director " 1 ,
Community & Economic Deve opment
FROM: Thomas Colleran, Planner I`�}}
1�-
SUBJECT: Transportable Storage Units
1. REFERENCE(a
A. Memo outlining transportable unit Ordinances around Washington
Il. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
05-23-05: DISCUSSION
06-06-05: MOTION: I move that the Planning Commission review
regulations pertaining to the location of metal storage
containers in all non-industrial zoning districts and report
back to Council with recommendations regarding
appropriate locations, if any, and design standards within 90
days.
III. FISCAL IMPACT
None.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. Some members of Council have expressed concern about the
appearance of transportable storage containers in the community
and asked staff to look into options for preserving the aesthetics of
the community.
B. Transportable storage units, also known as cargo containers and
portable storage units are the units used to ship goods across the
ocean. At the harbor the unit can then be put onto a truck or train
for shipment to the final destination.
C. The available lengths of the units are 10, 20, 30, and 40 feet. The
20 and 40 foot lengths are the standard in ocean freight shipping,
making them more readily available for the average consumer to
acquire. The width of an average cargo container is 8 feet and the
height of an average container is 8.5 feet. The containers originate
in Asia where they are used to ship consumer goods to the United
States. Due to the relative lack of exports to Asia the containers
are plentiful and become surplus.
D. The raw shell of a cargo container costs on average $5 a square-
foot or $1600 for a 40 foot x 8 foot container. Surplus containers
are thus becoming increasingly popular as inexpensive,
preassembled storage units
E. In the City of Pasco's Zoning code, portable storage units are
prohibited in Residential areas, but allowed in Office, C-1, C-3 and
Industrial zones by "Special Permits." A memo outlining container
regulations in other Washington cities is attached.
3(f)
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Staff believes that due to their industrial appearance cargo
containers are inappropriate in residential/office zones and
questionable in commercial areas. Staff believes when one
calculates the cost of screening the containers per Pasco's "Special
Permit" criteria, the cost savings appear to be marginal which in
affect negates the reason for acquiring the transportable unit, as
inexpensive storage, in the first place.
B. The City Council reviewed the Transportable Storage Unit research
at a workshop on May 23, 2005. Council indicated in the
workshop that they would like to send the Transportable Storage
Unit research to the Planning Commission explore the possibility of
a code amendment that would ban the use of these containers
even by "Special Permit", in all zones except the Industrial Zones.
Council indicated they would like to have proposed changes to the
code back from the Planning Commission within 90 days.
i
To: Rick Smith
From: T.C. Colleran
Date: April 26, 2005
Re: Transportable Units
Included below are ordinances on Transportable Units from other cities around Washington State
A) Kennewick- 18.75.480. Transportable Units:
(1)Transportable units may be used for permanent storage purposes when ancillary to a permitted use in C, I, PF
and OS zones provided that all setbacks and access requirements are met.
(2)Transportable units that are uniformly painted and in good repair may be used for temporary storage in
subdivision sales areas and equipment yards(18.75.090)and in C, I, PF and OS zones for storage during
construction and/or remodeling after a building permit has been issued.The units shall be removed from the
site once the permit expires or at the end of twelve months,whichever occurs first. Screening is not required in
these instances.
(3)Transportable units may also be used for temporary storage in"R"and"HMU"zones for new residential
construction or remodeling after a building permit has been issued.The units shall be removed from the site at
the expiration of the building permit. In no case shall the units remain on the site for more than twelve months.
(Ord.4012 Sec. 3, 2001)
B)Richland-
Not allowed in residential areas. No code written specifically for cargo containers, but can apply for a
"Special Permit"to place one in the Central Business Use District, General Business Use District, Commercial
Recreation Use District,Waterfront Use District, Limited Manufacturing Use District, Medium Industrial Use
District, and Heavy Manufacturing Use District.
C)Moses Lake Chapter 18.76
18.76.010 Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum standards for the placement of cargo
containers as storage facilities in C-2, MLIP, L-t,and H-1 zones,where they are allowed by conditional use
permit.
18.76.020 Submittal Requirements: The following shall be submitted along with an application for a conditional use
permit for container placement:
A.A site plan to a standard scale, showing:
1. The location and dimensions of the container(s)and the building to which it is appurtenant.
2. The access to the building and the containers.
B.A statement of what will be stored in the container(s),for review by the Fire Marshal. (Ord. 2144, 12/9/03)
18.76.030 Minimum Conditions:Where a conditional use permit has been granted for use of cargo containers as
permanent or temporary storage facilities,the following minimum conditions shall be met:
A.The cargo containers shall be used as an appurtenance to the primary use, such primary use being situated in
an enclosed adjoining building.
B.The cargo containers shall be placed on a level concrete or asphalt surface at all times.
C.The cargo containers shall not be stacked.
D.A fire apparatus access road shall be provided to both the containers and to the building the containers are
appurtenant to. Fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum of twenty feet(20)wide with thirteen feet
six inches(13'6")vertical clearance, shall be hard surfaced, and shall provide access to within one hundred
fifty feet(150)of any portion of the container(s).Access roads shall be either looped or provide d with an
approved turn around as specified in Moses Lake Municipal Code Chapter 16.36
E.The cargo containers shall not be visible to the motoring public or from residential neighborhoods immediately
adjacent to the property where it is located unless other measures approved by the Planning Commission
are employed to mitigate the visual impacts of the containers. However, the Planning Commission doe s not
nee d to require mitigation measures if it determines that the motoring public or adjacent residential
neighborhoods are not impacted.
F. The cargo containers shall abide by all set back requirements applicable to the zone in which they are located.
G. The recipient of the conditional use permit is the only party allowed to use the container(s).
H.A container placement permit is required for each container. The permit shall be obtained from the Building
Official prior to the arrival of the container on the site.The fee for the container placement permit shall be as
Rick Smith
April 26, 2005
Page 2
specified in MLMC 3.54.T he placement permit and fee is required each year for temporary containers.
(Ord. 2144, 12/9103)
18.76.040 Additional Conditions for Permanent Containers:
A.The cargo containers shall be painted so as to blend in with the building to which they are associated.
B.The cargo containers shall have a maximum allowable square footage of container storage area not to
exceed five percent(5%)of the gross floor area of the building with which the oontainer(s) is associated. In
no event shall the number of permanent containers allowed as appurtenant storage facilities exceed three
(3) in number.
C.A cargo container shall not remain on site if the use it is appurtenant to is abandoned or changes use,
unless a separate conditional use permit is granted. (Ord. 2144, 12/9/03)
D)Tukwila Ordinance No. 1989
C. Criteria for approval are as follows:
1. Only two cargo containers will be allowed per lot, maximum length 30 feet.
2.The container is located to minimize the visual impact to adjacent properties, parks, trails and rights-of-way as
determined by the Director. Cargo Container Ord 5130102
3.The cargo container is sufficiently screened from adjacent properties, parks, trails and rights-of-way, as
determined by the Director. Screening may be a combination of solid fencing, landscaping,or the placement
of the cargo containers behind, between or within buildings.
4. If located adjacent to a building, the cargo container must be painted to match the building's color.
5. Cargo containers may not occupy any required off-street parking spaces.
6. Cargo containers shall meet all setback requirements for the zone.
7. Outdoor cargo containers may not be refrigerated.
8. Outdoor cargo containers may not be stacked.
E) SeaTac-15.13.063 Cargo Containers—Accessory Use
A. The Director of Planning and Community Development may allow a cargo container as an accessory use for
permitted or conditional uses, but not including dwelling units, in all other zones not listed in SMC 15.13.062,
subject to the criteria set forth in subsection B of this section_
B. Cargo containers allowed as an accessory use shall conform with the following criteria:
1. Be located to minimize the visual impact to adjacent properties, streets, and pedestrian facilities;
2. Be painted to match the color(s)of the adjacent building. If the container is located within a building or not
visible from adjacent properties as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Development,
painting is not required;
3. Be screened from adjacent properties and rights-of-way. Screening may be a combination of solid fencing,
landscaping, or the placement of the cargo containers behind, between, or within buildings.All proposed
screening shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community
Development;
4. The location and use of cargo containers on a site shall conform to all requirements and approvals of SMC
Titles 13 and 15;
5. The location of a cargo container within a structure shall be approved by the Fire Department and Building
Division;
6. Cargo containers shall not occupy any required off-street parking spaces for the site or property and the
location must comply with all setback requirements;
7. If a cargo container is located on a lot within,or adjacent to a residential zone, the cargo container shall be
no greater in size than ten (10)feet by twenty(20)feet,and shall have a stick-built structure,with a peaked
roof, constructed to completely enclose the container. No stick-built structure shall be required if the cargo
container is totally screened from adjacent properties as determined by the Director of Planning and
Community Development;
8. Only one(1)cargo container shalt be allowed on property located within a residential zone or on property
located adjacent to a residential zone.The property owner may request additional cargo containers subject
to the Conditional Use Permit(CUP)process under SMC 15.22.030.
Adjacent property is defined as property that abuts the residential zone. Property located across a public
right-of-way is not regarded as adjacent property;
9. Cargo containers shall not be stacked. (Ord. 01-1010§3)
F)Yakima, Spokane,Walla Walla
There are no municipal regulations in any of these cities specifically allowing or banning cargo containers.
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council May 20, 2005
FROM: Gary Crutch f y anager Workshop Mtg.: 5/23/05
Regular Mtg.: 6/06/05
SUBJECT: Resolution, Ap roval of Drought Management Plan
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Resolution with Drought Management Plan
IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/23: Discussion
6/06: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. $ S approving a Drought
Management Plan.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Council has discussed the need for and content of the Drought Management Plan at
prior meetings. The proposed Drought Management Plan has been reviewed by
Council and is recommended for approval as a policy framework to be used in the
future by staff and Council in developing specific action plans to respond to
reductions in the city's water supply.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff recommends approval of the resolution and Drought Management Plan.
3(9)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A DROUGHT MANAGEMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco relies solely on the Columbia River to fulfill the domestic
water supply needs for all of its citizens, resident and corporate alike; and,
WHEREAS, any notable reduction in Columbia River water supply could have
significant deleterious effects on the conduct and quality of urban life throughout the community;
and,
WHEREAS, the city desires to be prepared to address the possible reduction of water
supply, due either to emergent conditions or the more gradual constraints associated with
climatic drought conditions; NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
Section 1: That .the attached drought management plan is hereby approved as a
framework of policy to manage potential water supply reductions.
Section 2: That the City Manager is hereby directed and authorized to provide timely
recommendations to City Council, consistent with the policy framework reflected in the drought
management plan, so as to respond to the reduction of water supply while minimizing the
adverse influence on the quality of community life.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 6th day of,Tune, 2005.
Michael L. Garrison
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B. Kerr
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
City of Pasco
Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan
April 2005
This Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan addresses the restrictions and
regulations, which may be imposed on the use of City of Pasco domestic and irrigation
water during a time of a drought or water shortage. The plan is based on four
thresholds in which the restrictions increase with the increase in thresholds. The
requirements will vary by customer identified as the City, Public Institutions (County,
College, Schools), Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Construction.
Threshold
Alert 1: Drought Alert
A drought or water shortage (alert number 1) will be declared by the Mayor when
a warning has been given that there is an anticipated water shortage in the Columbia
River, depleting ground water levels, or a problem with the City's systems.
Implementation Requirements:
City -
Public Notification — Notify the news media of the alert, provide
information in utility billings, and work with other agencies and
civic groups.
Education — Emphasize the City's conservation programs and ask
for voluntary reductions for both the indoor and outdoor use of
water by working with the news media and mailings to customers.
City Reductions - Require all departments to reduce water use.
• Reduce use City-wide.
• Parks Division coordinates with the GWMA and Soil
Conservation District on improving efficiency and
predicting minimum water needs.
• Restrict vehicle washes to recycled washing facilities
where possible.
• Reduce amount of water used for hydrant programs,
Rushing, and non-essential uses.
• Restrict water use in construction contracts.
Public Institutions -Voluntary curtailment.
• Monitoring outdoor irrigation systems to improve
efficiency and reduce water waste.
• Coordinate with the GWMA and Soil Conservation
District on improving efficiency and predicting
minimum water needs.
• Restrict vehicle washes to recycled washing facilities
where possible.
Residential -Voluntary curtailment.
• Reduction of indoor water use.
• Scheduling of outdoor watering to every other day
watering.
• Emphasis on wise use of water.
Commercial - Voluntary curtailment.
• Reduction of indoor and outdoor water use.
• Emphasis on wise water use.
Industrial -Voluntary curtailment.
• Reduction of indoor and outdoor water use.
• Emphasis on wise water use.
Construction-Voluntary curtailment and mandatory restrictions.
Voluntary—
• Reduction of city water use.
• Ground cover in lieu of water for dust control.
• Emphasis on wise water use.
Mandatory —
• Use of well water where available.
• Use of FC1D water where available.
• No water settling of trenches.
Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 2
Alert 2: State Imposed Water Restrictions — Short term (1-2 months)
A water shortage on the Columbia River has occurred for the short term. An alert
number 2 is declared by Council. A surcharge on water rates may be required. The
surcharge may be on the amount of water not needed for typical indoor use and the
moderate amount needed for outdoor watering. Customers on the City irrigation
system will be required to adjust their watering with less water pressure.
Implementation Requirements:
City -
Public Notification — Notify the news media of the alert and water
rate changes, provide information to customers, and work with
other agencies and civic groups.
Council may pass an emergency water rate surcharge Ordinance.
Any surcharge would be imposed on the amount of water not
considered essential. The typical monthly residential indoor and
summer outdoor uses will be considered in establishing the
definition of essential use in the Ordinance.
Irrigation system water pressure will be reduced 15% to encourage
conservation.
City.Reductions — Mandatory reductions to all Departments.
• Reduce all outdoor watering by 15%. Brown spots
acceptable in turf.
• Vehicle washing with recycled water only.
• Use WTP effluent for sewer flushing programs.
