HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014.05.05 Council Meeting PacketRegular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m.
May 5, 2014
3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion (in the form listed below).
There will be no separate discussion of these items. If further discussion is desired by
Councihnembers or the public, the item may be removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular
Agenda and considered separately.
4.
5.
6.
7.
(a) Approval of Minutes:
1. Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated April 21, 2014.
(b) Bills and Communications: (A detailed listing of claims is available for review in the
Finance Manager's office.)
1. To approve claims in the total amount of $2,751,659.34.
(c) Hanford Communities Interlocal Agreement:
1. Agenda Report from Gary Crutchfield, City Manager dated April 23, 2014.
2. Hanford Communities — Proposed Interlocal Agreement.
To approve the Hanford Communities Interlocal Agreement and, further, authorize the
Mayor to sign the Agreement.
(d) , - Resolution No. 3547, a Resolution accepting work performed by Watts Construction,
Inc. under contract for the Commercial - Kahlotus Sanitary Sewer Lift Station project.
1. Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak, City Engineer dated April 21, 2014.
2. Commercial- Kahlotus Sanitary Sewer Lift Station — Vicinity Map.
3. Commercial - Kahlotus Sanitary Sewer Lift Station — Resolution.
To approve Resolution No. 3547, accepting the work performed by Watts Construction,
Inc., under contract for the Commercial - Kahlotus Sanitary Sewer Lift Station project.
(RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read.
PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
(a)
(b)
(c)
VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS:
(a)
(b)
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS:
(a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers
(b) City Manager Selection Process Committee Report
(c)
HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
RELATING THERETO:
(a) 0 - South 1P Avenue Vacation (Chavez) (MF #VAC2014 -003).
1. Agenda Report from Dave McDonald, City Planner dated April 29, 2014.
2. South l 1th Avenue Vacation — Overview Map.
3. South 11`" Avenue Vacation — Vicinity Map.
4. South l 11h Avenue Vacation —Proposed Ordinance.
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING
Regular Meeting 2 May 5, 2014
Ordinance No. , an Ordinance vacating a portion of South 11 Ih Avenue.
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , vacating the east 10 feet of South 11 s
Avenue between West "A" Street and West `B" Street and, further, authorize publication
by summary only.
8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS:
(a) Ordinance No. , an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending Chapter
14.12 "Street and Utilities Assessment Reimbursement Agreements — Latecomers
Agreements "; and amending Section 13.36.040 "Extension of Lines — Installation by
Requesting Party'; repealing Section 13.36.050 "Installation Costs — Reimbursement of
Costs by Subsequent Users'; and amending Section 3.07.180 "Fee Summary."
1. Agenda Report from Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager dated May 1, 2014.
2. Latecomers Agreements — Proposed Ordinance.
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending Chapter 14.12; amending
Section 13.36.040; repealing Section 13.36.050 and amending Chapter 3.07 of the Pasco
Municipal Code regarding Latecomers Agreements and, further, authorize publication by
summary only.
(b) Fencing Standards — I -182 Overlay District.
1. Agenda Report from Rick Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director
dated April 22, 2014.
2. Fencing Standards — Vicinity Map.
3. Fencing Standards — Proposed Ordinance.
4. Fencing Standards — Proposed Resolution.
5. Fencing Standards — Current Photos of I -182 Fence.
Ordinance No. . an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington amending Section
25.75.050 "Design Standards" to Provide for Uniform Fencing Standards in the I -182
Corridor,
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. amending PMC 25.75.050 "Design
Standards" to provide for Uniform Fencing Standards in the I -182 Corridor and, further,
authorize publication by summary only.
-AND -
Resolution No. , a Resolution of the City of Pasco, Washington, providing for the
replacement of nonconforming I -182 Overlay District fences.
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _, providing for the replacement of
nonconforming I -182 Overlay District fences.
(c) 0 - Resolution No. a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's
recommendation and approving a special permit for the location of wireless communication
facilities at 9915 W. Argent Road.
1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated April 28, 2014.
2. AT &T Special Permit — Vicinity Map.
3. AT &T Special Permit — Proposed Resolution.
4. AT &T Special Permit — Report to Planning Commission.
5. AT &T Special Permit — Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/20/14 and 4/17/14.
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _, approving the special permit for the
location of wireless communication facilities at 9915 W. Argent Road as recommended by
the Planning Commission.
(d) 0 - Resolution No. a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's
recommendation and approving a special permit for the expansion of a mini- storage facility
in the C -1 (Retail Business) Zone.
1. Agenda Report from Shane O'Neill, Planner I dated April 28, 2014.
2. Broadmoor Storage Special Permit — Vicinity Map.
3. Broadmoor Storage Special Permit — Proposed Resolution.
4. Broadmoor Storage Special Permit — Report to Planning Commission.
5. Broadmoor Storage Special Permit — Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/20/14 and
4/17/14.
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _, approving the special permit for the
expansion of a mini - storage facility at 9335 Sandifur Parkway as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Regular Meeting 3 May 5, 2014
(e) E - Resolution No. , a Resolution accepting the Planning Commission's
recommendation and approving a special permit for a preschool at 5202 Outlet Drive.
1. Agenda Report from Jeffrey Adams, Associate Planner dated April 28, 2014.
2. Bethel Church Special Permit – Vicinity Map.
3. Bethel Church Special Permit – Proposed Resolution.
4. Bethel Church Special Permit – Report to Planning Commission.
5. Bethel Church Special Permit – Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/20/14 and
4/17/14.
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. —' approving a special permit for the
location of a preschool at 5202 Outlet Drive as recommended by the Planning Commission.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
(None)
10. NEW BUSINESS:
(a) Waste Water Treatment Plant 3rd Primary Clarifier:
1. Agenda Report from Ahmad Qayoumi, Public Works Director dated April 23, 2014.
2. Waste Water Treatment Plant 3d Primary Clarifier – Vicinity Map.
3. Waste Water Treatment Plant 3`d Primary Clarifier – Professional Services Agreement
Summary Sheet.
4. Waste Water Treatment Plant 3'd Primary Clarifier – Scope of Services.
MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement from HDR
Engineering, Inc., authorizing design and engineering services with respect to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements 3d Primary Clarifier, not to exceed $238,980
and, fiuther, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement.
(b) I - 2014 Overlays, Project No. M3- OV- 3R- 14 -01:
1. Agenda Report from Mike Pawlak, City Engineer dated April 30, 2014.
2. 2014 Overlays – Vicinity Map.
3. 2014 Overlays – Bid Summary.
- MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the 2014 Overlays project to Inland
Asphalt Company in the amount of $599,599.99 and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign
the contract documents.
11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
(a)
(b)
(c)
13. ADJOURNMENT.
rRoll Call Vote Required
Item not previously discussed
Quasi - Judicial Matter
MF# "Master File #......
1. 6:00 p.m., Monday, May 5, Conference Room #1 - Old Fire Pension Board Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK, Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ, Alt.)
2. 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, May 7, 2601 N. Capitol Avenue - Franklin County Mosquito Control District
Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; AL YENNEY, Alt.)
3. 7:00 a.m., Thursday, May 8 - BFCG Tri-Mats Policy Advisory Committee Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
4. 7:00 p.m., Thursday, May 8 - Ben - Franklin Transit Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS,
Rep.; MIKE GARRISON, Alt.)
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL April 21, 2014
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers present: Rebecca Francik, Robert Hoffmann, Tom Larsen, Saul
Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney. Excused: Mike Garrison.
Staff present: Gary Crutchfield, City Manager; Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Stan Strebel,
Deputy City Manager; Richard Terway, Administrative & Community Services Director;
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Ahmad Qayoumi, Public
Works Director; Bob Metzger, Police Chief; Bob Gear, Fire Chief; Mike Pawlak, City
Engineer and Jesse Rice, Information Services Manager.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA:
(a) Approval of Minutes:
Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated April 7, 2014.
(b) Bills and Communications:
To approve Claims in the amount of $2,019,842.25 ($767,194.07 in Check Nos. 197752-
197974; $400,333.01 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 800372 - 800373, 800388 - 800389,
800446 - 800447; $35,593.07 in Check Nos. 46586- 46620; 900000029 - 900000030;
$580,960.64 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30067746 - 30068205; $7,915.26 in Electronic
Transfer Nos. 41 -45; $227,846.20 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 36 -39).
To approve bad debt write -offs for utility billing, ambulance, cemetery, general accounts,
miscellaneous accounts, and Municipal Court (non - criminal, criminal, and parking)
accounts receivable in the total amount of $218,465.47 and, of that amount, authorize
$156,068.51 be turned over for collection.
(c) Appointments to Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
To appoint Lauran Wang to Position No. 8 (expiration date of 2/2/15); and to reappoint
Jennifer Martinez to Position No. 1, Thomas Davenport to Position No. 2, and Roberto
Garcia to Position No. 9 (all with the expiration date of 2/2/17) to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board.
(d) Appointments to Pasco Public Facilities District Board:
To reappoint Craig Maloney to Position No. 4 and Leonard Dietrich to Position No. 5
(both with the expiration date 7/14/18) to the Public Facilities District Board.
