Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010.01.11 Council Workshop Packet AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL Workshop Meeting 7:00 p.m. January 11, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL: (a) Pledge of Allegiance. 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) Potential Land Exchange with DNR: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield,City Manager dated January 6, 2010. 2. Vicinity Map. 3. Letter to City Manager from DNR dated 11/30/09. 4. Proposed Agreement(Letter of Intent). (b) Code Amendment: Recreation Vehicles Parking in Suburban Zones (MF#CA09-002): 1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner 1 dated January 7, 2010. 2. Proposed Ordinance. 3. Current allowed RV Parking Areas in RS Zones. 4. Memo to the Planning Commission dated 12/17/09. 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 11/19/09 and 12117/09. 6. PMC 25.78.030. (c) Federal Legislative Consulting Agreement: 1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated January 6, 2010. 2. Proposed Agreement. 5. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) (b) (c) 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (a) (b) (c) 7. ADJOURNMENT REMINDERS: 1. 12:00 p.tn., Monday, January 11, Pasco Red Lion - Pasco Chamber of Commerce Luncheon Meeting, ("Current and Future State of our Educational System," presented by Saundra hill. Superintendent,Pasco School District) (ALL COUNCILMEMBERS INVITED TO ATTEND) 2. 6:30 p.m., Monday, January 11, City Hall Conference Room #1 -Old Fire Pension Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS,Rep.; MAYOR JOYCE OLSON, Alt.) 3. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, .January 12, Senior Center - Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Rep.; BOB HOFFMANN,Ali.) 4. 7:00 p.m.,Tuesday,January 12, Senior Center-Community Forum. 5. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, January 14, Cousin's Restaurant- BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; TOM LARSEN,Alt.) 6. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, January 14, Transit Facility - Ben-Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER MATT WATKINS, Rep., MIKE GARRISON,Alt.) 7. 11:30 a.m., Friday, January 15, Sandberg Event Center- Benton-Franklin Council of Governments Board Meeting. (MAYOR JOYCE OLSON,Rep.; COUNCTLMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Alt.) AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council January 6, 2010 FROM: Gary CrutchA ty Manager Workshop Mtg.: 1/11/10 Business Mtg.: 1/19/10 SUBJECT: Potential Land Exchange with DNR 1. REFERENCE(S): 1. Vicinity Map. 2. Letter to City Manager from DNR dated 11/30/09 3. Proposed Agreement (Letter of Intent) II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL/ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1/11: Discussion 1/19: MOTION: 1 move to approve the letter of intent with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. III. FISCAL IMPACT: Between$10,000 and $20,000 for appraisals/administrative costs IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has owned about 300 acres in west Pasco, bounded by roads 72 and 84 and I-182 and Argent Road since statehood. The Pasco School District about 10 years ago acquired 80 acres from DNR, which is now the site of the new Chiawana High School. Most of the remaining 200 acres continues to be farmed under a lease by DNR to a local farm operator. B) As publicly-owned property, the parcel is not on the tax rolls and does not generate local tax revenue to local agencies (city, school, county, port, etc.). Due to the extraordinary growth over the past decade along the I-182 corridor, the DNR site is now virtually surrounded by urban development and is functionally convenient to the I-182/Road 68 interchange. Most urban development projects require land ownership for financing purposes, but DNR's practice/preference is to lease its land so as to provide annual income for the state's school trust fund; hence, urban development of the 200 acres is highly unlikely unless a party is willing and capable of exchanging a different parcel of equal value and of comparable ease for leasing purposes. C) The city owns 14 farm circles in support of its Process Water Reuse Facility (PWRF), lying east of SR395 in the vicinity of Foster Wells Road. All 14 circles are under lease for farming purposes and produce annual income accordingly. Those farm circles present a viable opportunity for the city to exchange income producing land of comparable value for the DNR circles lying west of Road 68. D) Staff has discussed the potential exchange concept with DNR representatives over the past year. DNR has tentatively agreed to an exchange process, which could result in the city's receipt of the Road 68 properties in exchange for a comparable value of the city's farm circles and possibly sell the remaining city farm circles to DNR for current appraised value. The exchange process required for DNR's involvement is reflected in the proposed agreement (letter of intent). 4(a) V. DISCUSSION: A) After considerable discussion between DNR and city staff, it is believed that the potential exchange has considerable merit for both parties and the concept should be pursued. A potential for the city to acquire and transfer the DNR site for urban development will foster appropriate urban development much sooner than otherwise would occur and utilize existing public infrastructure rather than extend more to outlying areas. And the sooner the DNR property develops, the sooner the community's tax base is benefitted, B) The only significant issue (other than comparable values) is the ability to use the existing city farm circles in support of the PWRF. To that end, DNR is committed to a long-term lease of the circles to the city for that purpose and is aware of the PWRF operation. Those details would be a critical element of any final exchange package, if one is to be approved. C) Given the potential benefit and modest cost of the exchange analysis and process, staff recommends approval of the letter of intent. FARMLAND SWAP w Kw t •A .�{� :rte `+ i' t J. : CITY FARM : CIRCLES ' r_y•,..t -^! y llam" .�,°:. • _ �' ,•. . , T .. t:� � +t+'s ., � L' .: j°ate•:, st. I L ,�►' �3i ��fr mss, .� -,ry:c _ � �, (is4,• i s'L'W n f+�F.��-r�`iRj� y�•iii7�p XF+"x4+� ��y+�� �Gi%�sr�li�1�'!• � •�5ri�'�}7��a_1 •�\�► `-� -'�accFt t�c.� �7[�yt3 �l,��y��3 �i.N� ` � y/v;` - f DNR SITE FIN. a• t.: Y ��s• I I 4� t � °, �"3 14 r.,.'� t'n3�:• .�I',�?' '�, j��; - O�,,;, r � .- �� F - JAL �" r• s,vil X71• �i'�'�,. h:� � r ,.,,,R- a ,� ^�`�ri�-`�,^ �?t-t.. �, A s�.7,r� �i�` ••i: IC' � � �'Yi. E•��:^.s` ` .I�/}' a • c ti s ti'T. !s:'iiQ)J r°� i.