HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.06.27 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m, June 27,2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance.
3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCiLMEMBERS:
4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a) WCIA Insurance Summary Update. (NO WRITTEN MATERIAL ON AGENDA)
Presentation by: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager.
(b) Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Presentation (MF#PLAN2011-003):
1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated
June 20, 2011.
2. Planning Commission Report from June 16,2011.
3. Planning Commission Minutes from the May 19 and June 16,2011 meetings.
(c) Parking Ordinance Revision:
1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi,Public Works Director dated June 17, 2011.
2. Maps.
3. Ordinance.
(d) Truck Parking/Storage on City Streets:
1. Agenda Report from Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director dated
June 22, 2011.
2. Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 10.
3. Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 12.
4. Letter from DKB Inc. (with representative photos).
5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
6. FXF:CL-TIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(G)
7. ADJOURNMENT
REMINDERS:
1. 4:00 p.m., Monday. June 27, Ben-Franklin Transit Office—Hanford Area Economic Investment Fund
Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMFMRFR AT.YENNEY, Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ, Alt.)
2. 5:30 -- 7:30 p.m., Thursday, June 30, 200 N. Road 34 — Tri-Cities Legislative Council Reception.
(MAYOR MATT WATKINS, COUNCILMEMBERS REBECCA FRANCTK, BOB HOFFMANN,
SAUL MARTINEZ and AL YENNEY)
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council June 20, 201 T
TO: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager Workshop Mtg.: 6/27/11
FROM: Rick White,
Community & Economic Development Director C_
SUBJECT: Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Presentation(MF'#PLAN2011-003)
I. REFERENCR(S):
1. Planning Commission report from June 16,2011
2. Planning Commission Minutes from the May 19 and June 16, 2011 meetings
H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/27: DISCUSSION
M. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network(RROSN) group started in 2005 as the Tapteal
Greenway Association. That group was dedicated to preserving a specific geographic
area within the Richland City limits.It branched out in late 2007 to form an effort in the
greater Mid-Columbia to begin a public discussion about local vision and future plans for
open space.
B. The purpose of the RROSN Plan is to develop a regional vision for retention of special
geographic and geologic features in the Mid Columbia and how a system of trails and
linkages can allow residents and visitors to experience these features. The RROSN Plan
also provides a series of policy recommendations and specific implementation measures.
C. Much of the RROSN Plan focuses on areas in South Richland and Benton County. Efforts
in Franklin County are focused on connection of the Columbia Plateau Trail with
Saaajawea State Park; establishment of a multi-use trail around Scootney Reservoir;
establishment of permanent access to the Juniper Dunes Natural area and a trail that
connects Juniper Dunes to Smith Canyon; establishment of an interpretative trail at
Esquatzel Coulee that ties in with a future Tee Age Flood National Geologic Trail and
establishment of a trail from Lyons Ferry to Palouse Fails. Within Pasco, the existing
Heritage Trail and Sacajawea Park are identified as linkages to other regional open
spaces.
D. The RROSN flan also provides policy recommendations for jurisdictions and a series of
potential measures that can be used to implement the policy recommendations.
E. Council received a presentation by the RROSN at the 3/28/11 workshop meeting, and at
the 4/4/11 regular meeting directed the Planning Commission review the Plan and
forward a recommendation for policies within the Plan to support that would benefit the
Pasco community.
F. The Planning Commission has provided their recommendation in Reference#1
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The RROSN Plan represents a significant effort at establishing an inventory of existing
and potential regional open space and providing an array of policy recommendations
focused on leveraging the value of open space to our economy, environment and
community health.
B. The Planning Commission has recommended the policies contained in the June 16, 2011
report as those appropriate for support by the City. Staff requests Council discussion of
this issue. Depending on that discussion, staff will incorporate the tasking necessary so
these policies are included in applicable scheduling and work plans.
4(b)
Reference I - Planning Commission
report dated June 16, 2011
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 16, 2011
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Ridges to Rivers Open Space Nehvork Vision Plan
The Commission considered the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network (RROSN) Vision Plan
at the Planning Commission workshop meeting of May 19, 2011. At that meeting, the
Commission considered each of the recommendations forwarded by the RROSN and offered
comments on whether to recommend that each be pursued. As the Planning Commission
knows, the Pasco City Council received a formal presentation of the RROSN Vision Plan at a
Council workshop in March this year. As a result of that workshop, Council has directed the
Commission to review the Vision Plan and forward appropriate recommendations to City
Council on policy or project actions from the Vision Plan that should be pursued and that will
compliment the larger Pasco community.
As discussed by the Planning Commission, this meeting tonight has been advertised as an
opportunity for public comment on the RROSN Vision Plan.
The following recommendations are those that were supported by the Commission as
having the highest chance to positively affect quality of life within the Pasco community.
Discussion following each Recommendation is intended to capture the gist of the
Commission's direction on each recommendation.
DeflWdim and Inventqry Recommendations
Recommendation G1.1: Benton and Franklin County, the cities of Benton City,
Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland adopt a common definition of
open space consistent with the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network vision.
DISCUSSION: With a nominal amount of coordination between the region's entities (cities,
counties and special districts), it should be relatively straight forward to develop a definition
of open space that is acceptable to all. Accomplishing this recommendation would help
ensure that all entities are on the "same page"when discussing open space and open space
connections.
Recommendation G1.2: The jurisdictions of the Mid-Columbia make every effort
to create a common database of maps to expedite regional planning.
DISCUSSION: Creating a common database of maps is very important and at the same
time deceivingly difficult. Each entity employs a unique GIS and database system that are
not always compatible with each other. These database systems are incorporated into an
entity's larger computer network and providing commonality between all of these operating
systems may be prohibitively expensive and time consuming. This should be discussed and
agreed upon by the Jurisdiction Council and pursued over time as options for implementing
become available. It should be understood that in the absence of a common database,
there is still the ability for jurisdictions to share information and mapping products as needs
arise.
Recommendation G1.3: Cooperatively develop and maintain an inventory of
regional open space resources.
DISCUSSION: This recommendation is likely to consume a large amount of staff time and is
more or less dependent on achieving recommendation G1.2 noted above. This
recommendation would also involve efforts of different levels for cities and counties. Within
the defined urban areas, the inventory and assessment may be relatively easy to
accomplish. In the larger outlying areas outside of the urban boundaries, the inventory
would be commensurately larger and more difficult to compile. Implementation of this
recommendation would be greatly assisted by active involvement of the RROSN Board. This
should be discussed and agreed upon by the Jurisdiction Council and pursued over time as
options for implementing become available,
Recommendation G1.4: Make a consistently strong effort at the jurisdictional
level to preserve priority open space.