• Sweep & vacuum floors only, no washing or
mopping unless health issues are a concern.
• Reduce flows and pressures in City irrigation
system.
• Reduce use at swimming pools, restrict shower use.
• Close spray grounds.
• Further restrict water for construction projects.
• Defer hydrant flushing programs.
• No water for Fire Department training.
• Place temporary water use restrictions on the
approval of new developments and issuance of
building permits.
Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 3
Public Institutions —Mandatory requirements.
• Reduce all outdoor watering by 15%. Brown spots
acceptable in turf.
• Vehicle washing with recycled water only.
• Sweep & vacuum floors only, no washing or
mopping unless health issues are a concern.
Residential — Mandatory requirements.
• A water rate surcharge may be required on non-
essential water defined in the emergency
Ordinance.
• Premises vehicle washing restricted to once a week.
• Every other day outdoor watering. Brown spots
should be acceptable in turf.
Commercial — Mandatory requirements.
• Water rate surcharge may be implemented to be
calculated to encourage the reduction of historic
use by 15%. Surcharge established in emergency
Ordinance.
• Reduce outdoor watering by 15%.
• Restaurants to serve table water on request.
• No parking lot flushing.
Industrial — Mandatory requirements.
• Water rate surcharge may be implemented to be
calculated to encourage the reduction of historic
use by 15%. Surcharge established in emergency
Ordinance.
• Reduce outdoor watering by 15%.
Construction - Mandatory requirements
• Construction water rates to be temporarily
increased 200% to 300% on a rising block rate
scale in emergency Ordinance.
• No water waste at sites.
Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 4
Alert 3: State Imposed Water Restrictions - Long term (2+ months).
A serious water shortage has occurred. An alert number 3 is declared by Council.
An increase in water rate surcharge will be required. Outdoor watering will be limited
to keep vegetation alive. Commercial and -Tndustrial customers will be asked to reduce
all water use. Construction water will be rationed. Water policing program will be
implemented along with fee structure for fines.
Implementation Requirements:
City -
Public Notification - notify the news media of the alert and water
rate changes, provide information to customers, and work with
other agencies and civic groups.
Council will amend emergency Ordinance and temporarily increase
all water rate classifications.
Irrigation system pressures and flows further reduced to encourage
conservation.
City Reductions -Mandatory reductions to all Departments.
• Create a water policing force and implement a
water drought fee schedule for offenders.
• Reduce all outdoor watering and provide only
sufficient water to keep vegetation alive.
• No testing programs that use water.
• No vehicle washing.
• Close swimming pools.
• Defer construction projects that require
construction water.
• Call in all construction water hydrant meters.
• No street sweeping.
• Further reduce flows and pressures on City
irrigation system.
Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 5
Public Institutions -Mandatory requirements.
• Pay new water rate structure.
• Reduce all outdoor watering to keep vegetation
alive only.
• No vehicle washing
• Reduce indoor use.
• No visual water misuse or waste.
Residential -Mandatory requirements.
• Pay new water rate structure.
• Reduce all outdoor watering to keep vegetation
alive only.
• No visual water misuse or waste. Water waste
subject to fines.
Commercial - Mandatory requirements.
• Pay new water rate structure.
• Reduce all outdoor watering to keep vegetation
alive only.
• No visual water misuse or waste. Water waste
subject to fines.
Industrial - Mandatory requirements.
• Pay new water rate structure.
• Reduce all outdoor watering to keep vegetation
alive only.
• No visual water misuse or waste. Water waste
subject to fines.
Construction-Mandatory requirements.
• Pay new water rate structure.
• No construction water from hydrants.
• Ground cover for dust control.
Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 6
Alert 4: City Water Supply Availability Critical.
A critical water shortage has occurred. An alert number 4 is declared by Council.
Water supply at 60% or less of historic usage and no increase in supply foreseen in the
near future. A moratorium on new construction and new water service connections will
be needed. Monitoring and water scheduling (rationing)program will need to be
implemented.
Implementation Requirements:
City -
Public Notification- Notify the news media of the alert and
severity of conditions, provide information in utility billings, and
work with other agencies and civic groups.
Impose temporary building and new water service moratorium.
Increase fines for water misuse and waste.
Irrigation system will operate at minimum pressures and flows.
City Reductions -Mandatory reductions to all Departments.
• No waste of water.
• Implement monitoring and scheduling program.
• Close some public bathroom facilities.
• Select turf areas that will receive no water.
Public Institutions - Mandatory requirements
• Impose new monitoring and scheduling program.
• No water misuse or waste.
• Select turf areas that will receive no water.
Residential - Mandatory requirements.
• Impose new monitoring and scheduling program.
• No visual water misuse or waste.
• Water waste or misuse subject to new fines and
penalties.
Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 7
Commercial — Mandatory requirements.
• Impose new monitoring and scheduling program.
• High water users such as car washes and
Laundromats subject to restricted flows.
• Water waste or misuse subject to new fines and
penalties.
Industrial —Mandatory requirements.
• Impose new monitoring and scheduling program
• High water users subject to restricted flows.
Water waste or misuse subject to new fines and
penalties.
Construction — Mandatory requirements.
• Only emergency construction water.
• No fire hydrant meters.
Drought and Water Shortage Response Plan—Page 8
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council May 17, 2005
TO: Gary Crutchfie anager W/Shop Mtg.: 5/23/05
FROM: Gregory L. Garcia, Fire Chief Reg. Mtg.: 616105
SUBJECT: Implementing the National Incident Management System (NIMS)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS;
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. - authorizing the implementation
of the National Incident Management System.
1QI. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Since September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade center and the Pentagon, much has
been done to improve prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation
capabilities and coordination processes across the Country. A comprehensive national
approach to incident management, applicable at all jurisdictional levels and across
functional disciplines, would further improve the effectiveness of emergency response
providers and incident management organizations across a full spectrum of potential
incidents and hazardous scenarios.
B) In Homeland Security Directive (HSPD)-5, President Bush directed the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident
Management System (NIMS), which would provide a consistent nationwide approach for
federal, state, local and tribal governments to work together more effectively and
efficiently to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents,
regardless of cause, size or complexity.
C) The Incident Command System components of NIMS are already an integral part of
various incident management activities in the Fire Department. The Police Department is
in the process of adopting the Incident Command System for their incidents.
D) The Incident Command System is a proven, on-scene, all hazard incident management
concept and has become the standard for on-scene management. The Incident Command
System is interdisciplinary and organizationally flexible to meet the needs of incidents of
any size or level of complexity. The system has been used for a wide range of incidents,
from planned events to hazardous materials spills to acts of terrorism.
E) Whether from different departments within the same jurisdiction, from mutual aid
partners or from State and federal agencies, responders need to be able to work together,
communicate with each other and depend on each other.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) While most incidents are generally handled on a daily basis by a single jurisdiction at the
local level, there are important instances in which successful domestic incident
management operations depend on the involvement of multiple jurisdictions, functional
agencies and emergency responder disciplines.
B) NIMS provides a consistent, flexible and adjustable framework within which government
and private entities at all levels can work together to manage incidents, regardless of their
cause, size, location or complexity.
3(h)
C) NIMS provides a set of standardized organizational structures, such as the Incident
Command System (ICS), multi-agency coordination systems and public information
systems as well as requirements for processes, procedures and systems to improve
interoperability (use of communication devices) among jurisdictions and disciplines in
various areas, including training; resource management; personnel qualifications and
certification; communications and information management; technology support; and
continuous system improvement.
D) The multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional terminology refers to fire departments, police
department, public works, finance and City management, emergency management as well
as other governmental organizations.
E) The "Policy Level" refers to government officials, such as governors, mayors, city and
county managers, department heads and other managers within the organization.
F) There are several training sessions that are required for each level of management and for
the non-management to be completed by January 1, 2007. The first step in adopting
MINIS is to have the City of Pasco formally adopt NIMS by resolution.
G) In order to receive FY 2006 preparedness funding, applicants will need to certify as part
of the grant applications that they have met the FY 2005 NIMS requirements. This
resolution is part of that requirement. Staff is recommending that the City Council
approve this resolution and require that the National Incident Management System be
implemented by the City.
RESOLUTION NO. f
A RESOLUTION "IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM" (NIMS)
WHEREAS, In Homeland Security Directive (HSPD)-5, the President directed the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security to develop and administer a National Incident Management System(NIMS),
which would provide a consistent nationwide approach for federal, state, local and tribal governments to work
together more effectively and efficiently to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from domestic
incidents,regardless of cause, size or complexity, and
WHEREAS, the collective input and guidance from all federal, state, local and tribal homeland security
partners has been, and will continue to be, vital to the development, effective implementation and utilization of
a comprehensive Incident Management System; and
WHEREAS, to facilitate and coordinate the most efficient and effective incident management it is
critical that federal, state, local, and tribal organizations utilize standardized terminology, standardized
organizational structures, uniform personnel qualification standards, uniform standards for planning, training,
and exercising, comprehensive resource management, and designated incident facilities during emergencies or
disasters; and
WHEREAS, the NIMS standardized procedures for managing personnel, communications, facilities
and resources will improve the City of Pasco's ability to utilize federal funding to enhance local and state
agency readiness,maintain first responder safety, and streamline incident management processes; and
WHEREAS, the Incident Command System components of NIMS are already an integral part 'of
various incident management activities throughout the City of Pasco, including all public safety and emergency
response organizations training programs; and
WHEREAS, the National Commission of Terrorist Attacks (9-11 Commission) recommended adoption
of a standardized Incident Command System; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington desires that the National Incident
Management System be utilized for all incident management in the City of Pasco; NOW, THEREFORE, BE
IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
Section 1: That the City Manager is hereby directed and authorized to take all steps necessary and
appropriate to assure that all affected departments of the city be trained for and prepared to use the National
Incident Management System.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 3`d day of June, 2005.
Michael L. Garrison
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Sandy L. Kenworthy Leland B, Kerr
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT NO.
FOR: City Council DATE: 05/18/05
TO: Gary Crutchfie anager Workshop: 05/23/05
Regular: 06/06/05
FROM: Robert J. Alberty,4.&br of Public
SUBJECT: Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2006 - 2011
I. REFERENCES}:
1. Proposed Plan
2. Resolution
3. Map
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
05123: Discussion
06/06: Conduct Public Hearing
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No.
thereby adopting the City's Six-Year Transportation Improvement
Plan for 2006 through 2011.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND BRIEF FACTS:
Each year, all Cities and Counties in the State are required to adopt an updated Six-
Year Transportation Improvement Plan specifically for federal and state funded
projects. For the City of Pasco, this plan has consisted of all projects including the
annual overlays, street widening, and signal projects which are within the City
limits. Larger projects such as the Ainsworth Overpass, and the Lewis Street
Overpass also have been shown.
The proposed six-year program represents those projects that are anticipated to be
needed within six years. Several projects will need to be coordinated with utility
projects which could change the actual timing of the projects. Although this
process of adopting a six-year plan is a state requirement, the Council will again
review the projects in the Six-Year C.I.P. process and the budgeting process.
While the worksheets presented by staff include a potential funding source, many of
the projects listed will be dependent upon available funding and/or local
improvement districts. In addition, Staff will be pursuing available grants from the
various funding programs.
It is staff's desire to present this program to the public at a public hearing on June 6,
2005, and request that the Council adopt the plan by resolution.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING:
Project File
7(a) M
C)
0
N
69 O O
C ) C 0 O O 0
O C O C ) 0 C0 CO
0 o0 0 00 �a
CN CV 0 N CA o 0
N N o r r r
to 6q 6c�
_0 70 03
� 0
70 a.
L U- 73 LL LL LL
4' a) 0� 4) (1) N
O N Q) N
U) Cl) Y� to {JJ C/) CA
CD C? 69)} m U3 m m cz
0 0 O O M L) o C
r O 0OQC7 � J < C) QQ
'r
CD C) oU) Q0
Q V- q 4z> r O O r 0 C) C0
tgEAOtd3 o O Ctf} o 00
-ts -o7070 ° 70 0a70 -0 ° 0 -00 aaoo
�p c c c c co c oo c c c 0 0 c C) c c LO o
O C = = � c� � 0 M = = � ce) o Z3 co � N �
Co 60,LL LL LL LL r LL LL r LL- LL. LL r C) LL r LL — CD
N LL. "� Q) v a� a) W — a� a) a) a) "� a)
L n L� Q) a) c a) - fL a) °d C -
- U) CO U) U) W {/) N 0 U) C/) LL CO U) (n LL cn Cn C U)
} ctsMiac_gm � i� � � � cu c� ciummFzT c� mm
L L L L L {U L- a) a) L L L L a) a) L (D
4-1 O > tf -C If �t a) V- cu (1) 'C If > a) () t: a) » a) a)
m a 0 < < < < LLaLLUL ¢ Q 0 ¢ LLLL ¢ UL 0 < < U- U-
E:
a� N
E 6 o
0 C) CD C70CD00000 0 o0070 CD 000
oOC7oo0O oOO C) 00000 O0CDCDO
O000O00t7000 000000 0C) 0C0o
O o0000000a00 CTC 6000 Co0_ o � 0
^ •0 0o0ooSTC) LOtocn0 o0cnotDo 00ov LO
CL L (DLC') rr � rrC�LrNLn tDlf� rMs- 0) Cfllf7rrl`
E tf3H4fflCi}0-K-} 6!} 69tgC4t03 61} 6sC4to6969 {!? {fug {!}
O
O c
Q. -
U) L _ _
m a) Q > O
N - O (1)
N O
o O u) 4
C/) O L �' O O C4 C/) O O O p O
= O O aj06 C 00 a) UJ � 41- 4- C) -j
O
O UJJ70CoCo LL CD � � <fiN Xco � �
V) t!) Cn Cf) CO Cn T- tO `f cn cn .qr Lo Cfl cn CA LO d co
(!} O O O 70 -�oZ -0 -0 O 0 -0 `0 -0 -0 0 0 0 "0 '0
O
co m in oom 000 com00m0 toc m00
J >> > 'S [if cl� Qcr- cl� CA -j » of ly- UJ0� > >>
O
L)
a r.
a
0 d DO
r_ L
tm
oN o j�
Lo
o
V ; L �— y,, °'� v� V U �+� ar 0Qmed
h N � CO r N
4) co O O �—' V Q O m m O O U
E tl) 6 0 i m i 0 O
c � 'SotfotfootSw + �' t�a � a ` °' r �
Z cop ns c°°o c°°c W y ° c°°o c°°v N � 0 �, qt U) Co 0� m Cl)
4-, o CU � 'i7 � � 9 '� � � 24 tati uv � � 'L 0 c C? um �
v CDWUu
C` y y aeaev cc ca a c � oa � �d N CD O a Q O N a 0 t� 0 p O O O O O O � o
oN
mC4 2 � JOC � � J � N (/} (� U � N � � � U o
d u ED i riri 'i uitar,: oo cvs]t�i ° � o
c r4
_= o
E N
v
co cl
(9- R+
Q�
O O O
0 0 a o
C) o E o
o a o
L o o U ta
a ac) � a 4
rn c (D °o co w c~t�
m6q (n� � L
D
c c c c c c c
� �
CU- U_ U_ U_ LL LL U_ LL U_ U.