(e) Northwest Commons PUD Phase 8 Final Plat (MIT #FP2014 -002):
To approve the final plat for Northwest Commons PUD Phase 8.
(f) Lourdes Hospital Utility Easement (MF #ESMT2014 -002):
To accept the permanent utility easement from Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr. Martinez
seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote.
3(a).1
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL April 21, 2014
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND /OR OFFICERS:
Mayor Watkins reported on City Council's Biennial Retreat.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS:
Ordinance No. 4154, an Ordinance of the City of Pasco, Washington creating a new
Chapter 5.13 "Scrap Metal Business License "; amending Section 5.12.010
"Definitions "; and amending Section 3.07.050 "Business Licenses."
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to adopt Ordinance No. 4154, regarding Scrap Metal
Businesses and, further, authorize publication by summary only. Mr. Yenney seconded.
Motion carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 3545, a Resolution waiving competitive bidding requirements for the
purchase of high speed turbine blowers for the PWRF Phase III Improvements and
authorizing the purchase.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3545, waiving competitive
bidding requirements and approving the purchase of high speed turbine blowers. Mr.
Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
Resolution No. 3546, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pasco
incorporating the Pasco School District's 2014 Update of the 2011 -2017 Capital
Facilities Plan into the City of Pasco Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed resolution.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3546, incorporating the 2014
Update of the 2011 -2017 Pasco School District's Capital Facilities Plan into the City of
Pasco Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Mr. Martinez seconded.
MOTION: Mr. Yenney moved to table until full Council is present. Mr. Larsen
seconded. Motion failed by the following Roll Call vote: Yes — Yenney, Larsen,
Martinez. No — Watkins, Francik, Hoffmann.
Original motion failed by the following Roll Call vote: Yes — Martinez, Watkins,
Francik. No — Yenney, Hoffinann, Larsen.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Water Resources Management Plan:
Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed resolution.
Resolution No. 3540, a Resolution accepting the Water Resources Management Plan
prepared by MSA Associates.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3540, adopting the Water
Resources Management Plan. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion carried 5 -1. No - Larsen.
NEW BUSINESS:
New Police Facility Consultant Services:
Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed agreement.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Professional Services Agreement
(Phase 1) with Terence L. Thornhill Architect for the new Police Facility and, further,
authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried
4 -2. No — Larsen, Hoffmann.
2
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING PASCO CITY COUNCIL
2014 Micro - Surfacing, Project No. M3- OV- 3R- 14 -01:
Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed project.
April 21, 2014
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to award the low bid for the 2014 Micro- Surfacing
Project to Intermountain Slurry Seal, Inc., in the amount of $286,955.00 and, further,
authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents. Mr. Martinez seconded. Motion
carried by unanimous Roll Call vote.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
APPROVED:
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
PASSED and APPROVED this 5th day of May, 2014.
CITY OF PASCO
Council Meeting of: May 5, 2014
Accounts Patrable Approved
The City Council
City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington
We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the materials have been furnished. the
services rendered or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is a just, due and unpaid
on against the city and that we are authorized to authenticate and certify to mid claim.
Dunyele Mason, Finance Services Manager
We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this
5 day of May, 2014 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment:
Claims Bank Payroll Bank Gen'I Bank Electronic Bank Combined
Check Numbers 197975- 198146 4662146666
900000032 - 900000033
Total Check Amount $1,167,946.64 $46.667.67 Total Checks $ 1,214,504.21
Electronic Transfer Numbers 800154 - 800279 30068206- 30068670 46 42-43
800281. 800371
800374 - 800387
800390-800445
800448. 800645
800694
Total EFT Amount $901,704.13 $557,049.66 $2,000.00 $76,401.34 Total EFTS $ 1,537,155.13
Grand Total $ 2,751,659.34
Councilmember Councilmember
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND:
GENERALFUND
STREET
ARTERIAL STREET
STREET OVERLAY
C. D. BLOCK GRANT
HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT
NSP GRANT
KING COMMUNITY CENTER
AMBULANCE SERVICE
CEMETERY
ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
GOLF COURSE
SENIOR CENTER OPERATING
MULTI MODAL FACILITY
RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN
SPECIAL ASSESSMNT LODGING
LITTER CONTROL
REVOLVING ABATEMENT
TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STADIUM /CONVENTION CENTER
GENERAL CAP PROD CONSTRUCTION
WATER/SEWER
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS
MEDICAUDENTAL INSURANCE
FLEX
PAYROLL CLEARING
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS:
391,985.25
161,605.19
0.00
365.16
35,473.34
20,144.53
69.41
3,107.77
13,950.40
3,869.26
682.60
85,632.66
3,660.53
$ 2,751,659.34
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council April 23, 2014
FROM: Gary Crutch 1 Manager Workshop Mtg.: 4/28/14
Regular Mtg.: 5/5/14
SUBJECT: Hanford Comm nities Interlocal Agreement
I. REFERENCE(S):
Hanford Communities - Proposed Interlocal Agreement
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL /STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4/28: Discussion
5/5: MOTION: I move to approve the Hanford Communities Interlocal Agreement
and, further, authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Approximately $17,500 annually.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The Cities of Pasco, Kennewick, Richland and West Richland, along with Benton
County, have operated what is known as the Hanford Communities organization
for the past 20 years. The purpose of the organization is to provide a forum for
local government monitoring of activities at the Hanford site as they might affect
a wide variety of community issues (emergency services, economy, health and
safety, etc.). Through the interlocal and operating contract, the entities employ
the services of an individual specifically assigned to monitor Hanford activities
and brief the member representatives on a continuing basis. The effort has proven
quite valuable to the member jurisdictions in terms of being cognizant of site
activities and their anticipated effects on the community, likewise, that awareness
has permitted the local jurisdictions to exert greater influence on Hanford site
activities than the cities were able to prior to that time.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The annual budget for this program is about $150,000 but an Ecology grant
covers about $30,000 and Richland (which houses the employee) absorbs 40% of
the remainder and share the 60% balance with the other cities and counties. That
60% is shared on the basis of official population each year, as many other
regional agreements do. Pasco's share of costs for 2014 is $17,287.
B) The ability to monitor Hanford site activities and the improved ability to influence
those activities are well worth the relatively modest expense (assigning one -half
FTE would cost much more). The organization functions well and has proven to
be effective; thus, staff recommends the agreement be extended for another five -
year term.
3(c)
AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN ELIGIBLE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO REVIEW, EVALUATE, AND MONITOR CONDITIONS AND
OPERATIONS AT THE HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION ( HANFORD)
THAT DIRECTLY AFFECT THESE
" HANFORD COMMUNITIES"
This INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, effective the 1st day of January, 2015, is hereby
entered into by and between the City of Richland, City of Kennewick, City of Pasco, City of
West Richland, and the Counties of Benton and Franklin (hereinafter referred to as
'Participating Jurisdictions ").
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34 allows public agencies to make
the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with each other on the
basis of mutual advantage to provide services and facilities that will best meet the needs of
each community; and
WHEREAS, environmental contamination at Hanford and the U.S. Department of
Energy's consequential environmental remediation and waste management activities impose
numerous health, safety, and socio- economic impacts on the well -being of the residents of
Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, West Richland, and unincorporated portions of Benton and
Franklin Counties; and
WHEREAS, the vast majority of those who work at Hanford live in and around the Cities
of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland; and the counties therein; and
WHEREAS, although each jurisdiction fully reserves the right to pursue its own interests
with regard to Hanford, through joint utilization of personnel and other resources these
jurisdictions are desirous of entering into a program to review, evaluate and monitor conditions
at Hanford and policies, programs and operations of the Department of Energy (DOE) and
others in regard to Hanford,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, it is
agreed in accordance with the provisions of RCW 39.34.030 as follows:
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to make available jointly to the Participating
Jurisdictions technical, analytical, and other resources to review, evaluate and monitor
conditions at Hanford such as cleanup, workforce and community transition. Information will
also be made available regarding policies, programs and operations of the DOE and others with
regard to Hanford, and to enhance citizen understanding of such. To that end, the Participating
Jurisdictions have established and periodically renew this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement
creating an organization to be known as the " HANFORD COMMUNITIES' to:
Coordinate efforts concerning Hanford activities and issues requiring local
government interaction or participation between the Hanford Communities, the
DOE, local, state, and national agencies;
Hanford Communities
Interlocal Agreement Page 2
2. Interact with the DOE, the Washington State Department of Ecology, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and others regarding Hanford environmental
contamination, remedlation, waste management, response to emergencies, and
work force and site transition issues;
3. Evaluate reports, findings, and recommendations regarding ongoing, planned
and possible cleanup and waste management activities at Hanford, including
actual or potential environmental and socio- economic impacts on the Hanford
Communities or individual Participating Jurisdictions;
4. Prepare special studies, assessments, surveys, and related efforts regarding
Hanford for the use of the Hanford Communities or individual Participating
Jurisdictions and /or to further public information and enhance citizen
understanding of Hanford - related issues; and
5. Prepare and issue position papers, give testimony, and sponsor other activities
designed to inform the public about environmental, waste management,
emergency management, and site transition activities; and
Prepare and present issue papers and sponsor activities in support of workforce
and community transition issues.