# ° i '�4�' 1-M u-, 'r" � a 'Sp�L�r•• •�/ •M�'�R`+roirr�>f `�L+'.c? �, t �'{,;:., �� ?� w ��� ���� a t )�r�{y'' � -1e r' � ,'�►"?3 `.a�7w.ra � � �,. �, ( 'U9�ZJT - ji+.�•a� •e'�•r,rP ,ri.,�Mlgis" �`+r#.�.�a �� - �• •� ?��• 1 'r'� � � _ #O �i �r�Y'i-�`� r��Y^�'^+�L y�. ,.y ;Ca� :s(���,x�•- �e ✓yj � ,ilr'r .�.• ` aye '� . ' 'F--�+L..' � aST-': � 4 !^^wLAa i �� r `i•^�i7a"'rt .i , C <i -•°.f sr ••Tie "'ms's r '' �'7+ '• '. , 77 3•S ,emu �+� 4 1',.. ♦� 1=��{'.^�h_~x �- �tJ�Aa �•' _- ._ �5� �3��1'�?1;�:� °.''�•!!S�1F514�::�•`.%t"� ��¢.,.'�.��'�.��'�;. �d Y�. ''_,�.� x��-�:...��!"._ w v)�-'�\\:ti. dlf __ � ,.� WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Caring for Natural Resources your natural resources Peter Goldmark-tommissionerof Public Lands now and forever November 30, 2009 City of Pasco "ASCO CITY HALL Attn: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager P.O. Box 293 - Pasco, WA 99301 DEC, 0 1 2005 Y „ Dear Mr. Crutchfield: I .t4iA PJLkGER'S � F;C E Please regard this letter as our expression of interest in pursuing the acquisition of farm property owned by the City of Pasco (City) in the vicinity of Foster Wells Road and US 395. In exchange,the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would offer portions of our ownership South of I-182 and West of Road 68,plus additional funds to balance exchange values. We envision this trade as a potential benefit to both parties. The City may have a desire to "steer" development,and be in a better position to capture the full value of the DNR property from commercial and residential uses and resulting tax benefits. Conversely, DNR is better suited to manage natural resource property with long-term sustainability, outside of the urban interface. DNR understands the City's ongoing and long-term commitments to apply agricultural waste water on their lands through a "State Waste Discharge Permit". As a condition of exchange DNR would be willing to lease these properties back to the City through a long-term lease agreement with subleases to farmers. DNR has a long and continuing history in the farming community. At statehood, DNR was granted Sections 16 and 36 in each Township from the Federal Government for the financial support of schools, universities, and other public trusts. Today, DNR manages more than'5.6 million acres of state-owned forest, agricultural, range, commercial, aquatic, and conservation -lands. Our Southeast Region manages over 30,000 irrigated acres, under more than 1 I 5 leases. We look forward to working with the City as a long-term partner as we pursue this exchange opportunity. Sincerely, Gary erndt Acting Southeast Region Manager Department of Natural Resources SOUTHEAST REGION 1 713 BOWERS RD 1 ELLENSBURG,WA 98926-9301 TEL(509)925-8510 1 FAX(509)925-8522 1 TTY(360)1)02-1125 1 TRS 711 i WWW.DNR.WA.GOV �< EOUALQPPoRTIINITYFfUPInYFa - ^— Q DRAFT DRAFT WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES and CITY OF PASCO LETTER OF INTENT for EXCHANGE OF REAL ESTATE 1.0 Introduction. This Letter of Intent "LOP' is an expression of the good faith intent of both parties and is not intended to be legally binding on either party, Neither this document nor anything contained herein shall be construed as an actual agreement or contract. Neither party is required to go forward with the proposal until a binding agreement is executed. City of Pasco, herein referred to as "Exchanger", holds and controls certain irrigated farm land in Franklin County which is desirable for state trust ownership. Lands under consideration for exchange or for exchange and purchase are described in Exhibit A and will he referred to in this document as"Exchange Lands". The State Department of Natural Resources, herein referred to as "State", owns and manages trust lands throughout Washington State that are isolated, scattered and otherwise less desirable for long term trust ownership, including certain property considered suitable for ownership by Exchanger. Such lands are shown in Exhibit B and will be referred to in this document as "State Lands". State proposes to exchange State Lands to Exchanger for property of equal value, and offers to purchase additional property from Exchanger, The entire transaction is herein referred to as a land exchange but is recognized to contain a purchase component if such is mutually desirable to both parties, This L01 outlines the anticipated duties, obligations and expectations of Exchanger and State while moving forward and anticipating a future formalized exchange agreement. The intent of this document is to provide guidance, direction and a framework for formal representations that may be included in subsequent binding exchange agreement, 2.0 Exchange Properties. 2.1 Exchange Lands, Exchange Lands are identified in Exhibit A. Exchanger and State will determine by mutual agreement which properties uri11 be included in the exchange or exchange- purchase. 2.2 State Lands. Pasco Farms Exchange, Draft L01 1 1/6/2010 DRAFT DRAFT State Lands are identified in Exhibit B. State and Exchanger will determine by mutual agreement whether all or portions of the property will be included in the exchange. 3.0 Deeds. 3.1 Exchange Lands shall be conveyed by Statutory Warranty Deed, 3.2 State Lands shall be conveyed by Quitclaim Deed signed by the Governor. State's deed may include reservation of minerals as set forth in RCW 79.11.210. Should Exchanger have mineral rights comparable in quality to State's mineral rights, an exchange of mineral rights can be considered. 4.0 Title Insurance. 4.1 Exchange Lands: Exchanger shall provide a preliminary commitment for title insurance to State covering Exchange Lands within 60 days of execution of this LOI. Exchanger will provide a final title commitment at closing of the exchange. Title insurance will be for the amount of State's indicated values (appraised value accepted by State). Exchanger shall be responsible for any fees associated with obtaining the preliminary title commitment and final title insurance. The preliminary title commitment shall cover all Exhibit A properties and include paper or electronic copies of all encumbrance documents, copies of all deeds for subject properties going back for at least 20 years, and legal descriptions provided in electronic format if possible. 4.2 State Lands: State shall provide a title abstract from the State Title and Records Office for State Lands within 60 days of execution of this LO1. Exchanger shall have the option of obtaining a preliminary commitment for title insurance to the State Lands. State will not provide or pay for a preliminary or final commitment for title insurance or title insurance for State Lands. 