DISCUSSION: The preservation of priority open space within Pasco is relatively easy to
monitor since most of the recommended priority open space is outside of the Pasco city
limits. Efforts focused on connection of Sacajawea State Park to the Columbia Plateau Trail
are appropriate to pursue.
gmmunication/Organizational Recommendations
Recommendation G2.1: An institutionalized Jurisdictional Council (JC) is
established to maintain a direct communication link between the County
Commissioners, the City Councils, and the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network,
DISCUSSION: No action is necessary on this recommendation as the framework for a
jurisdictional council has been established by the RROSN. However it will require continued
participation in order to be successful. The Commission recommends that the City continue
efforts to maintain a presence on the jurisdictional council.
Recommendation G2.2: Participating entities inform each other of any planned
or proposed projects — public or private — that may impact the Open Space
Network and pursue all available options to avoid or mitigate loss of open space
and trail resources.
DISCUSSION: G2.2 requires agreement among the jurisdictional council and completion of
the inventory described in G1.3. Assuming the jurisdictional council is effective and
operational, this recommendation should be pursued as it provides a top level resource to
keep elected officials informed of projects that may impact the open space network.
Recommendation G3.2: Identify as a regional open space resource any city,
county, state, or federal property designated for abandonment, surplus, or zone
change. Make every effort to secure those properties that have open space
values and trail potential.
DISCUSSION; The surplussing of property should be examined as that opportunity comes
up. A notable example of this is the agreement that the City of Pasco pursued when taking
over stewardship of Chiawana Park. This action resulted in the maintenance of the park as a
significant open space area linked to the larger and regional Sacajawea/Heritage Trail
system. However it also came with a cost. Each opportunity to secure surplussed or
abandoned properties will also need to be examined from a budgetary standpoint.
Recommendation G4.3: Develop a regional trails plan implementation phasing
schedule for each jurisdiction.
STAFF DISCUSSION: Although this would benefit the City, Franklin County is a critical
player in an effort to develop a regional trail plan and implementation schedule. The priority
open space areas for Frankiin County are nearly all outside of the Pasco city limits. Pasco
should assist Franklin County as opportunity present itself in order to accomplish this
recommendation.
Funding Recommendations
Recommendation G6.2: Broaden funding for open space conservation and
operations and maintenance (O&M).
STAFF DISCUSSION: There are many options for funding open space conservation and
operation and maintenance, The Plan contains a discussion of such beginning on page 170.
In particular, there is a representative example of Spokane County's experience with
"conservation futures" on page 172. On page 182 of the Plan, there is a more general
discussion of "conservation future" type of dedicated property tax for open space
acquisition. The Commission believes that open space retention is a goal the public supports
and should be pursued.
Comprehensive plan_and Ordinanc@ djjjstment
Recommendation G10.1: The cities and counties of the Mid-Columbia region
strengthen their comprehensive plan discussion of Natural Open Space.
DISCUSSION: This recommendation should be pursued, It is especially Important within
Franklin County as the overall bulk of the priority open space areas are located outside of
the Pasco urban boundaries. This would serve to broaden awareness of open space issues,
in particular as each entity tries to standardize their definitions of open space in accord with
Recommendation G1.1
Recommendation G11.2: Encourage jurisdictions to provide incentives for in-fill
development.
DISCUSSION: This is a recommendation that is currently being pursued by the City through
various programs and is an Important component of utilizing existing public investment
within the urban boundaries. Pasco provides a number of incentives that accomplish and
encourage infill of spaces that have been passed over by similar urban development.
MOTION: I move that the Planning Commission recommend City Council support the
Recommendations indentiffed in the June 16, 2011 staff memo for the Rivers to Ridges
Open Space Network Vision Plan.
Reference 2 - Planning Commission
minutes dated May 19, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 19, 2011
Rick White, Communitv and Economic Development Director, provided a brief
summary of the RROSN Vision Plan.
Scott Woodward, President of the RROSN, presented the RROSN Vision Plan.
Chairman Cruz called for discussion on each recommendation contained in the
Plan.
Commissioner Levin asked if the private sector could be involved in this Plan.
Mr, Woodward stated yes. Their next goal is to expand to the private sector.
Chairman Cruz discussed linear park planning.
Commissioner Khan stated the three cities would need to agree on the
definition of open space and what would be the next step.
Mr. Woodward stated it would be beneficial for the cities to be consistent and
he was in favor of adopting an open space definition.
Mr. White asked for some direction on how the Commission would like to
proceed on reviewing the plan. Several suggestions were provided.
Commissioner Lukins was in favor of making a recommendation right now.
Commissioner Anderson was also in favor.
Chairman Cruz stated they would go through each recommendation one by one
and make their suggestions.
1. Definition and Inventory Recommendations
Recommendation G1.1: Benton and Franklin County, the cities of Benton
City, Kennewick, Pasco, Richland, and West Richland adopt a common
definition of open space consistent with the Ridges to Rivers Open Space
Network vision.
Discussion: Agreed
Recommendation G1.2: The jurisdictions of the Mid-Columbia make every
effort to create a common database of maps to expedite regional planning.
Discussion: Agreed
Mr. White explained achieving this goal may take a number of years. This
might be one of the more complicated steps due to the initial investment each
community will need to contribute.
Chairman Cruz stated he is in favor of moving forward on this item and allow
the City to share information to make this happen.
Commissioner Anderson felt action on the recommendation was a Council level
action and they would need to make the decision to replace the GIS system.
Mr. White stated Commissioner Anderson's comments reinforce the importance
of the Jurisdictional Council where that type of conversation occurs.
Chairman Cruz stated they are supportive and would like to make the data
available as needed.
Recommendation G1.3: Cooperatively develop and maintain an inventory
of regional open space resources.
Discussion: Agreed
Recommendation G1.4: Make a consistently strong effort at the
jurisdictional level to preserve priority open space.
Discussion: Agreed
Mr. White stated the committee's priority open space discussion was on page
76 in the Plan; most of the areas identified are far from the Pasco city limits
and outside the boundaries and urban area. The urban area contains
Sacajawea Park, as well as a trail system and half of the river system. The
priority areas were identified as the Esquatzel Coulee, the trail along the Snake
River, Sacajawea Trail and the Columbia Plateau Trail.
2. Communication/Organizational Recommendations
Recommendation G2.1: An institutionalized Jurisdictional Council (JC) is
established to maintain a direct communication link between the County
Commissioners, the City Councils, and the Ridges to Rivers Open Space
Network.