ORGANIZATION
A. Eliaibility: Full membership in the Hanford Communities Interlocal is limited to the cities
of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, West Richland, Benton and Franklin Counties. Affiliate
memberships are open to local government entities other than general purpose
governments. Affiliate members will not have voting seats on the Governing or
Administrative Boards.
B. Governing Board: The governing bodies of each Participating Jurisdiction shall identify
one (1) elected legislative representative from its governing body to serve on the
Governing Board of the Hanford Communities. Governing Board members shall focus
on addressing issues at the policy level and shall advocate positions consistent with the
annual Issue Agenda.
C. Administrative Board: The chief administrative officers, or designees, of the
Participating Jurisdictions shall constitute the Administrative Board of the Hanford
Communities. Administrative Board members shall address the day -to -day activities of
the Hanford Communities consistent with executing the policy decisions made by the
Governing Board.
D. Operating Jurisdiction: One of the Participating Jurisdictions shall be designated as
the Operating Jurisdiction and assigned responsibilities for carrying out the items
enumerated in "Section I — Purpose" on behalf of the Hanford Communities. The
Operating Jurisdiction's rules, regulations, and ordinances, unless otherwise specifically
provided for, apply to the Interlocal. Employees of the Interlocal are employees of the
Operating Jurisdiction, which shall provide all necessary support services. The
Operating Jurisdiction shall administer the Hanford Communities budget, from which
authorized program expenses shall be reimbursed. The Operating Jurisdiction shall
Hanford Communities
Interlocal Agreement
Page 3
provide these reimbursed services at no administrative charge to participants of this
Interlocal Agreement.
E. Officers: There shall be a Chairperson and Vice - chairperson for the Governing Board
and the Administrative Board, respectively. The Chairperson and Vice - chairperson shall
be elected from among the membership of each board to serve one -year terms effective
January 1 of each year.
III. ADMINISTRATION
A. Budget Preparation: The Operating Jurisdiction shall prepare a budget in accordance
with its budget cycle based upon policies adopted by the Governing Board. The budget
shall be approved by the Governing Board of the Hanford Communities.
B. Funding: Funds necessary to carry out this Agreement shall come from Participating
Jurisdiction assessments and federal, state, and other grants. Assessments shall be
based on a funding formula approved by the Hanford Communities Administrative
Board.
C. Meetings: The Governing Board shall meet annually to approve the Hanford
Communities budget and Issue Agenda for the coming year, and other times as needed.
The Administrative Board will meet as needed, however, in no event less frequently than
quarterly during each calendar year. Meetings of the Hanford Communities Governing
Board shall be subject to the Washington Open Public Meetings Act.
D. Dispute Resolution: Disputes between or among the Participating Jurisdictions and
affiliated members regarding the breach, interpretation or enforcement of this
Agreement shall be first addressed by the parties in a good faith effort to resolve the
dispute. Any remaining disputes shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance
with RCW 7.04A and the Mandatory Rules of Arbitration.
E. Liabilitv: To the extent any liability exceeds the insurance coverage of the Operating
Jurisdiction, each remaining Participating Jurisdiction shall be jointly liable for the
balance of claim in the same ration as their percentage contribution is to the annual
budget.
IV. DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall be effective the 1st day of January, 2015 when signed by the
Participating Jurisdictions and shall continue through December 31, 2019. The term of this
Agreement may be extended thereafter with the written approval of the Participating
Jurisdictions.
V. OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
All property, real and personal, acquired with Hanford Communities funds to carry out
the purposes of this Agreement shall be the property of the Hanford Communities. Real and
personal property owned by the Operating Jurisdiction and used to service its contract with the
Hanford Communities shall remain the property of the Operating Jurisdiction. In the event any
property becomes surplus or upon partial or complete termination of this Agreement, property
of the Hanford Communities shall be sold and the proceeds shall be divided between the
Hanford Communities
Interlocal Agreement
Page 4
Participating Jurisdictions in the same ratio as their percentage of contribution is to the annual
budget.
All documents, studies, and issue papers prepared for or on behalf of the Hanford
Communities shall be available to Participating Jurisdictions and affiliates for all purposes, and
shall constitute a public record pursuant to Title 42.56 RCW upon its public citation in
connection with any action of Participating Jurisdictions or affiliates. The Operating Jurisdiction
shall serve as the public records officer.
VI. AMENDMENT
The Agreement may be amended upon written approval of a majority of the Governing
Board.
VII. WITHDRAWAL
A jurisdiction may withdraw without penalty from this Agreement effective December 31
of any year, provided written notice is given to the Administrative Board no later than the
preceding June 30.
2014
Mayor David W. Rose
City of Richland
'2014
Mayor Matt Watkins
City of Pasco
2014
Chairman James R. Beaver
Benton County Board of Commissioners
2014
Cynthia D. Johnson
Richland City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Heather Kintzley
Richland City Attorney
'2014
Mayor Steve C. Young
City of Kennewick
2014
Chairman Rick Miller
Franklin County Board of Commissioners
AGENDA REPORT NO.5
FOR: City Council
TO: Gary Crutchfi anager
Ahmad Qayo u 1 Works Director
FROM: Michael A. Pawlak, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Commercial- Kahlotus Sanitary Sewer Lift Station
Project #C2- 11- 02 -SWR
I. REFERENCE(S):
April 21, 2014
Regular Mtg.: 5/5/14
1. Commercial - Kahlotus Sanitary Sewer Lift Station — Vicinity Map
2. Commercial - Kahlotus Sanitary Sewer Lift Station — Resolution
H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5105: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. &5L/7 accepting the
work performed by Watts Construction, Inc., under contract for the
Commercial- Kahlotus Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Project.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Sewer Fund
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) On February 11, 2013, Council awarded the Commercial - Kahlotus Sanitary
Sewer Lift Station project to Watts Construction, Inc. for $1,003,252.21.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The project involved the installation of an automated sewer lift station capable of
interfacing with the City's SCADA system which will provide sanitary sewer
access to approximately 2,000 acres of industrial zoned land, including 500 acres
of industrial land recently annexed.
B) The final project construction contract totalled $1,036.183.76 an overage of
$19,068.15 (approximately 2 %). The overage was due to design changes after the
project was awarded to accommodate anticipated Grimmway Farms flow and
Tom Kidwell's future development located south of the Kahlotus Highway.
C) The work is now complete and staff recommends City Council acceptance of this
work.
3(d)
z V m
OF
z
O
a
_/
EIIIIIII
mi
CC L
O�
Z
z
IIIIIIIII
1
a>
W
G
u
1 °a R U ry
J`
r i
7
i
mr
,
P
w
S �
9 n�ka`
F
or •(.� S t Y If`{l�� ��pp
NIV
' 7i Two aQ
t
'#
� �� 0OI
n
�Wl>){!{(µ�B+yA+J�•�I'
An�Eytlk �r�16�'r'y �tV
N
I ?�
Fly, 111
RESOLUTION NO. �7
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED BY WATTS
CONSTRUCTION, INC. UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE COMMERCIAL - KAHLOTUS
SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the work performed by Watts Construction, Inc., under contract for the
Commercial - Kahlotus Sanitary Sewer Lift Station project has been examined by Engineering
and has been found to be in apparent compliance with the applicable project specifications and
drawings, and
WHEREAS, it is Engineering's recommendation that the City of Pasco formally accept
the contractor's work and the project as complete; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, that the
City Council concurs with Engineering's recommendation and thereby accepts the work
performed by Watts Construction, hic., under contract for the Commercial - Kahlotus Sanitary
Sewer Lift Station project, as being completed in apparent conformance with the project
specifications and drawings, and
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to notify the Washington
State Department of Revenue of this acceptance, and
Be It Further Resolved, that the final payment of retainage being withheld pursuant to
applicable laws, regulations and administrative determination shall be released upon satisfaction
of same and verification thereof by the Public Works Director and Finance Manager.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 5th day of May, 2014.
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr
City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Gary Crutchfiernomic tyager
Rick White,
Community & Development Director
FROM: David I. McDonald, City Planner
SUBJECT: South 11`" Avenue Vacation (Chavez) (MF# VAC 2014 -003)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. South 11 sz Avenue Vacation — Overview Map
2. South 11"' Avenue Vacation — Vicinity Map
3. South l la' Avenue Vacation — Proposed Ordinance
April 29, 2014
Regular Mtg.: 5/5/14
H. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Conduct Public Hearing:
5/5: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , an Ordinance vacating
the east 10 feet of South 11"' Avenue between West "A" Street
and West `B" Street, and further, authorize publication by
summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. The owners of property fronting the east side of South 11`x' Avenue between West
"A" Street and West `B" Street submitted a petition for vacation of the east 10
feet of said right -of -way.