5.0 Encumbrances. Exchanger and State shall provide encumbrance documents on respective ownerships as available whether recorded or unrecorded or whether the encumbrances are listed on any preliminary commitment for title insurance. Exchanger desires to retain a leasehold interest in the Exchange Lands. State and Exchanger will explore mutually acceptable leasing language for all or a portion of the Exhibit A property. Exchanger and State shall each be responsible for identifying and notifying the other party of unacceptable encumbrances or conditions to the title on properties being acquired as mentioned Pasco Farms Exchange, Draft LOI 2 1/6/2010 DRAFT DRAFT in Section 4.0, 6.0 Property Information. Both parties will provide property information that may be of use to a property appraiser or landowner, such as: surveys, crop reports, water rights, aerial photo images, leases, irrigation system information, improvements, known hazardous materials. 7.0 Appraisal and Appraisal Review. In the interest of facilitating the exchange Exchanger agrees to pay half the cost of completing an appraisal for all properties included in the proposal. Exchanger may enter into a separate contract with the appraiser to pay half the fee, or Exchanger may provide funds to State prior to appraiser beginning work on the appraisal. In the event the exchange is not completed,neither party will be obligated to reimburse the other for appraisal costs. In order for State to maintain fiduciary responsibility to trust beneficiaries, State must ensure all appraisal work is impartial, objective, and meets prescribed standards. To achieve this objective, Exchanger and State agree to implement the following appraisal procedure: Unless otherwise agreed in writing, all properties included in the exchange proposal shall be appraised to USPAP standards by a licensed land appraiser to conclude a value that supports the appraiser's highest and best use determination. State shall control the appraisal process by selecting and contracting with an appraisal firm that is acceptable to both parties and is on the State's list of personal service contractors for appraisals. Exchanger and State will be named as co-clients. Exchanger and State shall each receive one or more copies of the completed appraisal. Exchanger will review the draft appraisal bid solicitation letter and instructions prior to State sending to appraisal firms). State will contact Exchanger to discuss appraisal bids in advance of the State engagement of appraisal contractors, Exchanger and State will have an opportunity to review the appraisal and jointly submit, through State, comments and concerns to the appraiser for clarification/correction of content and/or conclusions. The final product when accepted by Exchanger and State will be used as a basis for negotiation of exchange equity. 8.0 Exchange Equity. State shall establish exchange and acquisition equity based on internal review and acceptance of appraised values. State and Exchanger will propose parcel configurations until each party is satisfied that equitable balance is achieved, State exchange law (RCW 79.17.010)provides that the exchange be of equal value, Additionally, State is authorized to purchase additional property frorn Excha eat market value. 9.0 Administrative Costs. State desires to obtain cash from Exchanger to cover State's administrative costs of this Pasco Farms Exchange,Draft LOf 3 1/6/2010 DRAFT DRAFT transaction, as provided for in RCW 79.17.010. Statute allows State to collect up to 5% of the value of the State land from the Exchanger and to convey property of equal value as compensation. Example: if Exchanger pays $100,000 in exchange costs, Exchanger will receive $100,000 in land as part of the exchange, An initial payment of$10,000 for staff time and incidental costs is required in order for the State to begin work on the exchange. Upon completion of the exchange, this amount plus the portion of the appraisal fee paid by Exchanger will be credited to Exchanger, and the remaining costs will be collected at closing. If the exchange is not completed, the unspent portion of the $10,000 deposit will be refunded to Exchanger. If$10,000 or more has been expended at the time the exchange terminates, no refunds will be given, The total cost of this exchange is estimated to be $100,000. At the time the exchange agreement is finalized, the actual amount will be determined and memorialized in the agreement. For information purposes, it is common for exchanges to cost between one hundred and two hundred fifty thousand dollars, depending on complexity. Exchanger understands and agrees to provide cash at closing in exchange for equivalent value property. 10.0 Exchange Agreement. A binding Exchange Agreement is anticipated to be executed by both parties once exchange equity is achieved. The Exchange Agreement will be in a form substantially as provided by State and shall include standard clauses that identify the terms and conditions of the exchange as mutually agreed upon by the parties. The document shall be executed prior to Board review. 11.0 Board Review. All transactions are subject to Board of Natural Resources review and approval as provided by RCW 43.30.215. The Board is an independent body with full authority over State land transaction proposals. Additionally, the Board acts, by law, as the Board of Appraisers and establishes values for all state trust land leaving State ownership. State shall retain responsibility to present and seek Board approval of the proposed transactions. Exchanger will be notified of Board presentation meetings, but will not be required to participate. 12.0 Taxes and Assessments. 12.1 Exchanger shall be responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments on Exchange Lands prorated to time of closing, 12.2 State shall be responsible for payment of all taxes and assessments on State Lands prorated to time of closing. Land in State ownership is exempt from property tax assessment. 12.3 Exchanger shall pay any excise tax due the counties at time of closing, 12,4 Exchange Lands held in Open Space or Forest Land tax designations under RCW Pasco Farms Exchange, Draft L01 4 1/6/2010 DRAFT DRAFT 84.33 and 84.34 may be subject to compensating tax upon sale or exchange to a tax exempt agency. Compensating tax exemptions that may apply are identified in RCW 84.33.140(13)(a) and RCW 84.34.108(6)(a). Should exemptions not apply, and compensating tax become due, the amount of the exchange equity will be adjusted in proportion to the tax obligation within limits acceptable to State, and Exchanger shall be responsible for payment of the tax at closing. 