LL. 70 m o a� a� a� a� o o a) o a)
ctuoa� a� c � 0000 cd) o0
4-0 � cn o cA cn � cn cn o 'E o �'-
>,- o >,- o o >.- C7
ca cz 00 (� M t� t9 (o m r 00 M M N M
O
U co
C) coo a CD C) Oo 0 0
a o O o 0 0 0 0 0 = ° o 0 0 0
Qy ° o C) C:) aooa - Q aaao
o - o o -c
.O
C:)- C:)
00 OOOOCNQ 00Oo
(D Ln r- = u) co Lf) r cQ 00 CO u) 4t N
d 69 r�� s4c� � � 60). 6p3 63613
a�
m
0
C)
0
LO
a
N
s
U) Q} d U) C/) t0
mac ' ° -0 Ncc c ) c -1
OU) m O ON - 03 �
= 0 0 0 0 "= O 0 � U)
CL Q)
C.) JU UJ -1 > UJ O
U) cn 0 06 in to to 0`6 LL 0
:3 73 ::s ::3
O O N -a O O O CA ZM U) 0 070 a
L L 0 N .L L. -L m 3 L -L m U)
J > > ! QEY » > QQ � > > OfLL
co d
L
c; O p
CL T
a�N � D _ R
tu
N 0 Q 'O m cu ar 0 m
� a
cn L Y a �.
,c n. c� �
L L CD Q c L 0 T � ��, L L L
V a •cp (j L 1II y — V *3 41cn
p� tl1 � N > > od � a �
N � ) � � O N N3 r O Q N1 � � N
>� 7 7 >'
E O i 0 0 L •� L C m
i� > c� p oL� (b N > 4a> �L r.+c
y/ L
c� ao cn eo CD o0 0 ci . 3 E C r to N C)
4) N p O S. L N r q1 Nl Q �1 O (V p O O o
d
cc .0 � i.Q �� � � mmNN
0
EXHIBIT A
2006 to 2011 Transportation Improvement Plan
2006
a) Overlays and Crack Seal—Yearly project to improve roadway surfaces through-
out the City of Pasco.
b) Miscellaneous Street Projects—Yearly project to maintain roadway
infrastructure.
C) Miscellaneous Traffic Signal Upgrades —This project is funded every two years
and is used to upgrade and maintain existing traffic signals.
1. Road 68 Widening(Rodeo to Burden)—Adds a lane on the west side of Road
68 to improve traffic movement.
2. Road 68 & I-182 Improvements - Overpass improvements to complete the
corridor.
3. Road 68 & Wrigley Traffic Signal—Install traffic signal to be reimbursed by
Impact Fees.
4. Lewis Street Overpass—Replace the existing underpass with an overpass.
5. Road 100 & I-182 Ramps & Signals —Install additional ramps and install traffic
signals.
6. Road 68 & Court Street Traffic Signal—Install new traffic signal at the
intersection.
7. Road 28/Road 26 Improvements —Improve the traffic flow from Court Street
south to Commercial area.
8. Lewis St.l"A" St. Connector—New road from Lewis St. interchange to "A" St.
2007
9. Road 44 & Burden Traffic Signal—Install new traffic signal to improve traffic
flow.
10. Sandifur Parkway (Rd 52 to Rd 60)—Construct the north half of Sandifur.
11. Sandifur& Broadmoor Traffic Signal—Install new traffic signal to improve
traffic flow.
ZA6YEARTIP&CIP12006-2011 TIPIEXHIBIT A_doc
12. Court Street Widening (Rd 68 to Rd 84)—First phase to increase the width of
the existing road to 48 feet wide.
2008
13. Road 44 & Court Street Traffic Signal—Install a new traffic signal to improve
traffic flow.
14. Court Street Widening (Rd 84 to Rd 100)— Second phase to increase the width
of the existing road to 48 feet wide.
2009
15. Road 100 Widening-Widen the existing road from I-182 to Court Street.
16. Argent & Road 100 Traffic Signal—Install new traffic signal to increase traffic
flow.
17. Argent Road Widening (Rd 72 to Rd 84)—Improve the road in conjunction
with the new school.
2010
18. "A" St. & SR 12 Interchange—Design phase of the project.
19. Commercial Ave. Improvements—Complete Commercial Ave. with curb,
gutter & storm water facilities.
2011
20. Court Street Widening—Complete Court Street to the City limits with
additional width, curb& gutter
21. Foster Wells/SR-395 Interchange—Study for the installation of an interchange.
Z:16YEARTIP&CIP12006-2011 TMEXHIBIT A.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION adopting the revised and extended Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain
and Bridge Programs for the City of Pasco.
WHEREAS, RCW 35.77.010 provides for annual revision and extension of the
Comprehensive Street Program of each city and town, after holding public hearings thereon; and
WHEREAS, it is now time to revise and extend the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain
and Bridge Programs; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DO RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
That the City Council of the City of Pasco hereby adopts the revision and extension of the
Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs for the ensuing six years as attached
hereto and labeled "Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2006 - 2011" incorporated by
this reference as though fully set forth herein; and
That the Comprehensive Street, Storm Drain and Bridge Programs shall be filed with the
Benton-Franklin Regional Council and the State of Washington.
PASSED by the City Council and APPROVED by the Mayor this 6th Day of June 2005.
Michael L. Garrison, Mayor
ATTEST.
Sandy Kenworthy
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr
City Attorney
<0
W
d� �?z
y< 41, �
3dkYS r
Q O
Q
W
L
w y4ti �f m
VJ
J
uz WW
O�
O>
a �y r wa
y--�: ~Q
UJM
a 5 V)
=''fir—`--.^
—J —_5-E -_._ �z
�4
Oo
o co
c�
_ VLg
WW<
s
Q ~ I C co O W
Q"iN J m � f o Z
E 94 NI
yy Zj O ' ROAD 44 Z 6- x o Z Z a z
O � N _
A 3a3r X N W Ic 7n
O
ca
s� Low C.. Eam
a .1sa ya � ¢
°ergo _ 00,
O p °uzwa6s u 0
aur..
'p� .N-i nM.s ��. N .biniH ANN
9Ei J O 8 8 O-S 6 0 9 0 8
� t�S
` a F e a G. Z F C', o
a H U Z °
�
ys7 �
W Z N .-7 y EV m Q < C
O ma0 0n: 04
U O 4 d m
ado ,
d dS
-_ mm w cmv v
c 0 A D 0 rr G O O
0 0 X Z
.
e t
v � I
�r �
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council June 1,2005
FROM: Gary Crutchfi Manager Regular Mtg.: 616105
SUBJECT: Adjustment of Council District Boundaries
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Ordinance(Option A).
2. Proposed Ordinance (Option B).
3. Council District Boundary Maps (2) [maps of current and realignment options may be viewed
in the City Clerk's office, on the City's website (www.ci.pasco.wa.us) or at the Pasco library].
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , (select A or B) adjusting City Council
district boundaries to ensure equal representation and, further, authorize publication by summary
only.
III. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) PMC Chapter 1.10 provides that the city be divided into five Council districts, principally to
assure appropriate geographic representation on the City Council. Thus, five of the seven
Council seats are each filled by an individual residing in the respective district, while the
remaining two Council seats are filled by "at large" Council representatives (no restriction on
residence location). PMC 1.10 also provides that Council district boundaries must be nearly
equal in that none of the Council districts may be more than 10 percent larger or smaller (in
terms of population)than any other Council district.
B) The Council district boundaries were last revised in 2003 in advance of the general municipal
elections that year. The adjustments were required 'at that time due to population growth and
annexations. Since then, because of population growth, District 3 (the least populous) now has
a population only about 68 percent of District 4.
C) The population of each Council district has been updated to reflect housing units completed
since the last update in April 2003. The adjustment suggested by staff (Option A) was
discussed at the May 9 workshop. At that workshop, there was discussion of amending the
staff's recommendation by including Precincts 16 and 17 in District Two, with Precinct 15.
remaining in District Five (Option B). This amendment would not affect population
distribution among the districts as the combined population of Precincts 16 and 17 is equal to
the population of Precinct 15.
D) PMC Chapter 1.10 requires the district boundaries to be adjusted but that such adjustment
cannot occur "... less than 60 days prior to the next general municipal election..." The next
general municipal election will be in September and "filing" week occurs in late July; thus,
the Council district boundaries should be adjusted not later than the month of June.
E) In addition to the population requirements, state law requires the city to conduct at least one
public hearing on the proposed plan and that such hearing occur at least one week before
formal adoption of the plan. A public hearing was conducted at the special meeting May 23
for formal adoption of the final plan at the June 6 meeting.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) Staff has provided Council a map of current Council district boundaries as well as two options
for proposed adjustments of boundaries that would result in no district having more than 10
percent disparity in population, thus fulfilling the requirement imposed by PMC Chapter 1.10.
This proposal also respects current Councilmember residencies.
B) Council will. need to determine whether Option A or Option B should be enacted to adjust
Council district boundaries.
8(a)
OPTION A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending
Sections 1.10.020 through 1.10.060 of the Pasco Municipal Code defining
voting districts.
WHEREAS, the law requires that each voting district shall be as nearly equal in
population as possible to each and every other district within the City; and further by Ordinance,
the City Council is required to reestablish district boundaries whenever the population of any
district exceeds by ten percent or more the population of any other district; provided that no
change to the boundaries of any district shall be made within sixty days prior to the date of a
general municipal election, nor within twelve months after the districts have been established or
altered; and
WHEREAS, the City has enjoyed an increase in redistribution of population since the
voting districts were last established having occurred more than twelve months prior; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing, after due notice was held by the City Council on May 23,
2005; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after due and deliberate consideration has determined a
plan pursuant to RCW 29.70.100 for amending said voting districts, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 1.10.020 entitled "District One" of the Pasco Municipal Code,
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
1.10.020 DISTRICT ONE. Voting district one shall encompass the area within the City
of Pasco comprised of precinct numbers one, two and€ice three, as those precincts are described
on the maps and property descriptions on file with the Auditor of Franklin County.
Section 2. That Section 1.10.030 entitled "District Two' of the Pasco Municipal Code,
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
1.10.030 DISTRICT TWO. Voting district two shall encompass the area within the
City of Pasco comprised of precinct numbers t#fee-, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, fifteen and twenty-
seven as those precincts are described on the maps and property descriptions on file with the
Auditor of Franklin County.
Section 3. That Section 1.10.040 entitled "District Three" of the Pasco Municipal Code,
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
1.10.040 DISTRICT THREE. Voting district three shall encompass the area within the
City of Pasco comprised of precinct numbers four, five, six, seven, eight, thirty-three and eleven
thi_ rty-four as those precincts are described on the maps and property descriptions on file with the
Auditor of Franklin County.
Section 4. That Section 1.10.050 entitled "District Four" of the Pasco Municipal Code,
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
1.10.050 DISTRICT FOUR. Voting district four shall encompass the area within the
City of Pasco comprised of precinct numbers twenty-nine, thirty-one ,
fer-ty and thirty-two €ems seven, as those precincts are described on the maps and property
descriptions on file with the Auditor of Franklin County.
Section 5. That Section 1.10.060 entitled "District Five" of the Pasco Municipal Code,
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
1.10.060 DISTRICT FIVE. Voting district five shall encompass the area within the
City of Pasco comprised of precinct numbers thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen,
eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five,
twenty-six, , twenty-eight and thirty, as those precincts are described on the maps
and property descriptions on file with the Auditor of Franklin County.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five days after its approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this day of , 2005.
Michael L. Ganison
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Webster U. Jackson Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
OPTION B
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending
Sections 1.10.020 through 1.10.060 of the Pasco Municipal Code defining
voting districts.
WHEREAS, the law requires that each voting district shall be as nearly equal in
population as possible to each and every other district within the City; and further by Ordinance,
the City Council is required to reestablish district boundaries whenever the population of any
district exceeds by ten percent or more the population of any other district; provided that no
change to the boundaries of any district shall be made within sixty days prior to the date of a
general municipal election, nor within twelve months after the districts have been established or
altered; and
WHEREAS, the City has enjoyed an increase in redistribution of population since the
voting districts were last established having occurred more than twelve months prior; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing, after due notice was held by the City Council on May 23,
2005; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after due and deliberate consideration has determined a
plan pursuant to RCW 29.70.100 for amending said voting districts, NOW,THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO WASHINGTON DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 1.10.020 entitled "District One" of the Pasco Municipal Code,
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
1.10.020 DISTRICT ONE. Voting district one shall encompass the area within the City
precinct numbers one two and€ice three as those precincts are described
of Pasco comprised of preci � P
on the maps and property descriptions on file with the Auditor of Franklin County,
Section 2. That Section 1.10.030 entitled "District Two' of the Pasco Municipal Code,
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
strict two shall encompass the area within the
1.10.030 DISTRICT TWO. Voting district p
City of Pasco comprised of precinct numbers fhree-, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, sixteen, seventeen,
and twenty-seven as those precincts are described on the maps and property descriptions on file
with the Auditor of Franklin County.