Discussion: Agreed
Recommendation G2.2: Participating entities inform each other of any
planned or proposed projects - public or private - that may impact the
Open Space Network and pursue all available options to avoid or mitigate
loss of open space and trail resources.
Discussion: Agreed
3. Ownership Recommendations
Recommendation G3.1: Define ownership and maintenance of preserved
open space in development areas.
Discussion: HOLD
Mr. White stated G3. 1: was a complex issue and difficult to isolate from other
items of this policy. If G3: 1 is read with G6.2 the recommendation takes on a
different light. Although difficult to implement or get started now, perhaps if a
dedicated source of funding was in place it might be a whole different story. It
might not be pursued at this stage but that may change depending on what the
future brings in terms of conservation funding.
Commissioner Anderson stated this item was something to be put on the table
at a later date as things move along.
Recommendation G3.2: Identify as a regional open space resource any
city, county, state, or federal property designated for abandonment,
surplus, or zone change. Make every effort to secure those properties that
have open space values and trail potential.
Discussion: Agreed
Recommendation G3.3: Establish a regional open space stewardship
program.
Discussion: Agreed
4. Regional Trails Recommendations
Recommendation G4.1: Identify a lead agency or entity to track the
completion of the Regional Trails Plan.
Discussion: Agreed
Recommendation G4.2: Develop a regional trails design manual that
includes operations and maintenance requirements.
Discussion: Agreed
Recommendation G4.3: Develop a regional trails plan implementation
phasing schedule for each jurisdiction.
Discussion: Agreed
Mr, White asked the Commission if they would be in favor of forwarding this to
the County.
Chairman Cruz was uncomfortable with forwarding to the County.
Commissioner Gemig stated they would support as necessary.
5. Access Recommendations
Recommendation G5.1: Provide access, where appropriate, for compatible
forms of outdoor recreation.
Discussion: Agreed
6. Funding Recommendations
Recommendation G6.1: Actively pursue funding of open space and trail
projects. Consider nominating projects annually for funding as joint
projects.
Discussion: Agreed
Commissioner Khan asked how they pursue that, upon recommendation or?
Chairman Cruz stated they would endorse the recommendation as the
Planning Commission.
Recommendation G6.2: Broaden funding for open space conservation and
operations and maintenance (O&M).
Discussion: The majority agreed; with Commissioners Anderson and Hay
casting dissenting votes.
Mr. White stated the state allows tax to be installed at the County level to
purchase open space areas and maintenance and operation activities, The tax
can go up to 6.50 per $1,000. Spokane County had a positive experience with it
and was originally done with a great amount of trepidation but is still in place.
Commissioner Khan stated she was not sure about the tax portion however the
overall Plan is worth pursuing.
Commissioner Gemig was in favor.
Commissioner Greenaway was not in favor of taxing.
Commissioner Lukins stated $6 per $100,000 it's a slam dunk.
Mr. White clarified the tax can be up to 6.5�.
Commissioner Greenaway changed her decision.
Chairman Cruz asked if money was protected or general fund money.
Mr. White stated this money is specifically used for the purpose intended.
Chairman Cruz is in favor.
Commissioner Kempf is in favor.
Commissioner Levin questioned educating the children on the vision plan,
Mr. Woodward stated they have information about health connectivity and
interpretive work on the ground as well as a stewardship program.
Commissioner Levin was in favor.
Commissioner Anderson was not in favor. He stated there are other priorities in
our community. If the economy changes for the better in the next 10 years then
he would be in favor.
Commissioner Hay is not in favor.
Commissioner Gemig asked if the tax would be handed down to the citizens or
would it go to a vote like a school district bond.
Chairman Cruz stated they would have the opportunity to go either way. If they
support the policy then it doesn't necessarily mean they support the tax and
expand the funding horizons. It is preferred that a vote for the tax would go to
the citizens.
7. Federal Notification Recommendations
Recommendation G7.1: Coordinate with federal agencies.
Discussion: Agreed
Recommendation G7.2: Identify and protect regional open space
resources prior to land auctions.
Discussion: Agreed
S. Best Practices for Development Recommendations
Recommendation G8.1: Each county and city of the Mid-Columbia Region
adopt a best practices development document.
Discussion: Agreed
9. RROSN Status and Update Process Recommendations
Recommendation G9.1: Establish performance measures and inform the
RROSN Board of annual progress.
Discussion: Agreed
Recommendation G9.2: Update the Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network
Vision in 5 years, expanding the plan boundary to include other areas.
Discussion: Agreed
10. Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Adjustment
Recommendations Recommendation G10, 1: The cities and counties of the
Mid-Columbia region strengthen their comprehensive plan discussion of
Natural Open Space.
Discussion: Agreed
Recommendation G10.2: Jurisdictions update their parks and
comprehensive plans to include trail and open space projects included in
this vision document.
Discussion: Agreed
11. Contain Development Sprawl
Recommendation G11.1: Direct development to the Urban Growth Areas
(UGA) and work with the State and Counties to limit urban-type
development outside the UGA.
Discussion: Agreed
Recommendation G11.2: Encourage jurisdictions to provide incentives for
in-fill development.
Discussion: Agreed
Mr. White provided an explanation of the in-fill activities in Pasco related to the
use of Block Grant monies and HOME monies.
Chairman Cruz called for any additional comments or discussion.
Mr. Woodward provided some additional information on the Recommendation
for ownership and maintenance of open space. He related an experience from
Boise where a hillside development had a requirement to provide open space
and the homeowners association was set up to take care of it. The homeowners
association fell apart and the City was burdened with maintenance of these
pieces. And that is the reason for including that recommendation in the Plan.
Commissioner Lukins asked Mr. Woodward if he requested a Resolution of
Acceptance of the document.
Mr. Woodward stated they did go through the City Council and the template
was forwarded to the City Attorney.
Chairman Cruz asked if a public hearing would be the next step.
Mr. White stated yes.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to adjourn
the meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Reference 2 -Planning Commission
minutes dated June 16, 2011
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 16, 2011
A. Plan Ridges to Rivers Open Space Network Vision
Plan (MF# PLAN2011-0031
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Staff gave a brief explanation on the background and the Planning
Commission's review of the Plan.