13,0 Public Outreach and Hearing. State law requires public hearings be held as provided by RCW 79.17.050 before exchanging any state land. State shall be responsible for establishing and conducting such hearings. In addition, State may hold one or more informational public meetings to respond to questions and gain public input. Exchanger will be notified of all meetings and hearings. Exchanger agrees to provide at least one representative for all informal public meetings (if any) and for one hearing. Exchanger shall also provide State with a contact address, contact person, and phone number that the State can provide to the public or media should they have questions of the Exchanger. 14.0 Miscellaneous. 14.1 Exchanger and State agree to segregate Lands on final Exhibits A and B and avoid management activities such as land sales, new leases and easements ("management activities"), and abstain from undertaking activities resulting in an encumbrance of the property or affecting the condition of the property unless advance notification is provided to the other party. If in the opinion of the party seeking to acquire the lands, it is determined that the new management activities affect the value or condition of the property, such land may be removed from the exchange at the option of the party acquiring the lands. Upon execution of the Exchange Agreement, further management activities or activities that may affect the value or condition of the property shall not be undertaken unless the party owning said lands obtains prior written consent from the acquiring party of said lands. .14.2 Exchanger and State agree to continue to manage respective ownerships to protect the lands from losses such as fire and theft and to maintain compliance with all applicable laws. 14.3 State is not represented by any real estate agent(s) as part of this proposed transaction. State shall not be responsible to pay any fees to any realty agent or broker associated with the proposed transaction. 14.4 Any and all documents in State's possession may be subject to public disclosure under the Public Disclosure Act(RCW 42.17). Documents such as legal correspondence and appraisals may be exempt as provided in RCW 42.17.310. 14.5 Each party shall have an opportunity to conduct due diligence on the property to be acquired and shall have a right to inspect such properties to detennine the Pasco Farms Exchange, Draft L01 5 1/6/2010 DRAFT DRAFT environmental condition of the property and determine whether the property is suitable for its intended use. 14.6 The parties shall negotiate mutually agreed upon representations and warranties to be included in the Exchange Agreement regarding the condition of the properties to be included in the exchange. 15.0 Notices. 15.1 Exchanger Notice. Gary Crutchfield, City Manager 525 N Third Ave PO Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 509-545-3404 Fax: 509-545-3403 15.2 State Notice. Julie Armbruster, Project Manager L 111 Washington St SE PO Box 47014 Olympia, WA 98504-7014 360-902-1636 Fax: 360-902-1789 With Copy to: Jeanne Williams, Region Transactions Coordinator 713 Sowers Road Ellensburg, WA 98926-9301 (509) 925-0908 16.0 Process'Time Line. The following dates are suggested targets and not firm commitments. 2010 February Finalize and sign Letter of Intent May State solicits appraisal requests and engages appraisal contractors. September Appraiser completes appraisals of properties. September Public hearing completed and comments reviewed, October Appraisal review completed. Values accepted. Pasco Farms Exchange, Draft L01 6 1/6/2010 DRAFT DRAFT December Exchange Agreement reached and executed. 2011 February Board of Natural Resources presentation and decision.and City decisions obtained. April Closing of exchange/purchase. 17.0 Signatures. Neither this document nor anything contained herein shall be construed as an actual agreement or contract. This Letter Of Intent is not intended to have legally binding effect, but is an expression of the good faith intentions of both parties, CITY OF PASCO STATE OF WASHINGTON "EXCHANGER" DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES "STATE" By: By. Title: Title: Date: Date: Pasco Farms Exchange, Draft L0I 7 1/6/2010 DRAFT DRAFT WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES and CITY OF PASCO LETTER OF INTENT EXHIBIT A EXCHANGE LANDS Parcel # Approx. Acreage SubSection - Section. Township, Range All or part of the following sections, to be further defined and described prior to contracting an appraisal; Sections 2, 3, 11 and 12 of Township 9 North, Range 30 East, W. M., and Section 34 of Township 10 North, Range 30 East, W. M., all in Franklin County. Pasco Farms Exchange, Draft L01 8 1/6/2010 DRAFT DRAFT WASHFNGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES and CITY OF PASCO LETTER OF INTENT EXHIBIT B STATE LANDS Parcel # Approx. Acreage SubSection - Section, Township, Range Portions of Section 16, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, W. M., Franklin County, to be further defined and described prior to contracting an appraisal. Pasco Farms Exchange, Draft L0I 9 1/6/2010 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council January 7,2010 TO: Gary Crutchfiel a ger Workshop Mtg.: 1/11/10 Rick White, Z,4 Community& Ec nomi evelopment Director FROM: Shane O'Neill,Planner 1 SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT: Recreational Vehicles Parking in Suburban Zones (MF# CA 09- 0 1. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Current allowed RV parking areas in RS 7.ones 3. Memo to the Planning Commission Dated 12/11/09 4. Planning Commission Minutes Dated 11/19/09 and 12'17`09 5. PMC 25.78.030 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: I/I1: DISCUSSION III. FISCAL IMPACT: NONE IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A. The City has zoning standards dealing with the storage of RV's in residential zoning districts that were developed as the result of property owner complaints over RV's parked on city streets and in front yards. B. In 1999 the City & County adopted joint zoning standards that created consistent RV parking regulations for both the City and the unincorporated Riverview area, which prohibits parking recreational vehicles/equipment in any front yard area within suburban (R-S-1, RS-12 and RS-20) zoning districts. C. "Front yard" means an open and unoccupied space extending the full width of the lot between any building and any street right-of-way adjacent the lot. D. In mid-2009, in response to a complaint, a number of property owners in the neighborhood south of Sylvester Street and west of Road 34 (Riverhaven) were issued correction notices to relocate RV's behind the front yard areas as required by f MC. E. As a result of those notices, one property