Section 3. That Section 1.10.040 entitled "District Three" of the Pasco Municipal Code,
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
1.10.040 DISTRICT THREE. Voting district three shall encompass the area within the
City of Pasco comprised of precinct numbers four, five, six, seven, eight, thirty-three and eleven
thirty-four as those precincts are described on the maps and property descriptions on file with the
Auditor of Franklin County.
Section 4. That Section 1.10.050 entitled "District Four" of the Pasco Municipal Code,
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
1.10.050 DISTRICT FOUR. Voting district four shall encompass the area within the
City of Pasco comprised of precinct numbers twenty-nine, thirty-one ,
fef-t-y and thirty-two teal-seen, as those precincts are described on the maps and property
descriptions on file with the Auditor of Franklin County. ,
Section 5. That Section 1.10.060 entitled "District Five" of the Pasco Municipal Code,
shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
1.10.060 DISTRICT FIVE. Voting district five shall encompass the ,area within the
City of Pasco comprised of precinct numbers thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, s4teex, °tee:,
eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five,
twenty-six, twenty-eight and thirty,
as those precincts are described on the maps
and property descriptions on file with the Auditor of Franklin County.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five days after its approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this day of , 2005.
Michael L. Garrison
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Webster U. Jackson Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT NO. 35.
FOR: City Council Date: 5/ 17/05
TO: Gary Crutchfie t Manager Workshop: 5-23-05
Richard J. Smi , hector Regular:
Community & E onomic Development
FROM: David McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Nonconforming Uses (MF # 04-137-I)
I. REFERENCES :
A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Memos to Planning Commission
C. Planning Commission Minutes
II. ACTION RE UESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/23/05Review and Discussion
6/6/05 Motion: I move to adopt Ordinance No. amending the
nonconforming provisions of PMC Title 25, and, further to authorize
publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. Last year Terry Milham, the owner of a four-plex on Sylvester
Street submitted a written request to the City asking that changes
be made in the nonconforming chapter of the zoning regulations.
The City Council considered the matter in November 2004 and
referred the issue to the City Planning Commission for study and a
recommendation.
B. Mr. Milham asked for an amendment to the zoning regulations that
would permit nonconforming uses to be rebuilt if they are damaged
by more than 50 percent of their assessed value. Some cities in
Washington, including Yakima, Kennewick, Walla Walla, and
Richland permit nonconforming uses to be rebuilt following
substantial damage provided they are rebuilt to the exact foot print
of the original building. Other cities such as Spokane have a
complex process that permits reconstruction of nonconforming
uses depending on the type of adjoining land use.
C. The Planning Commission discussed this issue in a series of
workshops which culminated with a public hearing on April 21,
2005.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Staff believes that some owners of multi-family dwellings which are
located in less intense zoning districts have experienced difficulty in
securing mortgages due to FHA concerns about non-conforming Q���
uses. Such mortgages cannot be readily sold in the secondary V
market.
B. Staff, however, remains concerned about permitting the
reconstruction of a nonconforming house in an industrial zone or a
business that lacks sufficient off street parking does not protect and
enhance the value of nearby industrial properties. Allowing a
damaged house to be rebuilt adjacent a chemical plant or welding
shop does not encourage orderly growth nor protect such industrial
uses from inherent nuisances when homes are located adjacent
industrial uses.
C. The Planning Commission recommended that the prohibition
against the reconstruction of non-conforming uses remain in place
with the exception of non-conforming multi family dwellings located
in less intense residential zones which may be destroyed by fire or
natural disaster. It is the owners of such properties who have been
most vocal about the need to amend the ordinance. The
recommended amendment will address their concerns.
D. The City Council reviewed the proposed code amendment at a
workshop on May 9, 2005. Staff indicated in the workshop that
additional refinements were needed for the proposed code
amendment prior to Council action. The proposed code amendment
has been modified to include a time frame for obtaining permits and
by the elimination of language requiring reconstruction to follow the
original foot print of the building.
E. If Council concurs, an ordinance amending the Pasco Municipal
Code will be placed on the June 6, 2005 agenda for action.
EXHIBIT# 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE relating to Zoning amending PMC Title 25 dealing with
Nonconforming Uses.
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the
physical development within their borders and insure the public health, safety
and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage
orderly growth and development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, from time to time, the City Council causes the zoning
regulations to be reviewed to insure they fulfill their intended purposes; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes
of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25;
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 25.72.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.72.050 MAINTENANCE, DAMAGE, REPAIRS AND RESTORATION.
(2 ) No building damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of
more than fifty (50) percent ef sueh assessment of the assessed
value of the structure as determined by the records of the Franklin
County Assessor shall be repaired or rebuilt, except multi family
units previously authorized by building_permit in any residential
zoning district may be rebuilt under the following conditions:
a. Permits must be obtained within one year of building damage or all
nonconforming privileges are lost;
b. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental
or a natural disaster;
c. The proposed repair or reconstruction shall not increase the
nonconformity of the structure or use-
d. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or
restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming buildin
ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety.
e. Reconstruction should adhere to the required district set backs.
(3) Any structure or portion thereof declared unsafe by a
the Building Official may be restored to a
safe condition and continue as a nonconforming use, unless such
repairs exceed fifty (50) percent of the assessed value of the
structure as determined by the records of the Franklin County
Assessor except multi family units previously authorized by building
permit in any residential zoning district may be rebuilt under the
following conditions:
a. Permits must be obtained within the time frame-provided in the
notification by the Building Official or all nonconforming privileges
are lost:
b. The fire or other cause of damn a was determined to be accidental
or a natural disaster;
c. The proposed repair or reconstruction shall not increase the
nonconformity of the structure or use;
d. Nothing in this_ Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or
restoriniz to a safe condition of any nonconforming building
ordered by any official charged with protecting_public safety,
e. Reconstruction should adhere to the required district set backs.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days
after passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of
2005.
Michael B. Garrision
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Webster U. Jackson Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
2
i
CITY OF PASCO
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.
i
ORDINANCE NO. , amends PMC Title 25 dealing with nonconforming
uses
The full text of Ordinance No. , is available free of charge to any person
who requests it from the City Clerk of the City of Pasco (509) 545-3402, P.O.
Box 293, Pasco, Washington 99301.
Webster U. Jackson, City Clerk
3
Memo
To: Planning Commission
From: Dave McDonald, City Planner
Subject: Nonconforming Uses
Date: January 20, 2005
At their November 29th workshop the City Council held a discussion on
nonconforming issues related to the location of single family and multi
family dwellings in zoning districts other than ones approved for such
uses.
In the context of zoning the term nonconforming means land uses,
buildings or premises that were lawfully established and in existence at
the time the zoning regulations were enacted and are maintained after
the effective date of the regulations even though they do not comply with
the regulations.
The zoning regulations group similar land uses together for the purposes
of avoiding conflicts between uses, to maintain security of home life, to
stabilize property values and to encourage orderly growth. When zoning
districts were originally established in the 1960's or earlier, not all
neighborhoods were completely homogeneous. Occasionally a duplex or
four-plex would be in a single family zone or a house would be located in
a commercial zone. Rather than requiring the immediate elimination of
the few uses that did not match the majority uses in a given zone the
non matching uses (such as a house in a commercial zone) were
identified as nonconforming uses. Nonconforming uses were and are
permitted to continue provided they are not enlarged or reconstructed
after significant damage. The intent is for nonconforming uses to
eventually be phased out.
An owner of a nonconforming four-plex has requested the City consider
changing the current nonconforming regulations to permit the
reconstruction of nonconforming buildings under certain conditions.
Following discussion on this matter the City Council forwarded the
matter to the Planning Commission for study and the development of a
recommendation for a possible code amendment.
The attached Council Report and correspondence will provide the
Planning Commission with background information on the issue. Over
the next several months staff will be providing the Planning Commission
with information on nonconforming uses to assist with the development
of a recommendation to the City Council.
AGENDA REPORT NO. 127
FOR: City Council Date: November 19, 2004
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Workshop: 11-29-04
Richard J. Smith, Director Regular:
Community & Economic Development
FROM: David McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: Nonconforming Uses (MF # 04-137-I)
I. REFERENCE (S):
A. Correspondance from Terry Milham
IL ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
11-29-04 Review and Discussion
III. FISCAL IMPACT None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. Terry Milham the owner of a four-plex on Sylvester Street has
written Staff requesting changes to the nonconforming chapter of
the zoning regulations. Under the provisions of PMC 25.88.020 any
resident or property owner may petition the City Council for a
change in the text of the zoning regulations. The City Council,
while not obligated to consider a proposed text amendment, may
hold a public hearing on text changes or may forward the matter to
the Planning Commission for study and a recommendation.
B. Mr. Milham owns a four-plex at 410 West Sylvester Street that is
nonconforming with respect to density requirements, parking and
landscaping. The property is properly zoned (R-3, Medium Density
Residential) but lacks the correct square footage for a four-plex.
Mr. Milham's lot contains 6,600 square feet which is only large
enough for a duplex. A four-piex requires a 12,000 square foot lot
in an R-3 zone. Additionally parking in R-3 zones must be located
behind the front yard set back. Mr. Milham's lot lacks adequate
area for the eight required off street parking spaces behind the
front yard setback. Because the front yard is paved for parking,
the property lacks the necessary landscaping.
C. Mr. Milham has informed Staff that due to the nonconforming
status of his four-plex it is not possible for potential purchasers to
obtain financing to purchase the property. He has stated that, as
the result of changes in lending practices, prospective purchasers
are unable to obtain conventional financing on nonconforming
properties.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. In the context of zoning the term "nonconforming" means land uses,
buildings or premises that were lawfully established and in existence
at the time the zoning regulations were enacted and are maintained
after the effective date of the regulations even though they do not
comply with the regulations.
B. The zoning regulations group similar land uses together for the
purposes of avoiding conflicts between uses, to maintain security of
home life, to stabilize property values and to encourage orderly
growth. When Pasco's zoning districts were originally established, in
the 1960's or earlier, not all neighborhoods were completely
homogeneous. Occasionally, a duplex or four-plex would be in a
single family zone or a house would be located in a commercial zone.
Rather than requiring the immediate elimination of the few uses that
did not match the majority of uses in a given zone, the non matching
uses (such as a house in a commercial zone) were identified as
nonconforming uses. Nonconforming uses were and are permitted
to continue provided they are not enlarged or reconstructed after
significant damage. The intent is for nonconforming uses to
eventually be phased out.
C. As Staff understands this request, Mr. Milham is asking for an
amendment to the zoning regulations that would permit
nonconforming uses to be rebuilt if they are damaged by more than
50 percent of their assessed value. Some cities in Washington,
including Yakima, Kennewick, Walla Walla, and Richland permit
nonconforming uses to be rebuilt following substantial damage
provided they are rebuilt to the exact foot print of the original
building. Other cities such as Spokane have a complex process that
permits reconstruction of nonconforming uses depending on the
type of adjoining land use.
D. Historically the nonconforming status of buildings was not an
impediment to financing. The standard loan requirements for
property insurance provided mortgage companies with the security
needed to protect the loans in the event a building was damaged or
destroyed. Those requirements are present today regardless of the
zoning status of a building. It is unclear why mortgage companies
are concerned given that the proceeds from an insurance settlement
can be used to pay off any outstanding mortgage.
E. Permitting the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings to their
original foot print addresses the concerns of a few property owners
about financing; However, it does not address the original purpose
for the creation of nonconforming uses. Permitting the
reconstruction of a nonconforming house in an industrial zone or a
business that lacks sufficient off street parking does not protect and
enhance the value of nearby industrial properties. Allowing a
damaged house to be rebuilt adjacent a chemical plant or welding
shop does not encourage orderly growth nor protect such industrial
uses from inherent nuisances when homes are located adjacent
industrial uses.
F. Considerable thought is needed in responding to Mr. Milham's
request. The Council basically has three options available on this
issue. The Council could, after one or more workshops, hold a
public hearing to consider amending the regulations. The Planning
Commission could be instructed to study the matter and hold a
hearing or the Council could determine that no changes are needed
and take no action on the matter. Given the significant number of
cities that have modified their nonconforming provisions to
accommodate secondary mortgage lenders, it would appear prudent
to forward this matter to the Planning Commission for study and the
development of a recommendation.
Terry Milham
1016 West 37'x' Place
Kennewick, WA. 99337 RFf,EIVED
F..mail tmifham)charter net
Cell 509-539-3910 SFP J `i l.tltltl
�c�trtrviur�t�r ur-vF�otntiErar nrtt.
To: Rick Smith (Manager—Planning and Zoning—City of Pasco
Hello Mr. Smith
Subject: 1�ecluest to change a zoning statement in my property's (410 Sylvester Pasco, Washington)
zoning profile. Propose to change (he statement; "if more than 50% destroyed then only a duplex
can be built on the site" to "owner can rebuild present structure to original footprint within 6 months
if destroyed." The lenders will accept this statement and will loan money. This is basically a
"grand father clause."
Due to zoning changes well after (he subject property was built, I am unable to sell (lie property as
lenders will not loan funds on properties that are listed/zoned as "non-conforming with conditions
that effect the value of the property." My property falls into this category.
I have emailed you and Dave McDonald this past week in regards to this issue with research on
what other cities accomplish in these zoning "non-conforming with conditions statement
conditions" circumstances.
Rick, I appreciate your efforts. The bottom line is that if the property buried down, (statistically
low) and if the property burned down more than 50% (even lower statistically probable), the city
WOUld let [lie owner rebuild the same building. Rebuilding the same structure again to the sanie
blueprint/footprint will not adversely effect the individuals, the area of city, or city.