Commissioner Kahn moved, seconded by Commissioner Levin, that the
Planning Commission recommend City Council support the recommendations
identified in the June 16, 2011 staff memo for the Rivers to Ridges Open Space
Network Vision Plan. The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT NO. 5
FOR: City Council DATE: June 17, 2011
TO: Gary Crutchfi i Manager
i
FROM: Ahmad Qayounai, Public Works Directo Workshop Mtg.: 06/27/11
Regular Mtg.: 07/05/11
SUBJECT: Parking Ordinance Revision
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Map
2. Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
06127: Discussion
07105: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. adding parking
restrictions on certain streets, and further, authorize publication
by summary only,
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) Due to a recently constructed apartment complex on 22"d Avcnuc, a review and
update of the parking ordinance was necessary. Turning buses cannot turn out of
the transit facility when cars are parked across the street. The parking restriction
is required to improve bus mobility at the intersection. Engineering and Police
Department staff reviewed this area and are recommending additional restrictions.
B) Code enforcement has received several complaints from property owners at the
end of Beech Avenue. The property owners/residents (zoned residential) at the
end of Beech Avenue about the southern Right of Way line of James Street(zoned
commercial). On James Street there are several commercial properties. On these
properties is a Western States dealership as well as other trucking companies. The
resident complaints mainly consist of excessive noise due to trucks parked on the
south side of James Street overnight waiting for some of the businesses to open
for service and deliveries. The trucks and/or reefer trailers are running as the truck
drivers sleep in their trucks waiting for the business to open. The noise of the
running equipment is the issue. Restriction of parking on James Street behind the
residential area would give the residents relief from the noise problem. In
addition, it is recommended to restrict parking on the north side of lames Street to
prohibit the chance of commercial vehicles using the opposite side of the street.
C) After a review of accident data, it was determined that there was a history of
collisions at the intersections of 3`d and Sylvester, 14t1i and Clark, and 14th and
Lewis. With an above average accident rate of vehicles entering the intersection,
a comprehensive review of the intersections was performed. One finding of the
review was the high number of right angle collisions. This helped determine that
a cause of the collisions could be related to intersection visibility. Per the
WSDOT Design Manual vision triangles were calculated using the current 25
mph speed limit on all the streets, with the exception of Lewis Street, which is 35
mph. Due to on-street parking at these intersections, visibility may be restricted.
As an initial measure to reduce collisions at these intersections, parking should be
removed to improve intersection visibility.
D) The Public Works Facilities have received resident complaints stemming from
commercial vehicles parked along the east side of Road 36. The Post Office
contracts out some of the mail handling/transporting responsibilities to outside
companies. These companies,have been reported to our Public Works facilities by
4(c)
residents about extended on-street parking and loading/unloading work. This is a
residential collector street with few businesses that are located on or near Court
Street, It would be unfeasible to restrict parking on the west side of the street as
well considering the street is too narrow due to undeveloped shoulders.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) This ordinance amends Section 10.56 080 (Schedule III, Parking Prohibited at All
Times on Certain Streets) of the Pasco Municipal Code to add and/or revise the
following streets to the list of prohibited parking streets.
No Parking on West Side:
N 22nd Ave —W Henry PI South 550'
No Parking on South Side:
E James St—from end of E James St to 400' west
No Parking on North Side:
E James St--from end of E .Tames St to 340' west
No Parking on Both Sides:
Third Ave—from Sylvester St to 100' north
No Parking on Both Sides:
Third Ave—from Sylvester St to 100' south
No Parkinia on Both Sides:
Fourteenth Ave--from Clark St south to alley
No Parking on Both Sides:
Fourteenth Ave—from Clark St to 100' north
No Parking on North Side:
Lewis St-from 14'h Ave to 130' west
Lewis St—from 14d` Ave to 80' east
No Parking on South Side:
Lewis St—from 14`h Ave to 100' west
Lewis St—from 14`h Ave to 100' east
No Pa.rkina on East Side
Road 36 - from Court St to 650' south
14TH AVE AND LEWIS ST SIGHT TRIANGLE
OLP" fkw. CLARK ST•fl�l
_��•�' �J4
J goo
rs R G
Aw
rA
+� Y OFFSET FROM Z
�, 35th
!! r STOP BAR - - -
. "r tt at Per
`� �.�• Sl^-'RT at 25h1PK 35AlPtl
�� 7�MPIt
W. LEMS ST
-Rr LOVE
4ax LT at ,��`- 747 LT a 312'KT.t PARKFHC- - -
MWH 25MPH 25MPH
437 RT -
35MPIt
iNNT S700PF g T FRDA,
_R
si=1 .47*V*t
_ si= Sight Distance
V=Posted Speed
4� t g=Time Gap
SCALE=NONE '
W. "A" ST
' n- ■ r
ILP
F.
-9
IL
N„ N. 14TH AVE
tF� < cn cn .�
ca OC
ro
Y Cr � i CQ �•
Vhr.
y
o G) 9 MM
04 0
!` °s
sm
J - •_ .
pow, CIC
_ t• 10 , Pi -
.•j\ A
...¢� fA a
_ 1r'o . Jr
I_ .y
to ,p
Ir
i'
,� ov to
PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTION ON ROAD 36
IL
ems► . N_. 0l1BL.SI. — — _ _ 1 _ _._._. ._. , ..-
r
ROPOSEQ NO PARKING AREA
i
i Q IrI ' IF r it
I r
r
+r Fri D r!-wr -
Erqr rF r
now
i r f G 1�E r-;.
1
00
- - '
O
AL ME 0 L Z.
PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTION ON 22ND AVENUE
yy
PROPOSED NO PARKING AREA "' F
3w Au
1 Rev- -
vp
bp
W. PA K- S - r,
�- Lij �-
>
ail
® f ---mac- /�a. t I ` • ,?
�! •h "'��!' ,. ; _.. --.._:Vi=i
^-• +-" .»�• � � �_ +"'._ 11.x'+►-.1�►►�a -� _ — __ — _:�r ,. _
't-
- 1y�5YLVMER S � _ • �. _ .. _
PROPOSE PARK NO RESTRICTIONS ON JAMES ST
# { � FRONTIER
10th 1 frig j
?"10
pet
PROPOSED NO will
tir 4' _ A
r±qy,� .