owner submitted a written request to have the City review and possibly amend the current RV storage standards to permit the use of front yard areas in suburban zoning districts for RV storage and parking. F. The City notified the Riverhaven neighborhood property owners that the issue was under consideration,and again notified them of the Planning Commission's consideration of the matter. G. The Planning Commission reviewed five alternates for addressing the storage of RV's in suburban districts and held several workshops and a public hearing in late 2009 to consider the issue. At the public hearing, one property owner offered testimony opposing private property regulation of RV parking. H. The alternates ranged from permitting RV's anywhere in front yard areas to pern-daing RV's with various setback provisions. There was also a "no action" alternate that would leave the current code in place. V. DISCUSSION: A. During the workshop on 10/15/2009 and the hearing on 11/19/09, the Planning Commission tentatively identified Alternate # 1 (RV's in front yards with a 15' setback) and Alternate#5 (no change in existing code) as alternatives for further consideration. 4(b) B. At the 12/17/09 Planning Commission meeting, staff reconunended the Commission take no action(Alternative #5) on this item, leaving the PMC as is (prohibiting RV parking in any front yard area in suburban zones). This recommendation was made because the issue did not appear to be significant from a city-wide land use policy standpoint; the existing code provides an easily identified area for allowed RV parking; few property owners know where their property line is located and enforcement would be problematic and the proposed amendment would cause inconsistency in the joint zoning standards between the City and County. C. The Planning Commission subsequently recommended a code amendment as outlined in Alternate # 1. The recommended amendment would permit RV parking in front yard areas on or adjacent to driveways provided the RV is setback a minimum of 15 feet from the front property line.The Commission reasoned that it is important to retain the County codes existing prior to annexation. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING AND AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH PARKING STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN SUBURBAN ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical development within their borders and ensure that 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, the City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations; and has detennined that to further the purpose of comprehensive planning and to maintain and protect the welfare of the 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 25.12.315 of the Pasco Municipal Code be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.78.140 RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT PARKING. , eamp , fifth WhOrdIS, , 81dity tFRPOFS, herein flaay be D 21., ,and R-4 all resident and - 'Vbe—&ur�, d-with all weather n Additional", lam-� , �,amply with the padc-in way. WeRified , - teMpeFRMY pa* en driveways fet! pevi,ads-net-4..-:xeeed 10 day�, in any 60 d"Ve6e l(4rd- 444 goo, 2, 1999) 25.78.140 RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT PARKING. Boats, motor homes, camp trailers travel trailers, fifth wheels, pickup campers, utility trailers, and snowmobiles as defined herein maybe stored as follows: I) In all vard areas within the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts; 2 No closer than fifteen 15 feet from any ri t-of-way in the RS-20 RS-12 and R-S-1 zones and as conditioned in Section 25.78.030 4 3 All storage areas shall be surfaced with all-weather materials such as asphalt brick stone concrete or W- ve i 4 The stora a and Darking of said items in all residential districts shall at all times comply with the parking conditions in Section 25.78.030(4); and 5) Bona fide guests of the occupants of the -premises may temporarily park on driveways for periods not to exceed 10 days in any 60 day period. (Ord. 3354 Sec, 2 1999) Section 2. 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 2010. Joyce Olson Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS 'rO FORM: Debra L. Clark Leland B. Kerr City Clerk City Attorney Current allowable REFERENCE #2 ■ RV parking area Alternative #S i w a O x � SFR SFR 2 H F1 H a 0 GARAGE GARAGE a` N Q W O W C� Q W DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY 7 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE GRAVEL SHOULDER GRAVEL SHOULDER EDGE OF ASPHALT EDGE OF ASPHALT REFERENCE #3 MEMORANDUM DATE: December 11, 2009 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I SUBJECT: Code Amendment (MF# CA09-002 - Recreational Vehicle Parking in Suburban Zones The purpose of this Code Amendment (MF# CA09-002) is to review the existing standards for recreational vehicle parking in suburban residential zones. For many years the city has had zoning standards dealing with the storage of RV's in residential zoning districts. Essentially those standards permit the parking and storage of RV's in all yard areas of the R-1 through R-4 zones and only in the side and rear yards in the suburban zones. In areas of the County, later annexed into the City, many residents in suburban district have continued to park their RV's in front yard areas as they did before annexation. Staff has been asked to review the residential RV parking provisions with the Planning Commission to explore the possibility of developing modifications to the existing standards. Previous staff reports presented five separate code amendment alternatives to the Planning Commission; one being a no-action alternative. At the November 19, 2009 meeting the Planning Commission tentatively identified Alternative #1 as their preferred alternative. During the same meeting some Commissioners indicated they were in favor of the no-action alternative (Alternative #5). Staff did not sense that the Commission was strongly in favor of recommending this change in our zoning code. Nonetheless, a proposed ordinance enacting Alternative #1 has been included should the Planning Commission decide to adopt the code amendment. Should the Planning Commission decide to adopt the no-action alternative (Alternative #5) no further action would be required on this item. Contained in the packet is an illustration of the new allowable RV parki rig areas associated with Alternative #1. i Findings of Fact 1) The City's development regulations include provisions for the location of recreational vehicles in all residential zones. 2) The Pasco Municipal Code prohibits the parking/storage of recreational vehicles in any front yard area in the R-S-1, R-S-12 and R-S-20 zoning districts. 