The issue resides with the zoning department to resolve tills isstle. 1 have a buyer for the property.
This is of the up 1110sl importance to resolve this non-conforming issue ASAP!
Sincerely
`ferry M i l liam
t�
Att: appraisal
cc. butterworth
tucker
1'0. Rick Smith (Director - Planning and Zoning - Pasco)
Gary Crutchfield (City Manager— Pasco
From: merry Milham (Property owner in the City of Pasco). Subject property is located
at 410 Sylvester.
Subject: Research completed on why lenders are not able to secure mortgages.on
legal non-conforming residential property when adverse stipulations
placed upon the properties.
References: Chris Hinkley (loan officer), American home Mortgage, 1128 Columbia
Park Trail, Richland, WA. 99352 Phone # 509-735-5363
Gary H. Lackey (loan officer), Major Mortgage, 7411 Clearwater Ave.
Kennewick, WA. 99336 Phone It 509-735-1895
Eric Sniezak, (loan officer), A+ Mortgage, Inc. 3820 S_ Pine Street,
Tacoma, WA. 98409 Phone ## 253-405-2200
Western Regional Office Fannie Mae, 135 North Los Robles Ave, Suite
300, Pasadena, CA. 91101, Representative—Nick Perez (nonconforming
property representative) Phone 9 626-396-5100
Freddie Mac, 21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 1900, Woodland Hills, CA.
91367-3642 Phone#800-373-3343
Attachment Guide Lines (Fannie Mae) oil criteria for Property Appraisals (see
attachment A, titled, "Site Analysis"
Rick and Gary
I hope the work I have completed on why lenders cannot secure mortgages on legal non-
conforming properties in the City of Pasco is a help to you in resolving the quagmire
surrounding these properties. I sincerely believe that a workable solution is possible
giving the owners of such properties the ability to refinance or to sell the property.
I lopefully the information helps to bring a informed position to the City Council.
(1) A big question that both of you have had is "why are legal nonconforming
properties presently not being funded (mortgages obtain) when in the years past
there hasn't been a problem in obtaining mortgages for these properties. I have all
answer for you and its `off the record" so to speak. As explained to me, the
bottom line is that the Appraisers are held more accountable to document all
zoning criteria for a property and any adverse effects the zoning criteria has on the
property_ See attachment A (Fannie Mae's guidelines) under Site Analysis,
section 907.01 "Zoning" including Bullet one. This section tells what is required
by the appraiser for the secondary market, i.e., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
These agencies are who buys most of the mortgages in America from the
mortgages companies. It's been a practice for appraisers in years past to not go
into a detailed report in documenting adverse effects that zoning may have on a
particular property. Adverse zoning criteria effects the sale of many properties.
ing, you will see the criteria required by the
As you read lire section on zon
appraisers. The appraisers currently are held to a higher standard.
(2) Zoning See attachment A under Site Analysis, section 907.01, the second and
third bulleted items. Please note or call one of the references above for validation.
These guidelines have been in place for decades. Bullet one is very interesting
and it react as follows: "lYe tvill ptcreliase or secin-itize a mortgage thrit is securer!
47y a one to four f zniily proper-O.,or a tin it ill a PUD project if the property
represents a legett, but non-conforming, tese or the larul—as long as the
appraiser's analysis rejlects any adverse eff ect that the non-conforming use has
oil the value and marketability of the ro ert ." Bullet two: "We will purchase
or secz,ritize it condontinizint ztnit mortgage or it cooperative share -otn it project
that represents a leixal but non-Cott orntin use o the la td wilt, if the
imps oventents call be rebuilt to current density in the event of their partial or
ftt11 destruction. (Irr such cases the ntorigage file must include a corny of the
a Vicable zoning re tilatiorts or a letter from the local zoning authority that
authorizes recortstrttction to current densi
The secondary zrrarkel has seen that the legal non-conforming zoning issues can
be a problem for properly owners when it comes to the sell or refinance of such
property. As you noticed above, the guidelines permit a"letter" format to be
included in the mortgage file from the zoning authority stating that a.full rebuild
can be approved in case of partial or full destruction. In essence they are not
requiring cities to change overall zoning, but to evaluate individual properties. It
becomes clearer.why many cities such as Richland and Kennewick use the
"letter" approach to enable many home owners to sell or obtain mortgages on
these properties.
You should have enough infonnation above to facilitate the zoning department
review of these issues. This should assist in presenting an infonned position/fact
of the planner to-tire city council for review.
Again I want to thank you for your efforts with these zoning issues oil the nolr-
conforming properties. The bottom line is,"the inability to build to the same
density/footprint" is preventing me from selling my property. The secondary
market will not knowingly purchase mortgages where the properties
marketability/density is in jeopardy.
Thanks ! l
Terry Milham 'f L f
ni`.
509-539-3910 i _• �� {
i
R Pro eft & Appraisal Ana sls tilF
M_ f0f44-e
NJ 907
be used to evaluate both the;«ventory of t%vo- to four-family properties currently
for sale in the subject neighborhood and competing with the subject property, as
well as rile recent price and marketing time trends that affect the subject property.
SITE ANALYSIS
gp7 The property site should be of a size, shape, and topography that is generally
conforming and acceptable in the market area. It must also have competitive
utilitizs, street improvements, and other amenities. Since amenities, easements,
and encroachments may either detract from or enhance the marketability of a site,
the appraiser roust comment on them if the site has adverse conditions or is not
typical for the neighborhood. If there is market resistance to a property because
its site is not compatible with the neighborhood or with the requirements of the
competitive market, the lender should underwrite the mortgage mare carefully
and, if appropriate, require more conservative mortgage terms.
90
907-01 ZONING: The appraiser is responsible for reporting the specific zoning
classification for the subject properly.The appraiser must include a general
statement to describe what the zoning permits ( "0ne-family", "��+o-family", etc. }
when lie or she indicates a specific zong in such as R-1, R=2, etc. The appraiser
must also include a specific statement indicating whether the improvements
represent a legal use; a legal, but nou-conforming (grandfathered) use; or an
illegal use tinder the zoning regulations; or whether there is no local zoning.
We generally will not purchase or securitize a mortgage on a property if the
improvements do not constitute a legally permissible use of the land. We 40 make
certain exeeptioris to this policy, as long as the property is appraised and
underwritten in accordance with the special requirements we impose as a
condition to agreeing to make the exception.
` we will purchase or securitize a mortgage that is secured by a one- to four-
family property or a ontt in a PUD project if the property represents a legal, but
non-conforming, use of the land -- as long as the appraiser's analysis reflects any
adverse effect that the non--conforming-use has on the value and marketability,
of the property.
we ",ilt purchase or securitize a conrlonu►tiicm urtit mortgage or a cooperative
share loan from a project that represents a legal, but non-conforming, use of the
land only if the improvements can be rebuilt to current density in the event of
their partial or full destruction. (In such cases, the mortgage file must include a
copy of the applicable zoning re attons a letter from the]oc ] zoning 9G
authority that authorizes reconstruction to gurrent ertsity .
+ we will purchase or securitize a mortgage secured by a one-family property that
includes an illegal additional imit or accessory apartment (which may be referred
to as a mother-in-law, mother-daughter, or granny unit) as long as the illegal use
conforms to the subject neighborhood and to the market. The property inust be
appraised in conformity with its legal rise, that of a one-family property (and tire,
borrower must qualify for the mortgage without considering any rental income
from the illegal unit). The appraiser must report that the improvements
represent an illegal use and demonstrate that the improvements are typical for
the market through an analysis of at least three comparable properties that have
the same illegal use. The lender must also make sure that the existence of the
illegal additional unit will not jeopardize any future hazard insurance claim that
might need to be filed for the property. We will not purchase or securitize a
mortgage secured by a tivo- to four-fami4,property that includes an illegal
206 PpIVA
Memo
To: Planning Commission
From: Dave McDonald, City Planner
Subject: Nonconforming Uses
Date: February 24, 2005
At the January meeting staff introduced the Planning Commission to the
definition of nonconforming uses.
In the context of zoning the term nonconforming means land uses,
buildings or premises that were lawfully established and in existence at
the time the zoning regulations were enacted and are maintained after
the effective date of the regulations even though they do not comply with
the regulations.
When zoning was initially established in the United States the writers of
zoning legislation believed that certain land uses were not compatible
and that efficiencies in the allocation of land resources could be achieved
if incompatible uses were clearly separated. To accomplish the desired
land use efficiencies, cities were divided into distinct districts or
compartments that restrict uses to residential, commercial or industrial
development. The thought process behind the districting of a city was
that no residence would have a commercial business for a. direct
neighbor and industrial plants would be free of complaining homeowners
and unattended childi en.
However by dividing. existing development into tidy compartments or
zones it was nearly impossible to establish zones that were completely
developed with similar land uses. Drafters of the original zoning
ordinances quickly realized this and made provision for uses that did not
conform to the majority of uses in a given zoning district. The few uses in
a district that were not the same as the majority of uses were classified
as.legal nonconforming uses and were permitted to continue. However
certain restrictions were placed on nonconforming uses. The continued
presence nonconforming uses was conditioned by regulations that
prevented expansion or continuance if catastrophic damage occurred.
Over the years courts have ruled that the rights of nonconforming uses
and the application of zoning regulations should be strictly construed.
Courts have determined nonconforming uses "should be restricted,
decreased, and finally eliminated." A court in Maine went so far as to
state that nonconforming uses "should not be perpetuated any longer
than necessary. The policy of zoning is to abolish nonconforming uses as
speedily as justice will permit."
Pasco's original zoning regulations were established following the
national trends. Pasco's zoning regulations like others grouped similar
land uses together for the purposes of avoiding conflicts between uses, to
maintain security of home life, to stabilize property values and to
encourage orderly growth. When zoning districts were originally
established in the 1960's or earlier, not all neighborhoods were
completely homogeneous. Occasionally a duplex or four-plex would be in
a single family zone or a house would be located in a commercial zone.
Rather than requiring the immediate elimination of the few uses that did
not match the majority uses in a given zone the non matching uses (such
as a house in a commercial zone) were identified as nonconforming uses.
The intent of Pasco's code is for nonconforming uses to eventually be
phased out.
In one particular area of the City (south of "A" Street, west of Maitland
Ave) we have seen a number of nonconforming structures that have been
phased out as intended by the zoning regulations.
Pasco's nonconforming uses regulations have been in place for many
years. It has only been recently that property owners have pointed out
that the nonconforming status of properties creates problems for
conventional financing. Historically the nonconforming status of
buildings was not an impediment to financing. The standard loan
requirements for property insurance provided mortgage companies with
the security needed to protect the loans in the event a building was
damaged or destroyed. Those requirements are present today regardless
of the zoning status of a building. It is unclear why mortgage companies
are concerned, given that the proceeds from an insurance settlement can
be used to pay off any outstanding mortgage debt.
In response to financing questions some cities in Washington, including
Yakima, Kennewick, Walla Walla, and Richland permit nonconforming
uses to be rebuilt following substantial damage provided they are rebuilt
to the exact footprint of the original building. Other cities such as
Spokane have a complex process that permits 'reconstruction of
nonconforming uses depending on the type of adjoining land use.
Permitting the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings to their
original footprint addresses the concerns of a few property owners about
financing; However, it does not address the original purpose for the
creation of nonconforming uses. Permitting the reconstruction of a
nonconforming house in an industrial or commercial zone does not
protect and enhance the value of nearby industrial or commercial
properties. Allowing a damaged house to be rebuilt adjacent to a
chemical plant or welding shop does not encourage orderly growth nor
protect such industrial uses from inherent nuisances when homes are
located adjacent to industrial or commercial uses.
Permitting the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings in essences
makes them conforming. There will never be an opportunity to resolve
conflicts between competing uses if nonconforming buildings can
continually be rebuilt. Reconstructing nonconforming buildings is
counter to the fundamental purposes for which the City established
zoning.
Before the Planning Commission entertains proposals to possibly amend
the current nonconforming uses regulations it would be important to
have a clear understanding of the purpose and intent of zoning
regulations as a whole. The purpose statement that guided the
development of the zoning regulations and future amendments is
provided below.
25.04.020 PURPOSE OF TITLE. The purpose of this Title is to
implement the Comprehensive Plan for the Pasco Urban Area. This Title
is to also further the purpose of promoting the health, safety,
convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare of the present and
future inhabitants of the Pasco Urban Area, and;
(1) To encourage and facilitate the orderly growth and
development of the Pasco Urban Area.
(2) To provide adequate open space for light and air, to prevent
overcrowding of the land, and to lessen congestion on the streets.
(3) To secure economy in municipal expenditures, to facilitate
adequate provisions for transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks, and
other public facilities and services.
(4) To increase the security of home life and preserve and create
a more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco Urban
Area.
(6) To secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers.
(7) To stabilize and improve property values.
(8) To enhance the economic and cultural well being of the
inhabitants of Pasco.
(9) To promote the development of a more wholesome, serviceable
and attractive city resulting from an orderly, planned use of resources.
(Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) '
After review of the information contained in this memo the Planning
Commission will need to begin formulation a recommendation to the City
Council on the nonconforming uses. Another workshop will be scheduled
for March to be followed by a possible hearing in April.
Memo
To: Planning Commission
From: Dave McDonald, City Planner
Subject: Nonconforming Uses
Date: March 17, 2005
In response to requests to modify the current nonconforming provisions
of the zoning regulations the Planning Commission has held workshops
for the past two months.
In responding to requests for changes in the code the Planning
Commission recognized the fact that permitting the reconstruction of
nonconforming buildings to their original footprint addressed the
concerns of a few property owners about financing; However, it did not
address the original purpose for the creation of nonconforming uses.
Permitting the reconstruction of a nonconforming house in an industrial
or commercial zone does not protect and enhance the value of nearby
industrial or commercial properties. The staff received the direction that
it was not appropriate to relax the non conforming standards across the
community. There was a particular concern about allowing the
continuation of non conforming uses in industrial and commercial zones.