� ''�,'f1:v'.r•
'
- 1 rl f
JAMES
�F* a u.•,
� � � "rt '� � + �ia� � .� �r.� �F��i{F !�S�1.r,5 •� j�.'.� +�r±l -'' + _tl llytr! +"r
r r j - , • `fit
C
S r 1
- _ ,, `; ` •
B. �
,.,,too � � i� r
1� 'SUPERIOR ST
tl�`♦' rte- .1• ► - .{.' a ` �� �
•::.e�F yy� ++ �" `4r •� � mac• 1
Pte°' - s...� _ .�.. o • '�' � ,f
fdb
+e - s .� �Stt y.l.xt 3r.r ti1ir I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE prohibiting parking on various streets, and amending Section
10.56.080 of the Pasco Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has determined that it is necessary for public
safety to prohibit parking on certain streets; NOW,THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 10.56.080 of the Pasco Municipal Code is amended to add the
following underlined language and read as follows:
10.56.080 SCHEDULE III - PARKING PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES ON CERTAIN
STREETS. In accordance with Section 10.56.030, and when signs are erected giving notice
thereof, no person shall at any time park a vehicle upon any of the following described streets or
parts of streets:
"A" Street - both sides of street from Elm Avenue to SR-12;
"A" Street - both sides of street from Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue;
"A" Street - from Main Avenue to Beech Avenue;
"A" Street - 300 feet west of 4th Avenue to three hundred feet east of 4th Avenue;
"A" Street - both sides from 20th Avenue to a point two hundred fifty feet west of 20th
Avenue;
"A" Street—both sides, comer of"A" Street and 28th Avenue;
Agate Street -between Fourth and Fifth Avenues;
Ainsworth Avenue - north side from Railroad Avenue to Oregon Avenue;
Ainsworth Avenue - south side from 10th Avenue to Fourth Avenue;
Argent Road—20th Avenue to Road 44;
Argent Road— Road 84 to Road 76;
Autoplex Way— from Court Street south to 160 feet north of Marie Street;
Bonneville Street - the south side of Bonneville Street from a point 150 feet east of the
east curb line of 10th Avenue to the east curb lire of i 0th Avenue;
Billings Street - from Lewis Street to "A" Street
Broadmoor Boulevard— FCID canal to Nottingham Drive;
Brown Street - north side from Road 28 to Road 26;
Brown Street - south side from Road 28 to a point 130 feet to the easts
Burden Boulevard —Road 76 to Road 36;
Chapel Hill Boulevard— Road 68 to Saratoga Lane;
Chapel Hill Boulevard — Broadmoor Boulevard to Road 84;
Chapel Hill Boulevard- from Cresent Road to Broadmoor Boulevards
Clark Street - both sides of street from Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue;
Clemente Lane —Burden Boulevard to Wrigley Drive;
Commercial Avenue —both sides from Hillsboro Avenue south 1 mile;
Court Street - from Fourth Avenuc west to SR-395;
Court Street— east of Fourth Avenue;
Court Street - from Road 68 to Road 84;
Court Street-- Rd. 100 to I-182 Hwy overpass;
Court Street— 1,000 feet south of Harris Road;
E. Broadway Street— (north side) Wche Street to Franklin Street;
First Avenue— Court Street to Sylvester Street;
Fourteenth Avenue—both sides from Clark Street north 100 feet;
Fourteenth Avenue —both sides from Clark Street south to the alley;
Fourth Avenue —(east side) 50 feet north of Columbia Street;
Fourth Avenue — 100 feet south of Columbia Street;
Fourth Avenue - east side from Shoshone Street to Court Street; and on the west side
from Shoshone Street to 125 feet north of vacated Park Street and from 115 feet north of Octave
Street to Court Street;
Fourth Avenue - east side from Sylvester Street north 140 feet; and on the west side from
Sylvester Street north 200 feet;
Fifth Avenue (west side)Park to Octave;
Fifth Avenue —(east side) north of Court Street;
Fifth Avenue - (east side)Nixon Street to Park Street;
North Fourth Avenue - between Court and Ruby Streets;
Heritage Boulevard - both sides from US-12 to "A" Street;,
Hillsboro Street and Commercial Avenue - both sides of Hillsboro Street from a point
100 feet east of the center line of Commercial Avenue to SR 395, and on both sides of
Commercial Avenue from a point 100 feet south of the center line of Hillsboro to Hillsboro;
James Street—south side from the far east end of James Street to 400 feet west;
James Street—north side from the far east end of James Street to 340 feet west;
Jay Street - north side from the east curb line of Road 22 to a point 50 feet west of the
east curb line of Road 22;
Lewis Street -from First Avenue to 70 feet east;
Lewis Street - north side from Fourteenth Avenue to 130 feet west; and north side from
Fourteenth Avenue to 80 feet cast;
Lewis Street — south side from Fourteenth Avenue to 100 west. and south side from
Fourteenth Avenue to 100 feet east•
Lewis Street-Ninth Avenue to Eleventh Avenue;
Lewis Street - north side of Lewis Street from the east curb line of Seventh Avenue to a
point 135 feet cast;
Lewis Street - South side of`Lewis Street, from 150 feet east of the center line of First
Street running easterly a distance of 165 feet;
Lewis Street. (east) - both sides from Wehe Avenue east to Cedar Avenue;
Lewis Street (east) - both sides from Oregon Avenue east to Wehe Avenue;
Lewis Street—from Cedar Ave. to Billings Street;
Madison Avenue - both sides from Burden Boulevard to Road 44i
Ninth Avenue—Washington Street to Ainsworth Street;
Octave Street- the south side of Octave Street from 1 point 280 feet east of the east curb
line of Road 34 to a point 420 feet east of the east curb line of Road 34;
Oregon Avenue between "A" Street and Ainsworth Avenue;
Oregon Avenue — (west side) 350 feet north of Bonneville Street;
Oregon Avenue —Hagerman Street to James Street;
Road 22 - east side from the north curb line of Jay Street to a point 50 feet south of the
north curb line of Jay Street;
Road 26—from Court Street to Brown Street
Road 28 —west side from Sylvester Street to Brown Street;
Road 28 —east side from Sylvester Street to Brown Street except for 315 feet starting
from a-point 360 feet north of the intersection of Sylvester Street and Road 28;
Road 34 - both sides of the street from Henry Street to Court Street;
Road 36 - both sides of the street from its intersection with Argent Place to a point 1,200
feet north of Argent Place;
Road 36 —Burden Boulevard. to 200 feet south of Meadow Beauty Drive;
Road 44 - east side from Meadow View Street to Argent Place;
Road 44 - west side from Desert Street to Argent Place;
Road 44 —west side from Desert Street to Burden Boulevard;
Road 44 —Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard;
Road 52 —Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard;
Road 60 —Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard;
Road 68 Place— Burden Boulevard to Sandifur Boulevard;
Road 68 —FCiD canal north to City Limits;
Road 68 —1-182 to Sandifer Boulevard;
Road 76- east side from Sandifur Parkway to a point 620 feet south of Wrigley Drive;
Road 76 - (west side) Wrigley Drive to Burden Boulevard;
Road 76 -west side from Sandifur Parkway to Wrigley Drive;
Road 80 - from Court Street south;
Road 84 - from Sunset Lane south;
Road 84—Argent Road to Chapel Hill Boulevard;
Road 100— Court Street to FC1D canal;
Rodeo Drive —Road 68 to Convention Place;
Ruby Street- between Fourth and Fifth Avenues;
Sandifur Boulevard—Broadmoor Boulevard to Robert Wayne Drive;
Sandifur Boulevard—(north side) Robert Wayne Drive to Road 60;
Sandifur Boulevard—from Road 60 to Road 62;
Sandifer Parkway- from Road 60 to Road 44;
Seventeenth Avenue - (west side) "A" Street to Washington Street;
Shoshone Street-22nd Avenue to 23rd Avenue;
Sun Willows Boulevard -both sides of street from its intersection with 20th Avenue to its
eastern terminus;
Sylvester Street—(south side) 20th Avenue to 28th Avenue;
Sylvester Street— (north side) one hundred feet east of 26th Avenue to 28th Avenue;
Sylvester Street - From the east line of 20th Avenue to a point 290 feet east thereof,
Tenth Avenue -both sides of street from "A" Street to "B" Street;
Tenth Avenue- from "B" Street to and including the Inter-City Bridge;
Tenth Avenue - both sides of street from Lewis Street to Clark Street;
Third Avenue— (east side) fifty feet south of Columbia Street;
Third Avenue - (east side) fifty feet north of Columbia Street;
Third A lveg - S1.