3) The City of Pasco has enacted development regulations as required by the Growth Management. Act that encourage orderly growth and development. These land use regulations also further the purpose of promoting the health, safety, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the community, and are designed; a. To encourage and facilitate the orderly growth and development of the Pasco Urban Area; b. To provide adequate open space for light and air, to prevent overcrowding of the land, and to lessen congestion on the streets; c. To secure economy in municipal expenditures, to facilitate adequate provisions for transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks, and other public facilities and services; d. To increase the security of home life and preserve and create a more favorable environment for citizens and visitors of the Pasco Urban Area; e. To secure safety from fire, panic and other dangers; f. To stabilize and improve property values; g. To enhance the economic and cultural well being of the inhabitants of Pasco; h. To promote the development of a more wholesome, serviceable and attractive city resulting from an orderly, planned use of resources. Conclusions Based on Findings of Fact 1) Adoption of Alternative #1 would allow RV's to be located in a portion of the front yard in Suburban zones. 2) Recreational vehicles parked in front yard areas in residential zones may present traffic sight visibility hazards for motorists backing out of adjoining driveways, and contribute to an overcrowded streetscape. 3) A fifteen (15) foot RV parking setback will alleviate potential traffic hazards created by locating RV's in front yard areas. 4) A fifteen (1 S) foot RV parking setback will help maintain an appropriately open streetscape. 2 Recommendation Staff recommends that no action be taken on this proposed code amendment. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend to City Council approval of Alternative #1, then the following motions are in order: MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact as contained in the December 17, 2009 staff report. MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve a Code Amendment to modify recreational vehicle parking standards in suburban zones as identified in Alternative #1. Current allowable NeW Allowable RV parking area RV parking area Alternative #1 a w A SFR 0 °x SFR z w � x w w 0 a a Cx7 GARAGE GARAGE H a DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY 5' 5 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE GRAVEL SHOULDER GRAVEL SHOULDER RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT-OF-WAY REFERENCE #4 11/19/09 Planning Commission Minutes A. CODE AMENDMENT RV Parking in suburban zones Ci[ tywide jCity of Pasco) IMF# CA 09- 0021 Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated this item was previously presented at a workshop and briefly described the proposed code amendment. From past workshops the Planning Commission identified alternatives 1 and 5 as preferred alternatives to consider for a possible code amendment. After briefly discussing the alternatives Staff reviewed a letter from a property owner Tim Fife addressing a possible 6th alternative of measuring a set back from the roadway instead of the right-of-way line. Commissioner Anderson asked what regulations applied when the properties were annexed into the city. Staff stated due to the Growth Management Act, the City and County were required to develop joint and consistent zoning regulations. Therefore the County has RV parking restrictions which were the same as the City's. The properties were annexed in 1996 or 1997 about the time when the ordinance was created. Prior to that, the County did not have parking standards for RV's. Commissioner Anderson stated when areas were annexed property owners were told that there would not be any lifestyle changes. The City needs to honor that. Staff stated grandfathering is difficult when it comes to the issue of anything that is mobile. Staff questioned if his statement is relative to changing it to the current County code or what the County code was when the property was originally developed. Commissioner Anderson did not feel there needed to be grandfathering, however the City needed to be mindful of not significantly altering lifestyle. Chairman Samuel asked if the present City and County code are the same. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Anderson stated he was in favor of the alternative which allowed parking along the driveway with a minimum of a 15 foot setback. Chairman Samuel asked what was the level of energy citizens have related to complaints on the issue. Staff stated they do receive complaints that are reported to Code Enforcement. Commissioner Little questioned the landscaping requirements for the front yard of the smaller lots. Staff stated landscaping needed to equal 50% of the front yard exclusive of the driveway area. Commissioner Little stated it becomes somewhat restrictive where you cannot park in the front of the house or on the side. Chairman Samuel clarified that is the current code. Chairman Samuel opened the public hearing. Laurie Fife, 411 Road 37 stated her husband sent in the letter. They have been issued citations from Code Enforcement and have since put in parking alongside the garage for RV parking. She did not understand setbacks and the purpose for setbacks. She did not understand what visibility was about. She stated lives in a recreational area and property owners have boats, etc. and she believes this does not create an eyesore. Chairman Samuel asked Mrs. Fife if they were aware of the code when they purchased their RV. Mrs. Fife stated they owned the RV's when they were in Franklin County prior to the annexation. They poured the concrete to meet County requirements at the time. Chairman Samuel questioned Mrs. Fife if she understood why Code Enforcement has cited them. Mrs. Fife stated her husband has come in to have this addressed and they do not understand why there is an issue. Chairman Samuel clarified that they were unaware of the proper parking areas. Commissioner Little questioned Mrs. Fife about the location of her boat from the road. Mrs. Fife stated she had the capability to parking a vehicle and a half in front of the boat before the edge of the road. Commissioner Little stated about 20 feet. Chairman Samuel asked staff to address the 15 foot setback. Staff stated the setback was developed to maintain site visibility and the diagram was developed with the most hazardous situation as an example. Mr. White further commented stating the function of the streetscape, safety and appearance