After reviewing the purpose and intent of the zoning regulations the
Planning Commission suggested that the only change to be considered in
the nonconforming uses regulations should be restricted to multi family
structures in residential areas only. Following that direction staff has
prepared the attached code amendment.
The proposed code amendment reflects the direction provided by the
Planning Commission to limit nonconforming code changes to non
conforming multifamily structures in residential zones.only.
Proposed Nonconforming Code Amendment
25.72.050 MAINTENANCE, DAMAGE, REPAIRS AND
RESTORATION.
(2 ) No building damaged by fire or other causes to the extent
of more than fifty (50) percent of sueh assessment of the
assessed value of the structure as determined by the records
of the Franklin County Assessor shall be repaired or rebuilt,
except multi family units in any residential zoning district may
be rebuilt under the following conditions:
a. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be
accidental or a natural disaster;
b_ The proposed repair or reconstruction must duplicate the
orijzinal building footprint-.
c. The proposed repair or reconstruction does not increase the
nonconformity of the structure or use;
d. Reconstruction must adhere to the required district set
backs;
e. Nothiny, in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or
restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming buildin
ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety.
(3) Any structure or portion thereof declared unsafe by a
properly authorized person may be restored to a safe condition
and continue as a nonconforming use, unless such repairs
exceed fifty(50) percent of the assessed value of the structure
as determined by the records of the Franklin County Assessor
except multi family units in any residential zoning district may
be rebuilt under the following conditions:
a. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be
accidental or a natural disaster;
b. The proposed repair or reconstruction must duplicate the
original building footprint;
c. The proposed repair or reconstruction does not increase the
nonconformity of the structure or use;
d. Reconstruction must adhere to the required district set
backs;
(4) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the
strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any
nonconforming building ordered by any official charged with
protecting public safety.
Memo
To: Planning Commission
From: Dave McDonald, City Planner
Subject: Nonconforming Uses
Date: April 21, 2005
Over the past several months the Planning Commission has held
workshops to discuss nonconforming uses issues.
In responding to requests for changes in the code the Planning
Commission recognized the fact that permitting the reconstruction of
nonconforming buildings to their original footprint addressed the
concerns of a few property owners about financing; However, it did not
address the original purpose for the creation of nonconforming uses.
Permitting the reconstruction of a nonconforming house in an industrial
or commercial zone does not protect and enhance the value of nearby
industrial or commercial properties. The Planning Commission felt it was
not appropriate to relax the non conforming standards everywhere in the
community. There was a particular concern about allowing the
continuation of non conforming uses in industrial and commercial zones.
After reviewing the purpose and intent of the zoning regulations the
Planning Commission suggested that the only change to be considered in
the nonconforming uses regulations should be restricted to multi family
structures in residential areas only. Following that direction staff has
prepared the attached code amendment.
The proposed code amendment reflects the direction provided by the
Planning Commission to limit nonconforming code changes to non
conforming multifamily structures in residential zones only.
A public hearing has been set for the April 21st meeting. Following the
hearing a recommendation will need to be sent on to the City Council.
Recommendation
Motion: I moved to recommend the City Council amend PMC Section
25.72.050, by creating provisions for the continuation of certain
nonconforming uses in residential zoning districts as identified in Exhibit
# 1.
EXHIBIT# 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE relating to signage amending PMC Title 25 dealing
with Nonconforming Uses.
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the
physical development within their borders and insure the public health, safety
and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage
orderly growth and development of the City; and, 1.
WHEREAS, from time to time, the City Council causes the zoning
regulations to be reviewed to insure they fulfill their intended purposes; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes
of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25;
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 25.72.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code be
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
25.72.050 MAINTENANCE, DAMAGE, REPAIRS AND RESTORATION.
(2 ) No building damaged by fire or other causes to the extent of
more than fifty (50) percent e f sueh a6sea .mend of the assessed
value of the structure as determined by the records of the Franklin
County Assessor shall be repaired or rebuilt, except multi family
units previously authorized by building_permit in any residential
zoning district may be rebuilt under the following conditions:
a. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental
or a natural disaster;
b. The proposed repair or reconstruction must duplicate the original
building footprint;
c. The _proposed repair or reconstruction does not increase the
nonconformity of the structure or use;
d. Reconstruction must adhere to the required district set backs;
e. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or
restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming building
ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety.
(3) Any structure or portion thereof declared unsafe by a
properly authorized person may be restored to a safe condition and
continue as a nonconforming use, unless such repairs exceed fifty
(50) percent of the assessed value of the structure as determined by
the records of the Franklin County Assessor except multi family
units previously authorized by building permit in anv residential
zoning district may rebuilt under the following conditions:
a. The fire or other cause of damage was determined to be accidental
or a natural disaster;
b. The ro osed repair or reconstruction must duplicate the original
building footprint;
C. The proposed repair or reconstruction does not increase the
nonconformity of the structure or use,
d. Reconstruction must adhere to the required district set backs;
(4) Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the strengthening or
restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming buildiniz ordered
by any official charged with protecting public safety.
Section 3. : This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days
after passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of
2005.
Michael B. Garrision
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Webster U. Jackson Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
2
REGULAR MEETING January 20, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 20, 2005
OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Other Business: CODE AMENDMENT: Non-conforming Use
Code Amendment, (City of Pasco)
IMF# 2004-137-I)
Acting Chair Smurthwaite read the master file number and asked for the Staff
report.
Staff reported that in November of last year City Council held a workshop to
discuss issues related to non-conforming uses. Staff explained what
nonconforming uses were and how such uses were created. Non-conforming
uses are allowed to continue under a grandfathering provision that allows them
to be used until those uses are abandoned for a period of one year or more or
destroyed by 50% or more of its value by fire or other cause. The idea was that
non-conforming uses would eventually be phased out and replaced with
conforming uses. Over the years, that didn't seem to pose a significant
problem for property owners. However recently it has created difficulties for
people trying to sell or refinance their properties. The city council has asked
the Planning commission to study this matter and develop a recommendation.
Terry Milham, 1016 W 37th Place, Kennewick, owner of a 4-plex at
410 Sylvester, recently found the buyer for his building was unable to get a
loan. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac predominantly buy all of the mortgages.
The reason the property cannot be financed is because of the non-conforming
issue, if it burned down more than 50 percent it could not be rebuilt. Mr.
Milham asked the City to consider an amendment to the code to allow
nonconforming buildings to be rebuilt. Mr. Milham stated most cities have a
mechanism to deal with non-conforming issues.
Staff stated that they would be bringing this item back to the Planning
commission over the next few months.
REGULAR MEETING February 24, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 2005
CALL TO ORDER:
WORKSHOP
A. Workshop: CODE AMENDMENT: Non-conforming Use
Code Amendment, (City of Pasco
(MF# 2004-13741
Acting Chair Smurthwaite read the master file number and asked for the Staff
report.
Staff reported that the Non-conforming Use Code issue was discussed briefly at the
last Planning Commission meeting in January. A concerned property Mr. Milham
also spoke to the Commission. Staff provided the Planning Commission with a
memo that gives a better explanation of the term "non-conforming" and how it is
applied in Pasco. Staff asked if Planning Commission understood what the term
"non-conforming" means.
Planning Commission answered affirmatively.
Staff reviewed the written memo for the benefit of the Planning Commission. It was
pointed out that in the area of town south of "A" Street between the rail tracks is
zoned for industrial uses. While most of the properties are developed with homes
there have been some homes that have been phased out due to damage. As a
result there has been an increase in industrial development in the area.
Commission Anderson stated he would not want to see the code changed to permit
the reconstruction of homes in industrial or commercial areas that it should be
restricted to residential areas only.
Terry Milham 1016 371h Place, Kennewick addressed the Commission. He
explained that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae will not purchase loans for non
conforming properties unless they can be rebuilt.
Barrett Brown, 7807 S Jeorrd Rd, Kennewick stated he owned two duplexes off
32nd. He has tried four times in the last year to sell his buildings and every time
they have fallen through because of the zoning,
Brian Tucker, Richland stated he has tried several times to purchase properties in
Pasco and each time he was not able to get financing because of the nonconforming
issue.
Acting Chair Smurthwaite asked if there were any questions of Staff.
There were none.
Staff stated they would provide additional material on this subject at the next
meeting.
- 1 -
REGULAR MEETING March 17, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 17, 2005
WORKSHOP:
A. Workshop: CODE AMENDMENT: Non-conforming Use
Code Amendment (City of Pasco)
(MF# 2004-137-I)
Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite read the master file number and asked for the
Staff report.
There was some discussion on the non-conforming use amendment and staff
recommended a public hearing at the next meeting. The recommended code
amendment would benefit residential nonconforming uses in residential zoning
districts, but not in commercial or industrial zoning districts.
OTHER BUSINESS:
In July of 2004, Planning Commission approved siting two portable. class
rooms for Tri-Cities Junior Academy. The school wants to re-configure their
arrangement. Instead of an L-shape, they want to mate the portables and put
them on a basement. Parking would be slightly modified. Special permits are
conditioned to completed substantially in conformance with the site plan
submitted. In this case, everything is the same except for the configuration.
Concensus of the Planning Commission was that it is essentially the same
request, they did not have a problem with the slight modification.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business before the Planning Commission,
Commissioner Hay moved for adjournment at 8:45 p.m., Commissioner
Mosebar seconded, motion carried unanimously.
i
- 1 -
DRAFT
REGULAR MEETING April 21, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 21, 2005
E. Public Hearing: CODE AMENDMENT: Non-conforming Use
Code Amendment (City of Pasco
MF# 04-137-I
Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite read the master file number and asked for the
Staff report.
Staff reported that this request is for approval of a Code Amendment for Non-
conforming Use Code Amendment PMC-25.72.050. This amendment is to
address the issue of people wishing to rebuild duplex or multiplex buildings.
Staff reiterated the purpose of zoning is to help retain property values and to
preserve the safety and welfare of the community. Staff recommends the
changes only apply to residential rebuilds and not to rebuilds in industrial and
commercial zones. As such the recommendations cover multifamily units
previously authorized by building permit in any residential zoning district to be
rebuilt under the conditions stated in the ordinance. Staff reported that these
conditions include: 1) the unit can only be rebuilt if it is determined that the
damage is accidental or a natural disaster, 2) the rebuilt building duplicates
the footprint of the old building so you are not expanding or changing the
nonconformity, 3) does not increase the size of the nonconformity, 4) honors
the required setbacks of the property, 5) nothing in the ordinance shall prevent
the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any nonconforming
building ordered by any official charged with protecting public safety. Staff
advises the Planning Commission recommend this code amendment, as
written, to the City Council for approval.
Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite asked if there were any questions of Staff.
There was none.
ACTING CHAIRPERSON SMURTHWAITE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND
ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY ONE PRESENT THAT WISHED TO SPEAK ON
THIS MATTER.
Terry Milham, 1016 W 37th Place Kennewick, questioned item four dealing with
setbacks and how they would apply to his four-plex over on Sylvester. Staff
clarified that if his unit accidentally burned down or a natural disaster was to
strike he could build his unit back to the way it was originally approved.
Bruce Schnabel, 368 Riverwood St. Richland, thanks staff for their
recommendation. Bruce Schnabel reported that without the proposed changes
it is not only a finance issue but also an insurance issue.
Following three (3) calls from Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite for comment
from the floor, either for or against, the public meeting was declared closed.
Commissioner Little moved the Planning Commission recommend the City
- 1 -
DRAFT
Council amend PMC Section 25.72.050, by creating provisions for the
continuation of certain nonconforming uses in residential zoning districts as
identified in Exhibit # 1
Commissioner Hay seconded, motion carried unanimously.
Staff explained the appeal process and stated this item would go before the City
Council on May 3rd.
- 2 -
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council May 26, 2005
TO: Gary Crutchfie anager
Regular Mtg.: 6/6/2005
FROM: Stan Strebel, in'stxative and Community
Services Direct .
SUBJECT: Application of Admission Tax to Golf Activities
I. REFERENCE(S):
A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Proposed Amendment No. 1 to Golf Course Lease Agreement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/6: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance amending Section 3.02.010
"Definitions" (regarding Admission Tax) of the Pasco Municipal
Code and further, to authorize publication by summary only.
MOTION: I move to approve Amendment No. l to the Golf Course Lease
Agreement and further, to authorize the Mayor to sign the document.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Estimated loss of approximately $1,500 per year.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) At the workshop meeting of May 23 Council reviewed the case for deleting the
applicability of the admission tax to golf courses and driving ranges. Although
Pasco's admission tax of 2.5% is only half that which is imposed in Kennewick
and Richland, in those cities the admission tax is not applied to golf courses. It
appeared to be the consensus of the Council that the Municipal Code should be
amended to delete the inclusion of "golf courses and driving ranges" in the
definition of "Place" regarding applicability of the admission tax. The attached
ordinance will accomplish that objective.
B) The golf course lessee has been consulted and has agreed to a lease amendment
which will increase the capital replacement amount which is paid to the City
(currently 4%) to 6.5%, as an offset to revenue that will be lost when the golf
course is no longer subject to the admission tax. There will be no cost difference
to the lessee as the base upon which either the tax or the capital replacement
amount is calculated is the same. The attached lease amendment is recommended
for approval if Council chooses to amend the Code as recommended.
C) It should be noted that while revenue to the City in the form of admission tax is
not subject to taxation by the State of Washington, revenue received from the
lessee as a result of lease agreement is taxable under the state leasehold excise tax
at the rate of 12.84%. However, the City receives approximately 30% of the tax
from the state, therefore the net loss to the City is estimated to be $1,500 on an
annual basis.
D) While there will be some small loss to the City to make this change, as discussed
by Council on the 23`d, the concept of leveling the playing field is important;
therefore staff recommends approval of the ordinance and the lease amendment.