B. Council set May 5, 2014 as the date to consider the vacation.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. The proposed vacation has been reviewed by the utility providers. Century -Link
has equipment in the area proposed for vacation and has requested the retention of
an easement.
7(a)
O
CA
m
I
L9
ME
4%
Awl
rw s7 Is
Ac
N. -,, I I
m
101
11TH AVE
uj
L
12TH AVE
7r
O N
u
>
a3
101
11TH AVE
uj
L
12TH AVE
WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO:
City of Pasco
Attn: City Planner
525 North 3rd
Pasco, WA 99301
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF SOUTH 11TH AVENUE.
WHEREAS, a qualified petition has been submitted to the City Council of the City of Pasco
requesting vacation of certain public rights -of -way within the City of Pasco; and
WHEREAS, from time to time in response to petitions or in cases where it serves the general
interest of the City, the City Council may vacate rights -of -way; and
WHEREAS, all steps and procedures required by law to vacate said right -of -way have been duly
taken and performed; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the east 10 feet of South 1 Ph Avenue between West "A" Street and West `B"
Street, as depicted in Exhibit "1" be and the same is hereby vacated subject to the easement retained in
Section 2 hereof.
Section 2. That the City shall retain an easement and the right to exercise or grant easements
with respect to the vacated right -of -way as described in Section 1 above for the construction, repair and
maintenance of public utilities and services.
Section 3. That a certified copy of this ordinance be recorded by the City Clerk of the City of
Pasco in and with the office of the Auditor of Franklin County, Washington.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after approval, passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this 5th day of May 2014.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk, MMC Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
r=
r-J
O N
. N
� U
� p O
U•U �
� O
M
U
0
10TH AVE /SR -397
co
r-I 12TH AVE
p
w zhz r I
mm
m
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council
TO: Gary Crutch anager
FROM: Stan Strebel, D ity Manag
SUBJECT: Latecomer's Agreements Amendments to PMC
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Latecomer's Agreements - Proposed Ordinance
May 1, 2014
Regular Mtg.: 5/5/14
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
515: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending Chapter 14.12;
amending Section 13.76.040; repealing Section 13.36.050 and
amending Chapter 3.07 of the Pasco Municipal Code regarding
Latecomer's Agreements and, further, authorize publication by
summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
NOTE: Since the workshop meeting of 4128114, the City Attorney has made some minor
changes to the proposed ordinance to streamline and clarify. Changes are:
1. The addition of a new subsection 2 under 14.12.020 Definitions — "Latecomer
Fee" (H) (page 3). This adds a case for property with access to street
improvement covered by a latecomer agreement.
2. Section 14.12.030 Application for Development Reimbursement Agreement — has
been revised to make the application process more similar for both streets and
utilities and to reduce redundancy.
A) The City developed and codified Chapter 14.12 of the PMC regarding street and
utilities assessment reimbursement agreements or "Latecomer Agreements" in
2004, based upon then applicable state law. In 2013, the state legislature made
several changes to RCW 35.91 dealing with utility agreements, which changes are
effective July 1, 2014. Staff and the City Attorney have worked over the last
several months to prepare revisions to PMC Chapter 14.12 to incorporate the new
changes and to refine the City's process for review, approval and administration
of the latecomer process, in conformance with the statute.
B) To eliminate other inconsistencies in the Code, Section 13.36.040 regarding line
extensions, is proposed for amendment and Section 13.36.050, regarding
installation costs, is proposed for repeal.
C) Administrative fees as well as engineering review costs associated with
latecomer's agreements are also incorporated in Chapter 3.07 as part of the
ordinance.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The attached, proposed ordinance has been completed with strikeout and
underline format to enable Council to see the numerous changes proposed.
Following Council review and discussion of any questions, staff recommends
approval of the ordinance.
•
z u J
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending
Chapter 14.12 "Street and Utilities Assessment Reimbursement Agreements -
Latecomers Agreements "; and Amending Section 13.36.040 "Extension of
Lines - Installation by Requesting Party"; Repealing Section 13.36.050
"Installation Costs - Reimbursement of Costs by Subsequent Users "; and
Amending Section 3.07.180 "Fee Summary"
WHEREAS, the City has established an application and procedure for Development
Reimbursement (Latecomer) Agreements to encourage property Developers to install City
utilities and roadways; and
WHEREAS, the Washington legislature, effective July 1, 2014, made substantial
revisions to the statutory requirements for reimbursement agreements for utilities and to
incorporate these changes within the consolidated procedure adopted by the City for
Development Reimbursement Agreements, it is necessary for Chapter 14.12 of the Pasco
Municipal Code to be amended and updated, Section 13.36.040 of Pasco Municipal Code to be
amended, and Section 13.36.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code to be repealed to be consistent
with the consolidated procedure under this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Chapter 14.12 entitled "Street and Utilities Assessment
Reimbursement Agreements - Latecomers Agreements" of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be
and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
14.12.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide preps the
conditions and procedures under which Developers including the City, who installed qualifvine
improvements requisite for future development and pursuant to the City's development
ordinances and policies, may be partially reimbursed for the expenses of such improvements by
noncontributing benefited owners of adjacent properties, establisMng a preeedure in compliance
with Chapters 35.72 and 35.91 RC W, and eating ° eefitfaet for the - ffTlis ,-- ent e f L-
..
A) Street improvements: Street improvements include all arterial street system
improvements which are the result of a City ordinance that requires such improvements as a
prerequisite to further pMpertv development Arterial street system improvements constructed in
order to comply with the City's subdivision and zoning codes and the City's Comprehensive
Plan, are hereby declared to be prerequisites to further property development for the purposes of
RCW 35.72.010.
B) Utility System Improvements: Utility system improvements include all utility
system improvements which are the result of a City ordinance that requires such improvements
as a prerequisite to further property development. Utility system improvements constructed in
order to comply with the City's Comprehensive Plan development regulations and permitting
requirements are hereby declared to be prerequisites to further property development within the
City, or as provided in RCW 35.91.020. (Ord. 3709 Sec. 1, 2004).
14.12.020 DEFINITIONS.
A) "Adjacent" means abutting on public roads, streets, right -of -way or easements in
which street system improvements are installed or directly connecting to street system
improvements through an interest in real property such as an easement or license.
B) "Assessment" means an equitable pro rata charge to be paid by an owner of
property within the assessment reimbursement area for the cost of private construction of public
street and/or utility system improvements made pursuant to a Developer Reimbursement
Agreement.
C) "Assessment reimbursement area" means that area which includes all parcels of
real property adjacent to street system improvements or likely to require connection to or service
by utility system improvements constructed by a Developer.
D) "Cost of construction" is the sum of the direct construction costs incurred to
construct the street and/or utility system improvements plus the City latecomer administrative
fee. "Direct construction costs" include environmental mitigation, relocation and/or new
construction of private utilities as required by the City (i.e., power, telephone, cable and gas),
relocation and/or installation of street lights, relocation and/or installation of signage, acquisition
of right -of -way and/or easements and the actual labor and material construction costs incurred by
the Developer.
E) "Developer" is the individual or entity that contracts with the City for the
construction of street and/or utility system improvements, where such improvements are a
requirement for development of real property owned by such entity or individual. As permitted
by RCW 35.72.050 and RCW 35.91.020, the City, or other public entity, may join with or be
construed as a "Developer" for the purpose of recovery of read- a street or utility system
improvement costs.
F) "Developer Reimbursement Agreement" means a written agreement between the
City and one or more Developers providing partial reimbursement for cost of construction of
street system improvements and/or utility system improvements to the Developer by owners of
property who are likely to utilize the improvements and who did not contribute to the original
cost of construction. Where the City has elected an alternative financing maintenanee method as
provided in RCW 35.72.050 or RCW 35.91.020, the Developer Reimbursement Agreement shall
be between the City, as the Developer, and the adjacent property owners for the construction or
improvement of street system or utility system improvementsa#eAsl+aadways within the City.
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180 2
G) "Direct connection" means a service connection, to be owned and maintained by
the property owner and not the City, from existing or new utility improvements.
H) "Latecomer fee" means a charge collected by the City against a real propert y
owner who:
1) Connects to or uses the utility system improvement where fees are
separately stated, or is a part of a connection fee or other fee for ru oviding access to the
City's utility system:
2) Receives a building or development permit for real rp operty located
adjacent to, or having access to the street system improvement constructed under this
Cha tp er: or
3) Receives a building or development permit for real property located within
the assessment reimbursement area which is subject to an Agreement created under this
Chapter.
14D "Street system improvements" means public street and alley improvements made
in existing or subsequently dedicated or granted rights of way or easements and any
improvements associated therewith including but not limited to such things as acquisition of
right -of -way and/or easements, design, engineering, surveying, inspection, grading, paving,
installation of curbs, gutters, pedestrian facilities, street lighting, bike lanes, and traffic control
devices, relocation and/or construction of private utilities as required by the City (i.e., power,
telephone, cable and gas), relocation and/or construction of street lights, traffic control devices,
signage and other similar improvements.