Third Avenue —both sides of street 100 feet north of Sylvester Street-,
Third Avenue —both sides of street 100 feet south of Sylvester Street•
Third Avenue - On the west side from a point five hundred seventy-five feet north of
Margaret Street to a point six hundred fifty feet north of Margaret Street;
Twentieth Avenue - From Lewis Street to Argent Road except on the east side of 20th
Avenue only from a point one hundred seventy feet south of Hopkins Street to Lewis Street;
Twenty Second Avenue- west side to 550 feet south of West He Place;
Twenty Eighth Avenue- (west side) Lewis Street to Sylvester Street;
Washington Street-9th Avenue to 10th Avenue;
Wrigley Drive-Road 76 to Clemente Lane;
Road 26 - Both sides of Road 26, from a point 120 feet south of the south curb line of
Court Street on the east side and 245 feet south of Court Street on the west side, to 250 feet north
of the north curbline of Court Street.
(Ord, 3934, 2009; Ord. 3867, 2008; Ord. 3839, 2007; Ord. 3774, 2006; Ord. 3750 Sec. 1, 2005;
Ord. 3694 Sec 1, 2004; Ord. 3668 Sec 1, 2004; Ord. 3619 Sec 1, 2003; Ord. 3549 Sec. 1. 2002;
Ord. 3176 Sec. 1, 1996; Ord. 2969, Sec. 1, 1993; Ord. 2964, Sec. 1, 1993; Ord. 2930 Sec. 1,
1993; Ord. 2918 Sec. 1, 1993, Ord. 2898 Sec. 1, 1992; Ord. 2895 Sec. 1, 1992; Ord. 2888 Sec. 1,
1992; Ord. 2832 Sec. 1, 1991; Ord. 2812 Sec. 1, 1991; Ord. 2748 Sec, 1, 1989; Ord. 2747 Sec. 1,
1989; Ord. 2732 Sec. 1, 1989; Ord. 2720 Sec. 1, 1989; Ord. 2698 Sec. 1, 1988; Ord. 2657 Sec. 1,
1987; Ord. 2656 Sec. 1, 1987; Ord. 2655 Sec. 1, 1987; Ord. 2654 Sec. 1, 1987; Ord. 2645 Sec. I,
1987, Ord. 2615 Sec. 1, 1986; Ord. 2614 Sec. 1, 1986; Ord. 2571 Sec. 1, 1985; Ord, 2534 Sec. 1,
1985; Ord. 2496 Sec. 1, 1964; Ord, 2433 Sec. 1, 1983; Ord. 2407 Sec. 1, 1982; Ord. 2403 Sec, I,
1982; Ord. 2354 Sec. 1, 1982; Ord. 2207 Sec. 1, 1980; Ord. 2197 Sec. 1, 1980; Ord. 2131 Sec. 1,
1980; Ord. 2108 Sec. 1, 1979; Ord. 2058 Sec. 1, 1979; Ord, 1999 Sec. 4, 1978; Ord. 1943 Sec. 1,
1978; Ord. 1939 Sec. 1, 1978; Ord. 1808 Sec. 1, 1976; prior code Sec. 8-42.12.)
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this 27th day of June, 2011.
Matt Watkins
Ma3,or
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
TOR: City Council June 22,2011
TO: Chary Crutchfield, City Manager Workshop Mtg.: 6/27/11
FROM: Rick White,
Community& Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Truck ParkinelStorage on City Streets
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Proposed Ordinance amending Title 10
2. Proposed Ordinance amending Title 12
3. Letter from DKB Inc. (with representative photos)
If. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
6/27: DISCUSSION:
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. As a transportation, agricultural and food processing center, the Pasco street system and
adjacent State highways are used to convey a large amount of goods through a large and
local trucking industry. Many of the drivers and operators of heavy trucks live within the
City and nearby region, essentially using Pasco as a "base" for their operations. This has
resulted in the on and off-street parking and storage of tractors, trailers and equipment
necessary for trucking activities. In addition, there are locations in the community that
have reoccurring instances of illegal loading/unloading from the public street.
B. It is becoming increasingly common to see heavy truck parking and storage on City
streets (parti cu I arty east of I1S 395), vacant lots (south of "A" Street and east of 10"`
Avenue) and in and around commercial areas in all parts of Pasco. Often this parking and
storage is accompanied by various maintenance and repair activities (wheel replacement,
trailer repair...).
C. Parking and storage of trucks on public streets and vacant lots present issues of public
concern. These include.: safety of pedestrians and vehicles using the street system for
travel; street drainage and maintenance and deposits of motor fuels, lubricants and litter
on street and unimproved surfaces. In addition, on -street storage/parking does not have
security measures that prevent theft and vandalism and poses a problem of equity for
those businesses that provide proper storage for their truck fleets.
D. The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) contains a variety of regulations on parking and
storage of trucks on City streets. In particular, the PMC restricts parking and operation of
trucks in residential zones and establishes truck routes on specific streets. The PMC is not
as restrictive on the storage and use of City streets in commercial and industrial areas. In
addition, PMC 12.36 "Concurrency" should clearly indicate that licensing a business
(such as a truck parking lot) requires necessary street improvements so that such lots are
established via improved rights of way.