8(c)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending Section
3.02.010 "Definitions" (regarding Admission Tax) of the Pasco Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, has determined that
certain amendments regarding Admission Tax are necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 3.02.010(D) of the Pasco Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
D) "Place" includes, but is not restricted to theaters, dance halls, amphitheaters,
nightclubs, auditoriums, stadiums, athletic pavilions or fields, swimming pools, aquatic parks,
baseball or other athletic parks, ice arenas, , adult entertainment
facilities as defined in PMC 5.27, circuses, side shows, amusement parks, merry-go-rounds,
ferris wheels, roller coasters, observation towers, arcades and similar attractions.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and
five days following its publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco at its regular meeting this day of
June, 2005.
Michael L. Garrison, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Catherine D. Seaman, Deputy City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Amendment No. 1
Golf Course Lease Agreement
This Amendment is entered into this day of 2005 between the
CITY OF PASCO, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, herein called the "City"
and IRI SUN WILLOWS ASSOCIATES LLC, A Delaware limited liability company, here in
called "Lessee".
Whereas, the City and Lessee entered into that certain Golf Course Agreement dated
December 27, 2000; and
Whereas, the City and Lessee desire to amend said Agreement as set forth herein below;
Now,Therefore, the City and Lessee agree as follows:
Section 1
Section 4.2 Capital Reserve Account, sub paragraph b is hereby amended to read as follows:
(b) Capital Replacement Amount. Commencing on January 1, 2003, Lessee shall pay to
the City and the City shall deposit to the Capital Reserve Account on an annual basis (ie
for each Lease Year) an amount (the "Capital Replacement Amount") equal to the
greater of:
(i) four percent (4 %) of Golf Course Play Revenues, or
(ii) the sum of$20,000.00.
Commencing on July 1 2005 Lessee's payment requirement shall increase to six and
one half percent (6.5%) of Golf Course Play Revenues.
Section 2
Section 15.12 Responsibility for Taxes, is hereby amended to read as follows:
15.12 Responsibility for Taxes. Lessee shall be responsible for all fees, taxes and charges
which may be levied upon Lessee in relation to its performance of services under this
Agreement. This Section 15.12, does not apply to the payment of leasehold excise tax,
for which payment responsibility is specifically provided for elsewhere in this
Agreement. The City agrees that it will not design or adopt any new tax specifically
targeted to golf course operations during the Term of this Agreement. The City agrees
that effective July 1 2005 except for spectator admissions. the golf course and driving
range shall not be subject to the City Admission Tax as imposed by Section 3.02.020 of
the Pasco Municipal Code.
Section 3
That all other provisions of said Lease Agreement shall remain as originally written.
CITY OF PASCO
MICHAEL L. GARRISON Date
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SANDY L. KENWORTHY LELAND B. KERR
Deputy City Clerk City Attorney
LESSEE:
IRI SUNWILLOWS ASSOCIATES LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: IRI GOLF MANAGEMENT, L.P.,
a Delaware limited liability company,
Its Manager
By: Golf/Mark Corporation,
a Delaware corporation,
Its General Partner
By:
Name: Jeffrey M. Silverstein Date
Title: President
AGENDA REPORT NO. 38
FOR: City Council DATE: 6/2/05
TO: Gary Crutchfiel O' irector Manager WORKSHOP:
Richard J. Smit REGULAR: 6/6/01S
Community ands Economic Development
FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner-V5%.
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a 37 foot radio antenna within an
existing metering station (MF # 05-59-SP)
I. REFERENCE(S):
A. Report to Planning Commission:
B. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 4/21/05 & 5/26/05
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve the special permit for the location of a radio
antenna at the Northwest Pipeline metering station as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On April 21, 2005 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
to consider a special permit application for the location of a 37 foot radio
tower within the existing Northwest Pipeline Metering Station directly south
of the Stone Ridge Event Center.
B. Following conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission
reasoned that with conditions, it would be appropriate to permit the
proposed radio tower within the existing Northwest Pipeline Metering
Station. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached
report.
C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has
been received.
I
10(a)
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: 05-59-SP APPLICANT: Northwest Pipeline Corp
HEARING DATE: 4/21/05 295 Chipeta Way
ACTION DATE: 5/26/06 SLC, UT 84108
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a 37 foot high radio
antenna within an existing meter
station (Northwest Pipeline).
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: A 70 foot by 135 foot tract in the northwest portion of parcel
# 117-330-059
Parcel Number: 117-330-059
General Location: South of 5960 Burden Blvd
Property Size: The site is 7,563 sq. ft. or .17 acres.
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Burden Boulevard to the north.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The meter station sits on the northwest
corner of a field that is zoned R-1. The remainder of the tract upon
which the station sits recently received Preliminary plat for the
Linda Loviisa development. The adjoining City Soccer Complex to
the west is zoned R-T. The property directly north of the site as well
as the lots north and west of the site across Burden Boulevard are
all zoned C-1.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area as Mixed Residential and Commercial.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been
issued a determination of nonsignif cance in accordance with review
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 (c )
(RCW).
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to upgrade a gas delivery meter station by
installing a radio antenna. The installation of the upgraded equipment
will enable the gas company to monitor the lines from the main office.
This ability to monitor systems remotely will enhance safety and efficient
fuel delivery to local neighborhoods. The gas delivery meter station is
already in place, but there is no tower on site. This metering station
provides all the natural gas used in the homes and businesses located in
the I-182 Corridor except Desert Plateau.
Utility facilities such as electrical substations, load transfer stations,
natural gas booster stations and other similar utility facilities are
identified as unclassified uses in the PMC Chapter 25.86. As such theses
uses are required to be review through the special permit process prior to
locating on a given site within the City. In this particular case the
Northwest Pipeline is proposing to modify their exiting metering station
by adding a radio antenna. The modification of the facility requires
review through special permit process.
The Linda Loviisa plat, recently approved by the City Council, is located
on the remainder of the parcel containing the current gas delivery meter
station site.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The site is currently occupied by a meter station.
2) Meter stations fall under PMC 25.86.020(l 1) "UNCLASSIFIED
USES". as "natural gas booster stations, and other similar utility
facilities."
3) Location and modification of these types of facilities must go
through the special permitting process.
4) The metering station serves all residential and commercial
development in the I-182 corridor expect Desert Plateau.
5) The property is currently zoned R-1.
6) Surrounding properties are zoned R-T, R-1 and C-1.
7) The property to the north is developed with a reception center.
8) The property to the south and east is slated for single-family
residential development.
9) The property to the west is developed and used as a community
recreational facility.
10) The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site and surrounding
area for both mixed residential and commercial uses.
11) The applicant desires to upgrade the existing meter station
by installing a 37-foot high radio antenna.
12) The meter station is screened with fencing and plantings.
13) The proposed radio antenna will enhance the safety of the
gas line system by providing real time communication to gas
company offices.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must make findings of fact from which to draw conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as
follows:
1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan specifies that utility placement should
be in conformance with the aesthetic standards of the
surrounding neighborhood.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use places minimal demands on the established
infrastructure systems. Other permitted uses would most likely
place a greater demand on the public infrastructure than this
proposed use.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to
be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general
vicinity?
The proposal is an alteration of an approved, existing use.
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 proposal involves the positioning of a 37-foot tall radio tower.
While the commercial and public facilities will not be affected by
such an installation, proximal residences may see a slight drop in
property values.
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 installation will not create more traffic, flashing
lights, fumes or vibrations. it will most likely be more objectionable
than other possible uses of the land.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if
located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become
a nuisance to uses permitted in the district?
The proposed modification will not increase the threat to public
health or safety. The use will likely be seen as an aesthetic
nuisance.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as read.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the findings
of fact and conclusions there from the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to
Northwest Pipeline Corporation for the placement of a Wireless
radio tower and supporting equipment on the metering station
site south of 5960 Burden Blvd with the following conditions:
(Proposed) APproval Conditions
1} The special permit shall be personal to the applicant;
2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with
the site plan submitted with the application;
3) All dead or diseased arborvitae screening shall be replaced with
new plants at least 3 feet in height;
4) The special permit shall be null and void if a building permit has
not obtained by October 7, 2005.
1
VICINITY MAP
ITEM: SPECIAL PERMIT--- Radio Tower for NW Pipeline
APPLICANT: Northwest Pipeline Corp N
FILE #: MF# 05--59— SP
■
t i rrrrrr rrrr r■rwa■�
t ♦ � ■ ■
g ♦♦ j ■ •
Q tt : ■ ;w ■4arw■ar rrr rr wwrr
g . � �r.*i ■ r t
r r ■
• ■ �lwrrwrw wrw�rww�■�
fMaar*r�*w■rrr�rr r
BURDEN BLVD
SITE
/\ 1
rrrrrrr+rrr�■rrrr�r�!
■ r r R
r�r 7Jr ,,, • i , ; f+f
+,++l+ arR�rwwr�IllM m E xal m NOUN Isom w>"*4 +
III ij�
1Tm_i
LAND USE MAP
ITEM: SPECIAL PERMIT—Radio Tower for NW Pipeline
APPLICANT: Northwest Pipeline Corp 1�
Fl LE #: M F# 05-59— SP
n. r
♦ Yom+ a..r.■■.rr.rtirr..y
om
Q f
!
i ♦ ■ ■�r■r■rrr.r....■�!
! ■ � �.i..rr.■..:i.rr
r ■r ■
f
BURDEN BLVD
T.R.A.C
D SITE
H01SL
SO MALL
COMPLEX
I
rr■■■r.r■rrlw.rrry■� �^�+
■ j 1++ �Y
r as� R �'•
low
! f ♦ � �1t
�`•r`/■ r■,ii�'i,+a','� a+ +f'� + ems+: +4w 4v
Awl+tom`, +ice ��•+ ���++M•
tta • �rs..h....■.a. •t
tttt��r��.r■Not
rr..■.rte ,•,
1
a _
ZONING MAP
ITEM: SPECIAL PERMIT---Radio Tower for NW Pipeline
APPLICANT: _Northwest Pipeline Corp N
FILE #: MF# 05--59—SP
i
■ rr.rrur.. ..rsr�
a • ■ w
i `■ rYrrr �r •
■ + �rrr ■ ■ }..
■ • •
■rr�.r.�r:rrrtr�r� ■
BURDEN BLVD
SITE
R
ld
�2
r.r..r..■rrF r.rrrlyr.` .
! I
++��r ±rr. ya4i� aia+`#,K♦ ;• ♦a`'►a a#III
+#+#+a
t
A4pa ## +i
# a +a # #a
# #+ # a#, a#,## a#
+## +hs# ,,,#♦ a+#+
aa+a�aaa�ar.- rr.r.#wrrt�f■rr��.:rs.4rrrr.r.r +a+
a+�
7-7.1
L -1
� ■� Y fl i
5 .0 4) . WO uj fll
LLI
� tfe �
kv
r e
iE
ti
F
y� 8
9
'a � -a � •a • -a •a
'a 'a
a+ o a a
N \ `�
°O2
\
rr �
r `
1 j �
1 I EE
1 1
1
1 9 1 r -
1 � I
} � I
v I
1 � � g �
} } z�
1 1
1 - !
1 I
6 E �
1
r
if 1
1
II. 1
II }
I
b
v
t
a
5
f
n
REGULAR MEETING April 21, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 21, 2005
C. Special Permit: 37' Communications Tower at 5960 Burden
Blvd (Northwest Pipeline Corp.) (MF#05-59-
Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite read the master file number and asked for the
Staff report.
Staff reported that this request was for approval of a special permit to modify
the existing Northwest Pipeline meter station. Staff advised the commission
that a metering station was required to go through the special permit process
no matter where they locate in the community. The surrounding area includes
the soccer complex to the west, proposed Linda Loviisa development to the
south and east, and the convention center to the north. The request is to
install a 37 foot tower to allow the metering station to be monitored remotely.
At the current time it takes a live body to monitor the facility.
Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Hay asked staff if there had been any inquiries or complaints
about the proposed tower. Staff replied that none had been received.
Commissioner Mosebar asked staff if there was fencing around the station.
Staff replied that there was fencing at the current time. Commissioner
Mosebar asked staff if there was a condition with Linda Loviisa that required a
fence to be constructed when the area to the south and east are developed.
Staff replied that an eight-foot block wall is required when development begins.
ACTING CHAIRPERSON SMURTHWAITE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND
ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY ONE PRESENT THAT WISHED TO SPEAK ON
THIS MATTER.
Justin Reynolds, Northwest Pipeline Corp., the purpose of the tower is to allow
real time measurement of gas flows. This would speed up the response time
and improve the safety of the site. The structure will be triangular shape with
eighteen inch sides. Mr. Reynolds stated the tower will be web shaped. Mr.
Reynolds stated the tower will be constructed of non-reflective galvanized
material, and be about as tall as a street light.
Following three (3) calls from Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite for comment
from the floor, either for or against, the public meeting was declared closed.
Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite opened up the commissioners' discussion.
Commissioner Mosebar did not have an issue with the proposed project since
there was going to be a wall constructed to separate uses. Commissioner Little
asked if there was landscaping to the west. Mr. Reynolds answered there is
Arborvitae as well as access gates on the west side of the facility.
Commissioner Mosebar moved the Planning Commission close the public
hearing on the special permit application. Initiate deliberations, and schedule
adoptions of findings of facts, conclusions and a recommendation for the
Planning Commission meeting May 26, 2005.
Commissioner Hay seconded, motion carried unanimously.
REGULAR MEETING May 26, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 2005
A. Old Business: SPECIAL PERMIT: 37' Communication
Tower, (Northwest Pipeline Corporation]
(MF# 2005-59-SPI
Chairman McCollum read the master file number and asked for the Staff
report.
Staff reported that the applicant (Northwest `,ipetzn Corporation) was
requesting approval of a Special Permit for a,37' c"mriication Tower at the
existing Northwest Pipeline metering statj6n Staff , d a public hearing
was held at the last regular meeting, rhere pub( iflpul� tgs provided. The
public hearing was closed and delilifons 'for the `,dvelopmerit of a
recommendation was set for May 26,
Chairman McCollum asked if there were any quet�c�ns of Staff.