1D "Utility system improvements" means public water, sewer and storm drainage
system improvements ineluding, as defined by RCW 35.91.015 which shall include, but not be
limited to the acquisition of right -of -way and/or easements, design, engineering, surveying,
inspection, testing, connection fees, and installation of improvements as required by the City and
includes but is not limited to the following, by utility W :
1) Water system improvements including but not limited to such things as
treatment facilities, reservoirs, wells, mains, valves, fire hydrants, telemetry systems,
pumping stations, and pressure reducing stations;
2) Sewer system improvements including but not limited to such things as
treatment plants, gravity mains, lift stations, force mains, and telemetry systems; and
3) Storm sewer system improvements including but not limited to such things
as water quality structures and systems, detention and retention facilities, and storm water
collection and conveyance facilities. (Ord. 3709 Sec. 1, 2004.)
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180
14.12.030 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT.
A) Application Required An application for Developer Reimbursement Agreement
must be submitted upon a form provided by the City prior to approval by the City.
1) Street system improvement approval shall for the p=ose of this Section
be the date the City authorizes the construction to occur by granting a permit extension
agreement, or written authorization to proceed• or
authorization to proceed.
3) Such application shall contain the following information which shall be
approved by a State of Washington licensed engineer:
a) A legal description of the Developer's propertv
b) A legal description of the properties within the Developer's
proposed Assessment Reimbursement Area together with the names and
addresses of the owners of such property as shown on the records of the
Assessor's Office of Franklin County.
c) Vicinity maps of Developer's property.
d) The Developer's proposed Assessment Reimbursement Area and
general location of the system improvements to be included
e) The Developer's proposed allocation of the costs of construction to
the individual properties within the proposed Assessment Reimbursement Area
and the method used for such allocation.
fl Construction drawings or as -built drawings as required by the
Public Works Department.
B) Street System Improvements.
as a prerequisite for fi fft .er p eY J ei4 y development ,. or to astFaet or 1
p
At the Developer's request by written VXlication the City
may enter into a Developer Reimbursement Agreement for the construction of qualifying
street system improvements required as a prerequisite for further rp opert dy. evelopment in
order to recover a pro rata share of the costs of construction from other property owners
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180 4
that will later derive a benefit from the street and/or - utility system improvements made by
Developer.
..
Y- -
Q) Developer Reimbursement Agreements for read r street construction
shall meet the following criteria:
4a) New street or reconstruction of existing streets shall meet the
Arterial Street Standards to include concrete curb and gutter; or
2b) Partial new street construction or reconstruction of an existing
street shall meet City Arterial Street Standards
eensist of .. 28 feet vviaca of rccrarrare.— feet gfudcrmouxacra on streets that do
not abut real property owned by the Developer.
C) Unless the City provides written notice to the Developer of its
intent to request a comprehensive plan approval the Developer must request a
comprehensive plan approval for street system improvements if required
upon:
d) Acceptance of the street system improvement must be conditioned
(i) Construction of the street system improvements according
to the plans and specifications approved by the City;
(ii) Inspection and approval of the street system improvements
by the City;
(iii) Transfer to the City of the street system improvements
without cost to the City. upon acceptance by the City of the street system
improvements;
(iv) Full compliance with the Developer's obligations under the
Agreement and with the City's rules and regulations;
(v) Provision of sufficient security to the City to ensure
completion of the street system improvements and other performance
under the Agreement;
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180
(vi) Payment by the Developer to the City of all of the City's
costs associated with the street system improvements including but not
limited to, en ingl eering, legal, and administrative costs:
(vii) Verification and approval of all Agreements and costs
related to the street system improvements; an d
(viii) Within one hundred twenty days of acceptance by the City
of the street system improvements, the Developer must submit the total
costs of the street system improvements to the City. This information will
be used as the basis for determining reimbursements by future users who
benefit from the street system improvements, but who did not contribute to
the original cost of such improvements.
\ Y.T.T.lTf
■
• . .
.
{nJii
ji
■
\
&�*IIM P.M." .. ■ _
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07. 180
C) Utility System Improvements.
1) At the Developer's request, by written application, the City will
enter into a Developer Reimbursement Agreement for the construction or
improvement of qualifying utility system improvements or facilities in order to
recover a pro rata share of the costs of the construction of such improvements or
facilities from other property owners that will later connect to and derive a benefit
from the improvements made by a Developer.
2) Developer Reimbursement Agreements for utility system
improvements shall meet the following criteria:
a) Utility system improvements constructed or improved in
accordance with this subsection must be located within the City's
corporate limits or, except as provided otherwise by this subsection within
ten miles of the City's corporate limits.
b) Unless the City provides written notice to the Developer of
its intent to request a comprehensive plan approval the Developer must
request a comprehensive plan approval for utility system improvements if
required
c) Connections of the sewer water facility to the municipal
system must be conditioned upon:
D Construction of the utility system improvements
according to plans and specifications approved by the Cites
ii) Inspection and approval of the utility system
improvements by the City;
iii) Transfer to the City of the utility system
improvements without cost to the City upon acceptance by the
City of the utility ystem improvements:
iv) Full compliance with the Developer's obligations
under the Agreement and with the City's rules and re ations•
V) Provision of sufficient security to the City to ensure
completion of the utility system improvements and other
performance under the Agreement:
vi) Payment by the Developer to the City of all of the
City's costs associated with the utility system improvements
including but not limited to engineering, legal and administrative
costs:
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180
vii) Verification and approval of all Agreements and
costs related to the utilitysystem improvements; and
viii) Within one hundred twenty days of the completion
of utility system improvements, the Developer must submit the
total cost of the utility system improvements to the City. This
information will be used as the basis for determining
reimbursements by future users who benefit from the water or
sewer improvements, but who did not contribute to the original
cost of such improvements.
3) The City shall not permit a Developer Reimbursement Agreement
under this subsection until determination has been made by the City for payment
of utility oversizing costs or reimbursement of the Developer for the construction
costs of all or a portion of the improvements.
4) Except as provided in subsection 3) above, all costs of the
construction of the improvements and facilities of utility system improvements,
shall be borne by the Developer.
£D) The Public Works Department will pro-ad„ the ap ° ' shall within twenty-eight
(28) days after receipt of the request, provide the Developer written notice whether the
application is complete and, if incomplete, what must be done for the application to be
considered complete. The applieaatDeveloper shall within thirty (30) days from the date of the
written notice, respond and provide the information required to complete the application or, if the
applieantDeveloper cannot submit the required information within the thirty (30) day period, the
appheantDeveleper shall provide the City a written explanation of why they cannot provide the
information within the designated time period and a date that the requested information will be
submitted. In its discretion, the Public Works Department may grant the agpkcantDeveloper an
extension of not more than sixty (60) days to submit the required information. If the
aggkeaetDeveloper fails to meet the foregoing time frame, the Public Works Department may, in
its discretion, reject the application as untimely.
FE The Public Works Director shall establish policies and procedures for processing
applications and complying with the requirements of this Ordinance.
F) The City, prior to approval, shall provide notice of the City's intent to participate
in the funding of the improvements either under RCW 35.72.050- RCW 35.91.020, or under
subsection B)(3) above. (Ord. 3709 Sec. 1, 2004.)
14.12.040 PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS. The Public Works Department shall
formulate a preliminary assessment reimbursement area and preliminary assessment for real
property benefited by the street and/or utility system improvements based on the following and
provide the same to the Developer:
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180
A) The likelihood that benefited property will be developed within fifteen (15) years
(in the case of street system improvements) or twenty (20) years (in the case of utility system
improvements) from the date reeer-din s" effective date of the Developer Reimbursement
Agreement.
B) The likelihood, that at the time of development of the benefited property, such
property will not be required to install similar street and/or utility system improvements because
they were already installed by the Developer.
C) For street system improvements, that benefited parcels are adjacent to such street
system improvements.
D) For utility system improvements, the likelihood:
1) That such improvements will be tapped into or used (including not only
direct connections but also connection to laterals or branches connecting thereto) by
properties within the assessment reimbursement area; or
2) That such properties will receive a special benefit from the utility system
improvements such as, but not limited to pump stations, sewer lift stations, and additional
utility pipe depth to accommodate future utility expansion.
E) An equitable allocation of the cost of construction among the properties within the
assessment reimbursement area, so that each pays for benefits attributable to those
improvements. The method or methods used to calculate the allocation of the assessment may be
either front footage, number of units, square footage, or may be the zone and termini method or
other recognized methods reasonably calculated to equitably allocate the assessment. (Ord. 3709
Sec. 1, 2004.)
14.12.050 PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION NOTICE.
A) The preliminary assessment reimbursement area and the preliminary assessment
formulated by the Public Works Department, including the preliminary determination of area
boundaries assessments and a description of the property owner's rights and options, shall be
sent by certified mail to the property owners of record within the preliminary assessment
reimbursement area.