E. Council considered the proposed PMC amendments at the Workshop meeting of 6/13/11.
Clarification of several issues was suggested prior to action by Council.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The issue of using City streets for unloading/loading of goods should be addressed
through a combination of signage and increased enforcement. Selected street locations
used for unloading/loading of goods may need definitive signage related to
"Loading/Unloading, Parking, Stopping and Standing" followed up with vigorous
enforcement through citations. This will be staff intensive in the immediate term, but
should result in a solution of the problem at particular locations.
4(d)
B. To address the issue of using City streets for parking and storage of trucks and related
equipment and trucking activities, staff is proposing code amendments as contained in
Reference #1 (amendment to Title 10 PMC) to provide the Police Department the ability
to cite operators/drivers of heavy trucks using City streets for truck storage. This type of
enforcement action is staff intensive and usually will be complaint driven. The draft
Ordinance has a grace period time limit of 2 hours. if a truck is parked on a public street
and is not loading or unloading, is not conducting a business activity or the street is
adjacent to vacant land—then a grace period of only 2 hours may be appropriate before a
citation can be issued. In addition, Council discussion took place that indicated
businesses providing services related to heavy trucks should have appropriate facilities
for parking — thereby minimizing the need for a longer grace period. Council
confirmation of this is requested.
C. The issue of using vacant lots for truck storage accessed through unimproved rights- of-
way can be addressed by reference #2 (amendment to Title 12) which defines business
licensing and various permitting activities as a "Development Activity" requiring
concurrent street improvements. Truck storage and parking is a permitted use in the C-3
and Industrial cones, but not on unimproved lots and not through unimproved streets
without paving and drainage. This proposed amendment will provide staff clear code
Support when encountering this problem. This is likely to be staff intensive to enforce,
often involving the assistance of the City Attorney.
D. The issue of the City providing facilities for truck park ing/storage was raised from the
context of establishing new rules that would require off- street parking facilities. As a
matter of practice, the City tries to avoid competing with private enterprise. Local
demand for secure and off - street parking/storage appears to have created reasonable
market choices for such facilities. It may be possible to increase the supply of parking
locations by leasing available City property to an operator of a parking/storage facility, as
long as the lease reflected the property's value and the City delegated operation of the
facility to a private party.
E. At the Council Workshop of 6113, the issue of gross vehicle weight was also raised. The
existing PMC defines the "maximum gross vehicle weight" as the scale weight of any
vehicle including trailers and semi-trailers to which shall be added the maxunum load to
be carried as set by a license application or as designated on the vehicle (see Reference
#1). That section of the proposed amendment to Title 10 PMC also sets 14,000 lbs gross
vehicle weight as the limit before a citation can be issued for on — street parking or
storage. It is possible for a 3/4 or I ton truck to exceed 14,000 lbs gross vehicle weight
pulling a trailer; however personal trailers (such as utility, horse and travel trailers) are
exempt from State required gross vehicle weight declarations.
F. The issue of providing notice to the industry for any change in regulation was also raised.
This discussion focused on the need for an educational program to promote awareness of
any change in regulation prior to issuing citations. Staff suggests a 30 or 45 day effort
using direct mailings to the local trucking/transportation industry, PSG - TV, public
service announcements, website information and warning notices.
Reference I - Proposed Ordinance
amending Title 10
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington,
Amending Section 10.52.030 "Parking for Certain Purposes
Prohibited" to Prohibit Overtime Parking of Commercial
Tractors and Trailers on City Streets"
WHEREAS, the extended parking of commercial tractors and trailers upon City streets
has created congestion affecting the free-flow of traffic, reduce the availability of short-term
parking, and created a hazard to other drivers and pedestrians of the roadway; and
WHEREAS, restriction of such extended parking is necessary to preserve the public
safety, provide for the unimpeded travel of vehicle traffic, and enhance the circulation of traffic
within the City; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 10.52.030 entitled "Parking for Certain Purposes Prohibited"
of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
10.51030 PARKING FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES PROHIBITED.
(1) No person shall drop or permit to be dropped from any vehicle or the machinery
thereof., any oil, grease or similar substance upon the streets or alleyways of the City;
(2) No vehicle with a maximum gross weight of fourteen thousand (14,000) pounds
or more shall park anywhere on or off the street in a residential zone of the City, except parking
on residential streets may be permitted in the course of making deliveries as provided in Section
10.64.020. A street is in a residential zone for purposes of this Chapter if any property on either
side of the street is in a residential zone: each block of the street will be treated as a separate unit
for purposes of determining whether overnight parking will be permitted. No truck tractor,
trailer, semi-trailer, or vehicle with a maximum gross weight of fourteen thousand (14,000)
pounds or more shall park, stand, or stop on any City street within a commercial or industrial
zone fora period in excess of two (2) hours. "Maximum gross weight" means the scale weight
of any motor vehicle, truck, truck tractor, trailer or semi-trailer to which shall be added the
maximum load to be carried thereon as set by the licensee in his application for a license or as
marked on the vehicle, whichever is greater. i is
C'ha flao 9408t
will b
permitted,
(3) No unlicensed vehicle shall be parked upon the streets of the City;
Ordinance Amending Section 10.52.030 - 1
(4) No boat, motor home, camp trailer, trailer, fifth wheel, pickup camper,
snowmobile, or utility trailer as defined in Title 25 shall be stored or maintained on any public
street, right-of-way, or other public areas; except such items may be parked in public right-of-
way in front of an owner's property for a period of seventy-two L�21 hours in any given two-
week period for loading and unloading purposes. Guests of the owner may temporarily park, in
public right-of-way, in front of the owner's property for a period of seventy-two (72) in any
given two-week period only if the boat, motor home, camp trailer, trailer, fifth wheel, pickup,
camper, snowmobile, or utility trailer, as defined by Title 25, of the guests cannot be
accommodated due to sire, on the owner's driveway. (Ord. 3171 Sec. 3, 1996; Ord. 3009 Sec. 1,
1994; Ord. 3005, Sec. 2, 1994; Ord. 1678 Sec. 1, 1974; Prior Code Sec. 8-32.12).
