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