B) The agplieaatDevel oper or any property owner within the preliminary assessment
reimbursement area may, in writing within twenty (20) days of the date of mailing the notice,
request a hearing to be held before the City Council to contest the preliminary assessment
reimbursement area and preliminary assessment. Notice of such hearing shall be given to all
property owners within the preliminary assessment reimbursement area and the hearing shall be
conducted as soon as is reasonably practical. The City Council is the final authority to establish
the assessment reimbursement area and the assessment for each property within the assessment
reimbursement area.
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180 9
C) In the event no written request for a hearing is received as required, the
determination of the Public Works Department shall be final. (Ord. 3709 Sec. 1, 2004.)
14.12.060 DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT.
A) Based upon the preliminary assessment reimbursement area and the preliminary
assessment, if no hearing is requested, or based upon the City Council's determination of the
assessment reimbursement area and assessment if a hearing is requested, the Public Works
Department shall prepare and give to the appliesntDeveloper a Developer Reimbursement
Agreement.
B) Each Agreement shall include a provision requiring that every two years from the
date the Agreement is executed, the Developer entitled to reimbursement under this section shall
provide the City with information regarding the current contact name, address, and teleuhone
number of the person, company, or partnership that originally entered into the agreement. If the
Developer fails to comply with the notification requirements within sixty days of the specified
time, then the City may collect any reimbursement funds owed to the Developer under the
Agreement. The funds collected under this subsection shall be deposited in the capital
expenditure account of either the City's utility fund or street fund, as appropriate. (Ord. 3709
Sec. 1, 2004.)
14.12.070 CITY AS DEVELOPER. As an alternative to financing projects under this
Chapter solely by a Developer, the City may join in the financing of improvement projects and
may be reimbursed in the same manner as the Developer who participates in the projects. As
another alternative. the City may create an assessment reimbursement area on its own initiative,
without the participation of a private property owner or Developer, finance the costs of the street
or utility improvements, and become the sole beneficiary of the reimbursements that are
contributed. The City will only seek to be reimbursed for the costs of improvements that benefit
that portion of the public who will use the improvements within the assessment reimbursement
area established pursuant to state law. No costs for improvements that benefit the eg neral public
may be reimbursed.
14.12.09W70 R- E�I EFFECTIVE DATE/PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENT/
LIEN FOR NONPAYMENT.
A) The Developer Reimbursement Agreement shall be reeefded by the Git y with th
Fr..nk4ia Get_,. Audit, :tt,:n fhi fty (zm days of the A.. .,t'., final exeeation-ffective
Won its execution and recording as provided in PMC 14.12.120.
B) The City shall not issue a building permit or development permit or approval nor
grant permission to use water or sewer service unless the City has received full payment of the
assessment applicable to the property connecting to or using the street and /or utility system
improvements constructed by Developer; provided, if the Developer Reimbursement
Agreement's validity is being challenged, the City reserves the right to issue a permit, approval
or permission without liability or prejudice to the City and without prejudicing the Developer's
rights or remedies under this Chapter or otherwise at law or in equity.
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180 10
C) If improvements are made to a property adjacent to a street improvement or if a
property connects to a utility system improvement without payment of an assessment otherwise
due, the amount of such assessment shall be a binding obligation upon the owner of record (and
successors) of the affected property. (Ord. 3709 Sec. 1, 2004.)
14.12.080090 SEGREGATION. The Public Works Department shall, upon the request
of any property owner within the assessment reimbursement area, segregate the assessment. The
segregation shall be based upon the same factors applied when the assessments were originally
established. The property owner seeking segregation of the assessment shall pay an
administrative fee plus any costs and expenses of the City, as set forth in Chanter 3.07 of the
Pasco Municipal Code for such to the City based upen segregation, calculation and recording
as necessary fee aeh,..,ule to be established by the Publi,. Works ^.•_.. ftm -•. (Ord. 3709 Sec. 1,
2004.)
14.12.8901 00 TERM OF DEVELOPER REIMBUSEMENT AGREEMENTS.
A) Each Developer Reimbursement Agreement ohall be valid for ° period not to
VAV
eed fifteen (1 5) years from the date of its final a ,.,.t:.. « for.
1) Street system improvements shall be valid for a period not to exceed
fifteen 0 5) years from the effective date of the Agreement: and
2) Utility system improvements shall be valid for a period not to exceed
twenty (20) Years from the effective date of the Agreement.
B) The Developer Reimbursement Agreement may provide for an extension of the
reimbursement periods as provided above, for a time not to exceed the duration of an y
moratorium, phasing ordinance, concurrent designation, or other governmental action that
prevents making applications for, or the approval of, anv new development within the benefit
area for a period of six months or more.
C) Upon the extension of the reimbursement period pursuant to this section. the
Agreement must specify the duration of the Agreement extension and must be filed and recorded
with the county auditor. (Ord. 3709 Sec. 1, 2004.)
14.12.4-00110 REMOVAL OF UNAUTHORIZED CONNECTIONS OR TAPS.
Whenever any tap or connection is made into any utility improvement without payment of the
assessment being made as required by this Chapter, the Public Works Department is authorized
to remove and disconnect, or cause to be removed and disconnected, such unauthorized tap or
connection including all connecting rile or pipe located in the right -of -way and to dispose of such
unauthorized material without liability. The owner of the property where the unauthorized
connection is located shall be liable for all costs and expenses of any type incurred to remove,
disconnect, and dispose of the unauthorized tap or connection. (Ord. 3709 Sec. 1, 2004.)
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180 11
14.12.440120 CITY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, COSTS AND RECORDING. The City
shall charge a fee for processing Development Reimbursement Agreements, including
en 'np eering costs and the cost of recording, as identified in Chapter 3.07 of the Pasco Municipal
Code. Developer Reimbursement Agreements and extensions thereof shall be recorded with the
Franklin County Auditor within thirty (30) days of the final execution of the Agreement and
shall be binding on owners of record within the assessment area who are not parties to the
Agreement. (Ord. 3709 Sec. 1, 2004.)
14.12.440130 PAYMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REIMBURSEMENT CHARGE. Each
assessment shall be due in its entirety upon connection to or use of a street and/or utility system
improvement by a property subject to an assessment, and shall be paid to the City. The City will
pay over to Developer the amounts collected within sixty (60) days of receipt.
When the assessment for any property has been paid in full, the Public Works Director
shall issue a certification of payment that will release such property from the Developer
Reimbursement Agreement which may be recorded by the owner. (Ord. 3709 Sec. 1, 2004.)
14.12.430140 ENFORCEMENT OF LATECOMER OBLIGATIONS.
A) Nothing in this Chapter is intended to create a private right of action for damages
against the City for failing to comply with the requirements of this Chapter. The City, its
officials, employees, or agents may not be held liable for failure to collect a reimbursement
assessment or latecomer fee unless the failure was willful or intentional Failure of the City to
c=lv with the requirements of this Chapter does not relieve the City of any future requirement
AB) In processing and imposing obligations in this Chapter for reimbursement of
Developers, the City in no way guarantees payment of assessments by latecomers, or
enforceability of assessment, or enforceability of the Development Reimbursement Agreement,
or the amount(s) thereof against such persons or property. Nor will the offices or finances of the
City be used for enforcement or collection of latecomer obligations beyond those duties
specifically undertaken by the City herein. It shall be the obligation of a Developer to take
whatever authorized means are available to enforce payment of latecomer assessments and
Developers are hereby authorized to take such actions. The City shall not be responsible for
locating any beneficiary or survivor entitled to any benefits by or through a Developer
Reimbursement Agreement. (Ord. 3709 Sec. 1, 2004.)
B) Aiiy ftmds eelleeted wider this Chapter that are tmelaiffied by developers after on
(1). year a.,..,., the expiFatien of the De elo er- n,.., bu a ent n g f ftt s l be _a t
parties making paymeets to the Gft-)� if they may be reasefiably fiend faifms any reasonable
Section 2. That Section 13.36.040 entitled "Extension of Lines - Installation by
Requesting Party" of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended and shall read
as follows:
13.36.040 EXTENSION OF LINES - INSTALLATION BY REQUESTING
PARTY. When an extension of the City system is required and such is requested of and agreed
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180 12
to by the City and it is further agreed that the requesting party will extend the line(s). The
requesting party shall install the line extension at their sole cost and expense, subject to the
remaining provisions of this section.
A) The front footage charge under §13.36.020 shall be waived for connection to the
newly installed line by the party to the parcel(s) of property owned by the installing party.
B) The installing party when connecting his or her parcel(s) of property to the
extension shall pay square footage charges for the parcel(s) of the property served as provided
under §133.36.020, except that, if the extension passes by one or more parcels of property under
other ownership already connected to an existing line, there shall be a deduction in the amount of
front footage and square footage charges previously paid for such parcel(s) of property at the
time of their connection. In some cases the deduction may be sufficient to result in a cash
payment from the City to the party making the extension.
eentfaet as pFevided for- in .The City may enter into Developer Reimbursement
Agreement as provided in PMC 14.12. (Ord. 3608 Sec. 19, 2003; Ord. 2961, Sec. 9, 1993.)
Section 3. That Section 13.36.050 entitled "Installation Costs - Reimbursements of
Costs by Subsequent Users" of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is repealed in its
entirety.