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,
passage, and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this day of .. __ _ 201 L
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debbie Clark Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
Ordinance Amending Section 10.52.030 -2
Reference 2 - Proposed Ordinance
amending Title 12
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington,
Amending Section 12.36.020 "Definitions" Providing and
Clarifying the Definition of "Development Activities" to
Include Business Licenses, Special and Conditional Use
Permits
WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Growth Management Act, the City has adopted
concurrency requirements to insure the City's transportation and utility systems will be adequate
to serve current and future development within the City without an unacceptable reduction and
level of services; and
WHEREAS, the development activities triggering these concurrency requirements are
changes in the use of real property, and to avoid ambiguity, require a specific definition
sufficient for general outstanding; and
WHEREAS, to clarify those activities constituting "development activities", should be
clarified; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 12.36.020 entitled `'Definitions" of the Pasco Municipal
Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
12.36.020 DEFINITIONS. Except as specifically defined in this Chapter or
elsewhere in the Pasco Municipal Code, all words shall carry their customary meaning.
(1) Adequate — means transportation or utility facilities meet or exceed the City's
level of service as established in the Comprehensive Plan and or the Comprehensive Water and
Sewer Plan.
(2) Capacity for Transportation—means the maximum number of vehicles that can be
accommodated during a specific travel period at a specific level of service.
(3) Capacity for Utilities — means the number of equivalent residential units that can
be accommodated by the water and sewer system.
(4) Completion of Development — means that a certificate of occupancy, ep rmit
issuance, or other formal approval has been issued by the City authorizing occupancy and/or the
use of development.
Ordinance Amending Section 12.36.020 - 1
(5) Concurrent —means physical improvements or transportation and utility strategies
are in place at the completion of development, or the financial commitment is in place to
complete the needed improvements or strategies within six years.
(6) Development Activities — means any construction or reconstruction that expands a
building, plat4ing a division of land, or change of use requiring a business liggose- occup
registration= conditional or special permit. or any use of real property which requires review,
approval and/or permitting by the City.
(7) Financial Commitment— means revenue designated in the most currently adopted
Transportation Improvement Plan for transportation facilities or the most current adopted Capital
Improvement Plan for utility facilities through a six-year period or revenue that is assured by an
applicant in a form approved by the City,
(8) Incidental Residential Permit — means a permit for any activity other than the
initial permit for the construction of a single family dwelling on a lot.
(9) Transportation Facility -- means arterial, collector and local streets maintained by
the City and transit routes operated by the Ben Franklin Transit Authority.
(a) Existing transportation facilities — are those facilities in place at the time a
concurrency test is applied.
(b) Planned transportation facilities — are those facilities identified in the
Comprehensive Plan and/or scheduled to be constructed as shown in the Six-year Street
Improvement Program.
(10) Utility Facility—means the water and sewer system maintained by the City.
(a) Existing utility facilities — are those facilities in place at the time a,
concurrency test is applied.
(b) Planned utility facilities — are those facilities identified in the
Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan and/or scheduled to be constructed as shown in
the Six-year Street Capital Improvement Program.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,
passage, and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by Iaw this day of , 2011.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
Ordinance Amending Section 12.36,020 - 2
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debbie Clark Leland B, Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
Ordinance Amending Section 12,36,020 -3
Reference 3 - Letter from DKB, Inc.
(with representative photos)
DKB , INC .
N11r. (; 1. AN 1CA1, r N SUl. AT10N & CUNSTRUC'r10 N $ IsRV I (: FS
PASCO CITY HALL
PEC,EIVE0
.,,ll
April G,2011 CITY MANAGER'S
p OFFICE
Gary Crutchfield
Pasco City Manage:
525 N Third Ave.
Pasco,WA 99301
Re:Semi Truck Storage on California Ave.
Subject:Request for Pasco Government to take action to abate the issue.
Dear Mr. Crutchfield,
I have previously sent a request to your office to assist in the issue of commercial semi-trucks and trailers
utilizing our street to operator and locate their business without purchasing land or building or paying taxes.
Originally it was the Unrenzo 'Trucking firm and the city won out on that issue. They purchased land and
conducted their business from that location.That was multiple years ago and I appreciate the assistance on that
issue as it prevented us from selling this location and moving our business to a community that values it's
businesses Times have changed again, for several years I have worked with code enforcement and the police
officers that man this area in an attempt to keep the trucking business from utilizing this area as their offices
and maintenance facilities, lurch has been a great resource however he is limited by the codes and lack of
interest in resolving this issue by the city engineers. The city engineers have told me that California Ave is an
overflow for the truck traffic off of Oregon.I find that hard to believe as California is a land locked street on
both ends as it dead heads at both ends They tell me they cannot put up loading zones or no parking signs to
assist the business on the street from having commercial trucks and trailers stored in front of our business,Yet
code enforcement tells me that it is illegal for trucks to park and use this street for storage east of California.
The bottom line is no business should have to contend with or compete with trucking business operating from
public streets when they use the streets for storage of their corporate equipment,and maintain their equipment
while parked on the public streets. They use the school pa:king Ict as an employee parking lot for their drivers,
They use the land next to the street for their trash disposal,while all other licensed business in the community
have to pay for the storage,maintenance facilities,offices,and ETC for their business.
Attached you will find photographic records since September of 2010 detailing what we contend with every
single day. I have been told that the parking time is limited.However you will find in these photos trailers stored
on the street since September 2010. It is the same group day in and day out,
DKB, inc. owns the property we operate from and have enjoyed seeing the commercial growth in this area.
Our firm is currently looking to expand out facilities in the near future- The principals of our firm have tc
determine if we invest the funds will it be a wise investment. Without some change in how the trucks and
trucking firms are allowed to use the street in front of our facility, we will be forced to look to another
community and take our 60 employees elsewhere
702 N CALIPORNIA AVC. Tttl-CITIC'.S, UeA 993111
PRONE 509-545.1895 • t°Ax: 5o9-545-3ABn
WW%V-1DK131 NC NET
-2— Apnl G,2011
I am iooLng forward to your input on how the City of Pasco will be addressing these issues to the near future.
Our thoughts would to be put a 2 hour limit on commercial vehicle parking and install signs to keep those
commercial vehicles from parking long term on the street. Passing a code making it illegal to m-Alntaui
commercial vehicled cif the?tfee wotid be helpful.
Respectfully
R Dean gurows
President
DKB,Inc.
Cc.lTa}'or pro-term Rebecca Francik
Councilman Al Yenny
T.Miller Attorney for DKB,Inc.
T
� I �
' !`
� v'
�, r �� -_
S,•, XYi ''��'.
i
b of L4
ter.
LF
IP N�It
FW
#_. ,
�_
.y
•^'+���.
��
� --
�.
.r
ll -
(�r
��
1
• r
.`
'.'y.
r.
.�
1
'r • �
r' ♦ °
•w•��y..
� _ '� �
ij - - _
.: �„