is a concern and a portion of the whole issue. Chairman Samuel clarified whether a property was annexed or not, City or County, the standard is the same. Staff stated the regulation have been in place for the past 15-20 years in the city. The driver was partially aesthetics and safety. R-S-12, R-S-20 and R-S-1 zones require RV's be placed in the rear or back yard due to those districts having larger setbacks. Originally RV's were being parked on streets and electrical cords were laid across driveways and sidewalks, The situation also caused an inconvenience for neighbors pulling out of their driveways who could not see around the RV. Mrs. Fife understood the explanation. Chairman called for public comment and after three calls, the public hearing was closed. Commission Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Hay, to close the hearing on the proposed RV Parking code amendment and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation for the City Council for the January 19th, 2010 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 12/17/09 Planning Commission Minutes A. CODE AMENDMENT RV Parking in suburban zones (Citywide) JCAX of Pasco)IMF# CA09- 002 Chairman Samuel read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Staff stated at the November 19, 2009 meeting the Planning Commission tentatively identified alternate #1 as their preferred alternative. During the same meeting some Commissioner's indicated they were in favor of the no action alternative. Staff did not sense that the Commission was strongly in favor of recommending this change to the zoning code. Staff recommends no action be taken on this item- Chairman Samuel questioned how long the current code has been in place. Staff stated approximately 20 years. Commissioner Little commented on the boats that have been recently vandalized in the River View area and how this might have been avoided if parked according to the current code. Commissioner Cruz stated most homeowners have boats, RV's, etc and his concern is for safety and aesthetics. Chairman Samuel clarified with Commissioner Cruz that he is in favor of Alternative #1. Commissioner Cruz stated yes. Chairman Samuel mentioned other cities and their code. He stated he is not in favor of changing the current code. He mentioned the estate fences and code enforcement. Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Little, to adopt the findings of fact as contained in the December 17, 2009 staff report. Commissioner Anderson further moved, seconded by Commissioner Little, based on the findings of fact and conclusions that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve a code amendment to modify recreational vehicle standards in suburban zones as identified in Alternative #1. Chairman Samuel voted nay. The motion passed. REFERENCE #5 PMC 25.78.030 25.78.030 GENERAL PROVISIONS, (1) The off-street parking and loading facilities required by this chapter shall be established prior to the occupancy of any new or enlarged structure; (2) Required off-street parking spaces shall provide vehicle parking only for residents, customers, patrons, and employees and shall not be used for the storage of equipment or materials, or for the sale, repair or servicing of any vehicle; (3) Any area once designated for required off-street parking shall not be used for any other purpose unless and until equal facilities are provided elsewhere and a site plan has been approved to reflect the change, or the primary use of the property is changed to a use requiring less off-street parking; (4) The required front yard in the single-family residential districts shall not be used for off-street parking for five or more cars. The storage and parking of vehicles in front yard areas of single-family properties shall be limited to that area formed and bounded by parallel lines extending from the outer dimension of a garage, carport, or parking slab to the right-of-way. An additional area between the nearest side property line and the driveway of not more than 10 x 20 feet may be used for additional parking. On lots with 100 feet of frontage or more, parking may be permitted on circular drives. All primary parking areas and driveways in front yards shall be hard surfaced except in the R-S-20 and R-S-12 districts driveways may be of an all weather surface provided the first 20 feet from the right-of-way is hard surfaced; and, (5) In the R-2, R-3 and R-4 residential districts off-street parking spaces for multiple family dwellings shall not be located in the front yard, except that a single two lane drive may extend through the required front yard provided no portion of the drive is within ten feet of a dwelling unit entry nor five feet from any portion of a residential structure. (Ord. 3354 Sec. 2, 1999.) AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council January 6, 2010 FROM: Gary Crutch ty Manager Workshop Mtg.: 1./] ]/]0 SUBJECT: Federal Legisl 'ive Consulting Agreement I. REFERENCE(S): 1. Proposed Agreement H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1/11: Discussion 1/19: MOTION: I move to approve the agreement with Gordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs for federal legislative consultant services and, further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. 111. FISCAL IMPACT: 560,000 annually IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: A) The city has contracted with the consulting firm of Gordon Thomas Honeywell (GTH) for legislative assistance at the state level for several years. In early 2009, the city entered into a separate agreement with the Washington DC division of GTH to provide for legislative consulting services specifically geared to federal funding for the Lewis Street Overpass Project. B) The initial agreement with the Washington DC, office has expired and a new agreement is needed to sustain the consulting effort on the city's behalf in Washington DC. V. DISCUSSION: A) The proposed agreement is identical to the 2009 agreement, except for the dates. The scope of work, as identified in the attachment to the agreement, still focuses on funding for construction of the Lewis Street Overpass project. B) The expense of the contract remains at S5,000 monthly ($60,000 annually). The assistance of the consultant was beneficial in 2009 through Representative Hastings' effort to obtain a $750,000 allocation for the project in the 2010 federal budget (will be received by the city this year) and working with other legislative offices to assure the best opportunity to have Pasco's project included in the new highway funding bill expected sometime within the next 18 months. C) In view of the substantial financial benefit for this particular project, staff