•
.
..
..
. _
Y .
_
*771
IN
.. _.
.. ...
.. -
.. ...
..
..
__. -. 11101111,
.._
.
• . .
. .•
�i
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180 13
Section 4. That Section 3.07.180 entitled "Public Works Inspections" of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
3.07.180 PUBLIC WORKS AGREEMENTS AND INSPECTIONS:
Fee /Char¢e Reference
A) Development Reimbursement Agreements $100.00 14.12.120
(Latecomer's) Administrative Fee
B) Developer Reimbursement Agreements $30.00 14.12.090
Sereegation
C) Engineering eering StaffTime- Review Minimum Fee $90 14.12.120
Developers Reimbursement Agreements for first hour,
thereafter, $60,hr
Al2) Water Crews on Contractor Site
(after 1 st visit) (per hour)
BE) Sewer Crews on Contractor Site
(after 1 st visit) (per hour)
GE) Public Works Construction
Development Inspection
$160.00 Ord.3543
$160.00 Ord.3543
Minimum Fee: $90 14.08.030
for first hour;
thereafter, $60/hr
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect on the 1 st day of May,
2014, or after its approval, passage and publication as required by law, whichever shall last
occur.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this _ day of 2014.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
Attest:
Debbie Clark, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Amending PMC 14.12; Amending PMC 13.36.040;
Repealing PMC 13.36.050; and Amending PMC 3.07.180 14
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 22, 2014
TO: Gary Crutchfie anager Workshop Mtg.: 4/28/14
Regular Mtg.: 5/5/14
FROM: Rick Terway, D rector, Administrative & C Services
SUBJECT: Fencing Standards - I -182 Overlay District
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Fencing Standards — Vicinity Map
2. Fencing Standards — Proposed Ordinance
3. Fencing Standards — Proposed Resolution
4. Fencing Standards — Current Photos of I -182 Fence
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
4/28: Discussion
5/5: MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. , amending PMC
25.75.050 "Design Standards" to provide for Uniform Fencing Standards in the
I -182 Corridor, and, further, authorize publication by summary only.
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , providing for the
replacement of nonconforming I -182 Overlay District fences.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
See Below.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In 2011, the city organized an Estate Fence Committee and held public meetings
to make recommendations for alternatives to the failed "Surewood" fence
material. The material was becoming brittle and easy to break and due to the
inferior product it is no longer manufactured. Several types of fence materials
were considered and it was determined that cedar would be the best due to its
strength, the ability to power wash to remove graffiti and the ability to re -stain to
maintain a consistent appearance.
B) In 2012, Council approved an Ordinance & Resolution requiring the replacement
of the "Surewood" fencing material along Road 100 and Road 84 with the cedar
material. That replacement effort has been largely accomplished, resulting in the
desired outcome.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) The section of fence along I -182, which is highly visible from the interstate, is in
poor condition. This appearance is substandard and harms the perception and
value of the community. Several neighborhood meetings were held to discuss the
condition of the fence with little turn out. However, most who did attend favored
replacing the fence with assistance from the city similar to the Road 100 and Road
84 experience.
B) Staff is recommending the same method that was used along Road 100 and Road
84 where the city removed and disposed of the old "Surewood" and installed the
new cedar material. Residents would be responsible for the cost of the new cedar
fencing material and have the choice of a one -time payment or 12 monthly
installments to the city. The price per foot for this fence project is $5.00, the same
8(b)
as it was for the fence along Road 100 and Road 84. Lots in this area range from
20 feet at a cost of $100 to 163 feet at a cost of $815. Current staff and/or
volunteers can complete the project at no additional cost to the city or residents.
In order to accomplish the replacement, however, the city's ordinance for fencing
standards must be amended first.
C) Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance and resolution.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington,
Amending Section 25.75.050 "Design Standards" to Provide
for Uniform Fencing Standards in the I -182 Corridor
WHEREAS, the City has pursuant to PMC 25.58.020 identified the I -182 Overlay
District as significant to the well -being and image of the City requiring additional development
regulations to create an aesthetically attractive area within the City, including its visual
appearance from the I -182 freeway; and
WHEREAS, the visual attractiveness of this area contributes to the economic and
residential value of this area; and
WHEREAS, the residential areas within this Corridor adjacent to the freeway have
installed estate fences known as "Surewood" fences; and
WHEREAS, the City has found such fences have experienced rapid deterioration,
including slats that are easily broken or removed with a very light impact, as well as susceptible
to stains, discoloration, and the difficult removal of graffiti, and is no longer available in the
market for replacement of damaged or destroyed slats; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously organized an Estate Fence Committee to make
recommendations for alternatives to the failed fencing material and, having conducted public
hearings in this regard, has declared such fences nuisances and nonconforming to the purposes
for which they were intended; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized by the City Council that those fences within the I -182
Overlay Corridor represent a public interest in maintaining aesthetic attractiveness for this
district. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON; DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 25.75.050 entitled "Design Standards" of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.75.050 DESIGN STANDARDS.
(1) Fences, Walls and Hedges.
(a) The height of fences, walls and hedges located between a structure and
street or alley shall be measured from the street curb or alley grade except in those cases
where topographical irregularities occur. The height of fences, walls and hedges between
Ordinance Amending
PMC 25.75.050 - 1
a structure and a common lot line shall be measured from the grade along the common lot
line or top of any structural retaining wall occurring at the common lot line;
(b) Fences and walls in commercial districts shall complement the materials
used in any principal on -site structures;
(c) The height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5 feet within
the front yard area of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots;
provided, when two contiguous comer. lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley
right -of -way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, the
height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to 6 feet within the front yard adjacent
to the side street; except where the front door of a house faces the side street all fences
greater than 3. 5 feet in height must be set back to the building line of the house facing
the side street;
(d) The height of fences, walls and hedges within the side and rear yards of
residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots shall be limited to 6 feet. A
gate or opening with a minimum 3 foot width leading into at least one side yard shall be
provided;
(e) Fences shall not be constructed out of tires, pallets, bed springs, multi-
colored materials, tarps, plastic sheets, corrugated sheet metal, except in industrial
districts, wheel rims and similar or like materials not traditionally manufactured or used
for fencing purposes. Hog wire, chicken wire, horseman wire mesh, v -mesh, field fence,
woven field fence, welded utility fence, or any similar or like wire fencing material is not
permitted in residential or commercial zones. Horseman wire mesh and the other wire
fencing listed above may be permitted in suburban residential districts on tracts larger
than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. Fences built with valid permits prior to
the effective date of this. chapter or fences on properties annexed to the City after the
effective date of this chapter are exempt from this subsection;
(f) Fences constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block
columns of up to 5 feet in height may be permitted within front yards in the R -S -20 & R-
S-12 districts provided said fencing is 85 percent transparent;
(g) Barbed and razor wire fencing is prohibited in all Residential districts, in
the Office district and the Central Business district. Barbed wire may be permitted in
suburban residential districts on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal
husbandry. In the C -1 Retail Business district only one strand of barbed wire is permitted
along the top rail or within 2 inches of the top rail;
(h) Electrified fences are not permitted in residential districts except as a
secondary means of securing property where the electrified fence is located behind an
existing fence or in suburban districts to contain permitted farm animals;
Ordinance Amending
PMC 25.75.050 - 2
(i) In all front yards, whether on properties with single, double, or triple
frontage, rails, posts and other structural fence supports shall not be visible from a public
street; except that posts and rails that are an integral part of the fence design and
aesthetics and not used solely for structural support may be visible from a public street;
0) All fencing in commercial and industrial districts shall be placed on the
inward side of any required perimeter landscaping; with landscape treatments occurring
along the street frontage.
(k) No fence, wall or hedge, landscape material or foliage higher than 3 feet
above curb grade shall be located or planted within an area 20 feet along the property
lines from the intersection of two streets including the area between such points, or 15
feet from the intersection of a street and an alley; provided however, if an alternative
fence material is used such as masonry, wrought iron, wood, or combination there -of
then the fence must be 75 percent transparent and may be a maximum 6 feet in height, or
a smaller, 75% transparent fence set upon a maximum 3 -foot wall or other structure not
exceeding a combined height of 6 feet, may be erected within said area of intersection of
street and alley so long as the fence is at all times unobstructed by foliage or other matter;
(1) Fences constructed in any zoning district may be permitted at the back of
sidewalks in public right -of -way upon approval of the City Engineer, except as provided
in 25.75.050(1)0);
(m) All residential fencing within the I -182 Overlay District as defined by
block or cedar material prescribed by the city as pre- stained knotless cedar 23/32s thick
and 5.5 inches wide and 6 feet tall.
(mn) No fence or wall shall be erected without first obtaining a building permit
from the building inspector.
(2) Clearance Distances. Where a fire hydrant is located within a landscape area it
shall be complemented by a minimum clearance radius of 3 feet; No tree, as measured from its
center, shall be located within 10 feet of a street light standard, within 5 feet of a driveway or a
fire hydrant;
(3) Commercial and Industrial Districts.