There were none.
Commissioner Smurthwaite movedi Planningmrission adopt the
Findings of Fact as contained in the # f wt. (The f rtdirigs were read into
K:.
the record as contained in the staff report
Commissioner Hay seconded, carrii unlriritsly.
Commissioner Smurthwaite moved bas6d on th �fifidings of fact as adopted,
the Planning Commission e amend: pity Council grant a Special Permit
to Northwest Pipeline Corporation fa immunication Tower for the
placement of a wire l radio tower anc€: 'supporting equipment on the
metering station site bf 5960 Burden Boulevard with conditions as
contained in the staff re
�c�rt
Commis iQn r g conded"t' cotton. The motion carried unanimously.
Staff eolined the �.pp process and stated this item would go before the
Ci ' ncil at the fire lar meeting in June.
-. ;..,.F
PMifs!;'s:i`�4''•sx» _ �•.e
xrx.
1 —
AGENDA REPORT NO. 37
FOR: City Council DATE: 6/2/05
TO: Gary Crutchfie Manager d WORKSHOP:
Richard J. Smith, lector W REGULAR: 6/6/06
Community and Economic Development
FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: SPECIAL PERMIT: Car sales lot in a C-1 zone at the corner of 28th &
Sylvester Street (MF # 05-56-SP)
I. REFERENCE(SI:
A. Report to Planning Commission:
B. Planning Commission Minutes: Dated 4/21/05 & 5/26/05
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve the special permit for the location of a car
sales lot on 28th Avenue as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On April 21, 2005 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
to consider a special permit application for the location of a car sales lot
near the corner of 28th Avenue and Sylvester Street.
B. Following conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission
reasoned that with conditions, it would be appropriate to permit the
proposed car sales lot on 28th Avenue. The recommended conditions are
contained in the attached report.
C. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has
been received.
14(b)
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: 05-56-SP APPLICANT: Butch Lindstrom
HEARING DATE: 4/21/05 1603 W. Lewis St.
ACTION DATE: 5/26/05 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a car sales lot at the
southeast corner of Road 28 and
Sylvester Street.
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: The North 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 'A of the
Northwest 1/a of the Southeast 1/4, of Section 25, Township 9 North,
Range 29 East, Less roads and easements.
Parcel Number: 119-462-074
General Location: The southeast corner of Road 28 and Sylvester
Street.
Property Size: Total property is 74,052.3 sq. ft. or 1.7 acres. The
C-1 portion needing a special permit is 37,026 sq. ft.
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Roads 27 and 28 to the east
and west, respectively, Sylvester to the north, and Irving to the
south.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities are available to the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently split with two
zoning districts. The north half is zoned C-3 (General Business) and
to the south, half is zoned 'C-I(Retail Business). The north half of
the property is vacant and the south half contains an old parking
lot. All surrounding properties are zoned C-1. Land uses on the
surrounding properties is as follows:
North - One residence, a Moose Lodge, the Advanced Automotive
garage, the Carpenter's Union Hall, the Thrifty Supply
wholesale, and the Knights of Columbus building
South - A Restaurant and bowling alley and State Transmission
East - A residence, Telco Wiring and Repair, and the Hut
Restaurant
West - An Exxon Service Station and the Washington TV company
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
area as Commercial. The plan also encourages commercial
development to locate along major arterials and encourages the
concentration of activities that functionally benefit each other.
Automotive sales and services are available in the vicinity.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This proposal has been
issued a determination of nonsignificance in accordance with review
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 (c )
(RCW).
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to locate a car sales lot on the southeast
corner of Sylvester and Road 28. The municipal code permits auto sales
in the C-3 zone and auto sales in the C-1 zone with a special permit,
provided certain location criteria are met. The southern half of the
property is zoned C-1 and requires a special permit for auto sales. The
site is located on a major arterial, which meets the location criteria to be
considered for an auto sales special permit.
The intersection of Sylvester and Road 28 has supported automotive
related activities for several years. The Exxon Service Station and car
wash is located on the southwest corner of Sylvester and Road 28. The
Advance Automotive shop is to . the northwest across Sylvester. The
building to the north of Advanced Automotive has been used for an auto
parts store for many years. North on Road 28 there are two major car
dealers and an RV sales facility.
The site in question is currently vacant and has been vacant from the
time it was annexed to the City. Staff discussed the proposal with the
applicant prior to submittal of this request. The applicant understands
the City's requirements for a landscape buffer along both Sylvester Street
and Road 28.
Through the special permit review process an opportunity is provided to
bring some of the existing site deficiencies into conformance with current
standards. The property currently does not have the required
landscaping along any of the adjacent streets.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) The site is currently vacant and has been from the day it was
annexed to the City.
ill
I
2) The property is zoned both C-3 and C-1.
3) The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site and surrounding area
for commercial uses.
4) The applicant desires to use the property for auto sales.
5) Automotive sales lots in C-1 zones require a special permit.
6) The southern half of the property will require the issuance of a
special permit for an auto sales business to operate.
7) Automotive related businesses are located to the northwest, west
and southeast of the site.
8) The Comprehensive Plan encourages the concentration of activities
which are functionally related and economically beneficial to each
other.
9) Two major auto dealerships are located north of Sylvester Street on
Road 28.
10) The zoning regulations require site improvements in the form
of landscaping and hard-surfaced customer parking lots.
11) The site has no landscaping and the parking lot surface is
deteriorated.
12) Car sales lots are often cluttered with various types of signs.
13) 27th Ave is not a dedicated right-of-way.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must make findings of fact from which to draw conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060. The criteria are as
follows:
ly Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies,
objectives and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for commercial
development. Policy LU-1-D encourages the clustering commercial
development at major intersections. Policy LU-4-A also encourages
the location of commercial activities at major intersections. Policy
LU-4-B encourages the concentration of activities which are
functionally and economically beneficial to each other.
2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use is located along a major arterial and places
minimal demands on the established infrastructure systems.
Other permitted uses such as restaurants and taverns would place
a greater demand on the public infrastructure than this proposed
use.
3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to l
be in harmony with existing or intended character of the general
vicinity?
The proposed use is consistent with the established character of
the area.
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 proposal involves display of automobiles. Therefore location
and height of structures is not an issue.
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 use will not create more traffic, flashing lights, fumes
or vibrations than many of the permitted uses, such as
convenience stores or fast food restaurants.
6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if
located and developed where proposed, or in anyway will become
a nuisance to uses permitted in the district?
The n ro osed use is less intensive in terms of impact public
p P P
health and safety than many of the permitted uses such as fuel
sales. Material and merchandise involved with the proposed
activity will not become a hazard or danger to surround properties.
Recommendation
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of
Fact and conclusions as read.
MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special
permit to Butch Lindstrom to operate Bulldog Motors at the
southeast corner of 28th and Sylvester Street with the following
conditions:
(1) The special permit is personal to the applicant;
I
VICINITY MAP
ITEM : SPECIAL PERMIT Car Sales in a C- 1 Zone
APPLICANT: Butch Linstrom
FILE #: 05- 65— SP
NDCON STREET
II^^
vJ
CO
o
I z
W. SYLVESUR ST
I
SITE -~
W. I tma ST
ST `\
01
vi
i
LAND USE MAP
ITEM : SPECIAL PERMIT Car Sales in a C-- 1 Zone
APPLICANT: Butch Linstrom
FILE #: 05- 65— SP
VACANT 11 NMON STREET
CCQ
z
Ser ice
k-40 Service
C1 bs ,� Club
W. YLVESTER ST
VACANT '
SITE °
W. IRVING ST
C MME CIAL
MME CIA
ST
Ell
CO
COMME CIA
ZONING MAP
ITEM : SPECIAL PERMIT Car Sales in a C- 1 Zone
APPLICANT: Butch Linstrom
FILE #: 05- 65— SP
C 3 P; NIKON STREET HP
R
02
/ z
W. YLVESTER ST
C - 3
C — 1 SITE
W. IRVING ST
i
m
Cv i
bl
Zo
O7 1
7F
i mklk �Q�•\, yi � a W
arac �m
co
3:
jai
REGULAR MEETING April 21, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 21, 2005
D. Special Permit: Car Lot in a C-1 zone at the corner of 28th
and Sylvester (Bulldog Motors) (MF# 05-56-
SPI
Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite read the master file number and asked for the
Staff report.
Staff reported that this request was for approval of a car lot on the corner of
28th and Sylvester. Staff reported the site Mr. Lindstrom was interested in was
split into two zones, the north portion is zoned C-3 and the southern section is
zoned C-1. The southern section has been used for a parking lot for the
bowling alley for may years. Car sales are permitted in C-3 zones, and are
permitted by special permitted in a C-1 zone provided the C-1 zone location is
adjacent arterial streets or at the intersection of two arterial streets. Staff
informed the commission that at this particular intersection there are a
number of automotive related facilities in the general area. Staff advised the
Planning Commission to open the hearing for public testimony, then close the
hearing, and continue deliberations at the next meeting.
Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite asked staff if there had been any inquiries.
Staff replied that none had been received.
ACTING CHAIRPERSON SMURTHWAITE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND
ASKED IF THERE. WAS ANY ONE PRESENT THAT WISHED TO SPEAK ON
THIS MATTER.
Butch Lindstrom, 4517 Henry, stated that the building would be built toward
the back of the lot to allow cars to line 28th and part of Sylvester.
Mr. Lindstrom stated he wanted to leave some paved parking for the bowling
alley. Mr. Lindstrom also stated he planned to display between 50 and 75 cars
on the lot. Commission Little asked if there would be fencing surrounding the
property. Mr. Lindstrom replied the proposed project will be landscaped with a
two-foot high curb on 281h and Sylvester, and a fence will be built facing Irving
and 27th. Commission Rose asked where the vehicle access to the property
would be. Mr. Lindstrom stated vehicle access would be off of 27th and Irving.
Following three (3) calls from Acting Chairperson Smurthwaite for comment
from the floor, either for or against, the public meeting was declared closed.
Commissioner Rose moved the Planning Commission close the public hearing
on the special permit application. Initiate deliberations, and schedule
adoptions of findings of facts, conclusions and a recommendation for the
Planning Commission meeting May 26, 2005.
Commissioner Mosebar seconded, motion carried unanimously.
REGULAR MEETING May 26, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 26, 2005
B. Old Business: SPECIAL PERMIT: Bulldog Motors, (Butch
Lindstrom Bulldog Motors)
IMF# 2005-56-SP)
Chairman McCollum read the master file number and asked for the Staff
report.
Staff reported that the applicant (Butch Lindtt'pm{ bulldog Motors) was
requesting approval of a Special Permit fop, Bult, 11 d ors to locate on 28t
Avenue. Staff explained a public hearing �v 'heldt' ast regular meeting,
where public input was provided Tf ;'public 'hearg `Izas closed and
deliberations for the development of a on , !!May 2F,0 rne
2005. Staff noted a correction in the i= cort'mendations th t the easement
requested should be a thirty foot easement on'the east side of the property.
Chairman McCollum asked if there were any,qu6440`s of Staff.
There were none.
Commissioner Little moved the Planxtir iliCoinmission adopt the Findings of
Fact as contained in the staff rert (Tle i"xs were read into the record
as contained in the staff re ort
p '�:a.;
i
Commissioner Smurthwaite secaned, Too-)on calmed'unanimously.
Commissioner Little moved based on Vie, fndxrkgs of fact as adopted, the
Planning Commission recotfriend the City CbU cil grant a Special Permit to
Butch Lindstrom, Bulld ;` ptors to operate Bulldog Motors at the Southeast
corner of 28th and Sylvrr,street with conditions as contained in the staff
report.
.,i.
Comm isxh llonded tsxtton. The motion carried unanimously.
Staff�xpf Ined the pe l process rle `stated this item would go before the
Co" + uncil at the first ,g lar meeting in June.
Tisl.11iY 3:(8:'.i..:
...... .. ..
,. . ...81:1
'qs;;Y
- 1 -
AGENDA REPORT NO. 11
FOR: City Council June 1, 2005
TO: Gary Crutchfi i Manager Regular Mtg: June 6, 2005
Robert J. Alb Director
FROM: Doyle L Heath, City EngineerV4
SUBJECT: Road 64 Water Line Extension Project No. 05-1-11
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Bid Summary
2. Vicinity Map
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
06106: MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the Road 64 Water Line
Extension Project No. 05-1-11 to Watts Construction, Inc. in the amount
of$100,113.71, including sales tax and, further, authorize the Mayor to
sign the contract documents.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Utility Fund
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On June 1, 2005, staff received four (4) bids for the Road 64 Water Line Extension
project. The low bid was received from Watts Construction in the amount of
$100,113.71 including sales tax. The bids ranged from a low of $100,113.71
including sales tax, to a high of$116,914.72 including sales tax. The Engineer's
Estimate for the project is $114,751.43 including sales tax.
This project begins at the intersection of Road 64 and West Court Street and
extends water south 1900 lineal feet to the end of the road.
Staff recommends that Council award the contract to Watts Construction, Inc.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTING
i
Project File
10(c)
City of Pasco
Road 64 Water Extension
Project No. 05-1-11
June 1, 2005
BID SUMMARY
Total
Engineer's Estimate $1143751.43
1. Watts Construction, Inc. $100,113.71
2. Culbert Construction, Inc. $1085106.47
3. Ray Poland & Sons, Inc. $1085256.68
4. Sharpe & Preszler, Inc. $116,914.72
1
I
TI
Y
9£ Boa
-4'
IT-
L J pr VOT-1- Pfl
TTa
w
-4
W r
� � I
O
� a
�-' 6 A
V Av ox oN
r
P
o P
� P
Vs oa
001 C[VO
a a o
a a
I a
d
I
f
K(IV s
0
rA
�<S GDti