recommends the agreement continue for another year. 4(c) CONSULTING AGREEMENT GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & CITY OF PASCO This Agreement is entered into by and between City of Pasco and any other party hereto, as is identified in the consultant's signature block below (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"), upon the following terms and conditions: A. Scope of Work. Consultant will advise and assist the City of Pasco in accordance with Consultant's Scope of Work, described in Attachment "A" hereto and incorporated herein, and Consultant will do and produce such other things as are set forth in the Scope of Work. (the "Services"). Consultant's Services will be in compliance with applicable laws, regulations, rules, orders, licenses and permits, now or hereinafter in effect, and Consultant shall furnish such documents as may be required to effect or evidence such compliance. B. Compensation; Expenses, The City of Pasco will pay Consultant for satisfactorily rendered Services in accordance with the specific tenns set forth in Attachment "A." C. Invoices; Payment. Consultant will furnish the City of Pasco invoices at regular intervals, as set forth in Attachment "A." D. Term. Consultant shall promptly begin the Services hereunder on the date set forth in Attachment "A" and shall terminate same on the date set forth in Attachment "A." The City or Consultant may tenninate Consultant services for convenience at any time prior to the termination date set forth in Attachment "A," provided that the terminating party provides 30-days written notice to the other party. E. Ownership of Work Product. The product of all work performed under this agreement, including reports, and other related materials shall be the property of the City of Pasco or its nominees, and the City of Pasco or its nominees shall have the sole right to use, sell, license, publish or otherwise disseminate or transfer rights in such work product, G. Independent Contractor. Consultant is an independent contractor and nothing contained herein shall be deemed to make Consultant an employee of the City of Pasco, or to empower Consultant to bind or obligate the City of Pasco in any way. Consultant is solely responsible for paying all of Consultant's own tax obligations, as well as those due for any employee/subcontractor permitted to work for Consultant hereunder. H. Release of Claims; Indemnity. Consultant hereby releases, and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Pasco from and against all claims, liabilities, damages and costs arising directly or indirectly out of, or related to, Consultant's fault, negligence, strict liability or produce liability of Consultant, and/or that of any permitted employee or subcontract or Consultant, pertaining to the Services hereunder. I. Assignment. Consultant's rights and obligations hereunder shall not be assigned or transferred without the City of Pasco's prior written consent; subject thereto, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' heirs and successors. J. Governing Law; Severability. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, U.S.A, (excluding conflict of laws provisions), if any term or provision of this Agreement is determined to be legally invalid or unenforceable by a court with lawful jurisdiction hereover (excluding arbitrators), such term or provision shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any remaining terms or provisions of this Agreement, and the court shall, so far as possible, construe the invalid portion to implement the original intent thereof. K. Arbitration. Any dispute between the parties related to or arising out of the subject matter of this Agreement shall be resolved exclusively through binding arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association in Washington State. L. Entire Agreement; Etc. This Agreement, and its incorporated attachments hereto, state the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof and supersede any prior agreements or understandings pertaining thereto. Any modification to this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by authorized representatives of both parties. Any provision hereof which may be reasonably deemed to survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement shall so survive, and remain in continuing effect. No delay or failure in exercising any right hereunder shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any right granted hereunder or at law by either party. CONSULTANT: CITY OF PASCO Cordon Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs Sign: Sign: Print: Dale Learn Print: Gary Crutchfield Title: Title: City Manager Date: Date: Consulting Agreement for Federal Grants re: Lewis Street Overpass Gordon Thomas Honeywell R City of Pasco Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT "A" TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & CITY OF PASCO A. Seape of Work: Consultant shall provide the City of Pasco with the following federal. governmental affair services: • Identify and track all federal grants that are available to the City of Pasco for funding the Lewis Street Overpass. • Lobby the Washington State Congressional delegation and others as necessary to pursue a congressionally directed transportation funding request in the FY2011 Congressional Budget and/or in the anticipated highway reauthorization bill for a road project related to the Lewis Street Overpass. Lobby the Washington State Congressional delegation and others as necessary to assure inclusion within the Highway Reauthorization Bill authorization and funding for a "bridge replacement program" or similar funding program for which the Lewis Street Overpass Project would qualify. Organize meetings for City of Pasco officials, local community leaders and business leaders to support the congressional transportation request. • Provide the City of Pasco with periodic reports and updates on effort, status and progress. B. Compensation/Expenses: The City of Pasco shall pay Consultant a monthly fee of$5,000 for the services listed above. Consultant shall only bill communication expenses. The expenses shall not exceed $2,500 for the term of the contract. C. Invoices/Payments: (a) Consultant shall furnish the City of Pasco with invoices for services performed on a monthly basis, and (b) the City of Pasco shall pay each of Consultant's invoices within thirty (30) days after the City's receipt and verification of invoice. D. Term of Agreement: Consultant's services shall commence on January 1, 2010 and shall terminate on December 31, 2010. Consulting Agreement for Federal Grants re: Lewis Street Overpass Gordon Thomas Honeywell & City of Pasco Page 3 of 3