(a) The first 10 feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting an
arterial street and the first 5 feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting a local
access street shall be treated with landscaping at the time the property is developed. No
less than 65 percent of the landscaped area must be treated with live vegetation at the
time of planting.
Ordinance Amending
PMC 25.75.050 - 3
(b) In addition to the requirements contained in this chapter and unless
specified otherwise in Chapter 25.58, commercial and industrial zoned properties
adjacent to properties in less intense zoning districts shall have a 10 foot landscape buffer
on the side immediately adjacent to less intense zoning district. The landscaped buffer
shall meet the following standards:
(i) Live vegetation within the landscape buffer shall be planted with a
mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs interspersed throughout the
landscape buffer;
(ii) The live vegetation shall consist of 40 percent evergreen trees.
(iii) Trees shall be provided at a minimum rate of one tree for every 20
linear feet of property line and spaced no more than 30 feet on center spacing
along each property line, unless planted in groupings of 3 trees, with groupings
spaced no more than 50 feet on center along each property line.
(iv) Shrubs shall be provided at a minimum rate of 1 per 8 linear feet of
property line and spaced no more than 16 feet apart on center.
(v) Parking lots located adjacent to properties in less intense zoning
districts require 100 percent of the landscape buffer to be planted with live
vegetation.
(C) The area between property lines and the back edge of street curbs, within
right -of -way and exclusive of sidewalks and driveways for ingress/egress, shall be treated
with landscape materials.
(4) Residential Districts. At least 50 percent of the required front yard area for all
residential property including right -of -way but, excluding driveways, shall be treated with live
vegetation. Planting strips shall be treated as per PMC Section 12.12.047; and
(5) All areas of a lot or parcel not landscaped or covered with improvements, shall be
maintained in such a manner as to control erosion and dust. Gardens within established
landscapes are excluded from this provision in Residential Districts. Front yard areas not
covered by the required 50 percent live vegetation must be covered by mulches or decorative
rock. (Ord. 4110, 2013.)
Section 2. The City Council finds that Surewood fences within the I -182 Overlay
District are defective and constitute a public nuisance requiring their removal and replacement.
The City Council, by Resolution, shall provide a procedure for the transition from the
nonconforming " Surewood" fences to fences consistent with the standards provided in Section 1
above.
Ordinance Amending
PMC 25.75.050 - 4
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as
provided by law this _ day of 2014.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
Attest:
Approved as to Form:
Debbie Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Ordinance Amending
PMC 25.75.050 - 5
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City of Pasco, Washington, providing for the
replacement of nonconforming I -182 Overlay District fences.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the "Surewood" fences located within
the I -182 Overlay District have experienced rapid deterioration and are susceptible to stains and
discoloration, thereby, constituting a public nuisance; and
WHEREAS, the "Surewood" product is no longer in production, and no longer available
for replacement resulting in a mismatch of colors, texture, and size defeating the goal of an
attractive, consistent district; and
WHEREAS, the City Council had established a standard for fencing for this district and
seeks a rapid replacement of the existing nonconforming fencing with fencing consistent with the
standards established and that the "Surewood" fences have exceeded their useful life as a result
of their defective condition. NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The "Surewood" fencing materials previously used as components for
fencing along the I -182 freeway have proven to be defective for its intended purposes, and is
prohibited from use with the I -182 Overlay District. All existing "Surewood" fences within said
District are declared to be nonconforming and constitute a public nuisance and must be replaced.
Section 2. Nonconforming "Surewood" fences exist within that area generally
described as Broadmoor Place Phase 2, Block 1, Lots 14 -17 and Broadmoor Place Phase 3, Lots
12, 13 14 and 22 -30 along the I -182 gateway. All "Surewood" fence materials (slats) shall be
replaced with those complying with the standards established by PMC 25.75.050(1)(m) as
amended by Ordinance No.
Section 3. The . reasonable time for the replacement of the nonconforming
"Surewood" fence shall occur on or before October 1, 2014. Any "Surewood" fences remaining
after such date shall constitute a violation of PMC 25.75.050, and may be subject to abatement.
Except as provided below, the property owners upon which the nonconforming "Surewood"
fence is located shall be responsible for the full costs of the fence's replacement and the full
responsibility to have such replacement completed before the deadline specified above.
Section 4. To encourage and assist in the prompt transition to conform with the
Prescribed standard in an orderly fashion, the City shall assist with installation of new cedar and
disposal of old materials. The City will also allow for 12 monthly payments for the cost of the
material only.
Resolution - 1
Section 5. Administrative Anneal. Any property owner aggrieved as a result of the
adoption of the new standard as provided above, due to the condition of their fence, recent
installation, or extraordinary circumstances, may appeal the application of the prescribed
standard to their property to the City Manager, or his designee, within sixty (60) days of date of
receipt of notice from the City of the nonconforming fence.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, as its regular meeting
dated this day of , 2014.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
Resolution - 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 28, 2014
TO: Gary Crutchfield a ager Regular Mtg.: 5/5/14
Rick White, i v
Community & $conomic Development Director
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
SUBJECT: AT &T Special Permit for the location of Wireless Communication Facilities in a
C -1 (Retail Business) Zone (MF# SP 2014 -001)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. AT &T Special Permit - Vicinity Map
2. AT &T Special Permit - Proposed Resolution
3. AT &T Special Permit - Report to Planning Commission
4. AT &T Special Permit - Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 3/20/14 and 4/17/14
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
515: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving the
special permit for the location of wireless communication
facilities at 9915 W. Argent Road as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
09121
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On March 20, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for the
location of wireless communication facilities at 9915 W. Argent Road.
B. Following the conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned
that with conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a special
permit for the cellular tower.
C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution.
D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been
received.
8(c)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE
LOCATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES AT 9915 W. ARGENT
ROAD.
WHEREAS, AT &T, submitted an application for the location of cellular
facilities at 9915 W. Argent Road (Tax Parcel 118 -112 -036); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 20, 2014
to review the proposed cellular facilities; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on April 17, 2014 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a Special Permit for the proposed cellular tower with certain
conditions; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to AT &T for the location of cellular
facilities in a RS -12 (Suburban) District under Master File # SP2014 -001 with the
following conditions:
a) The special permit shall apply to parcel # 118- 112 -036 addressed 9915
West Argent Road;
b) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the
elevations and site plan submitted with the application except as
conditioned herein;
c) The cellular antennae enclosure shall not exceed 55.4 feet in height as
measured from existing grade;
d) The cellular antennae shall be enclosed within an architecturally
integrated feature attached to the church building;
e) The ground -level equipment enclosure shall be located no closer than
ten (10) feet from the north and east property lines of parcel # 118 -112-
036;
f) The ground -level equipment shall be located within a decorative block
wall which fully blocks the view from all rights -of -way. Design of the
sight - screening shall meet the requirements of the I -182 Overlay District
(PMC 25.58);
g) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC regulations;
h) The roof -top antennae housing shall not emit light;
i) The roof -top appurtenance housing the cellular antennae
constructed and painted to match the architecture of the church;
j) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco
permit is not obtained by April 30, 2015.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 5s' day of May, 2014.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
2
shall be
building
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
REPORT TO PLANNING
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2014 -001
HEARING DATE: 3/20/2014
ACTION DATE: 4/17/2014
APPLICANT: AT &T Wireless
c/o Smartlink LLC
4111 S Nampa Street
Spokane, WA 99203
REQUEST: SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of Wireless Communication Facilities
in an RS -12 (Suburban) Zone
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel #118 -112 -036: Lot 1, Short Plat 2005 -11
General Location: 9915 West Argent Road
Property Size: The parcel is approximately 1.65 acres
2. ACCESS: The site is accessed from Argent Road.
3. UTILITIES: All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned RS -12 (Suburban)
and contains a church. Surrounding properties are zoned and developed
as follows:
NORTH: RS -12 - Vacant
SOUTH: RS -20 - Single - Family Residences
EAST: RS-12- Vacant
WEST: RS -12 - Single - Family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site
for low- density residential uses. Goal OF -2 suggests the City ought to
maintain land use flexibility in regard to placement of infrastructure for
public and private utilities. Policy OF -2 -A encourages the sound
management of all energy and communication utilities through
coordination and cooperation dealing with construction of such facilities.
Policy OF -2 -B encourages the placement of utility substations which are
necessary for the surrounding neighborhood.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non - Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11 -158.
1
ANALYSIS
AT8TT Wireless is requesting special permit approval to locate cellular wireless
communication facilities at the Desert Springs Covenant Church located on the
northeast corner at the intersection of Road 100 and Argent Road. The
proposal involves the addition of an architectural feature on the roof of the
existing church to house cellular antennae together with a ground -level
equipment enclosure. The applicant's request is an effort to fill a
coverage/ capacity gap west of Road 68. The installation is intended to better
support existing users west of Road 68 and would also potentially increase
AT&T's ability to support more users in the same area.
As illustrated in the elevations submitted with the application (Exhibits 1 -3),
the applicant wishes to install wireless communication network antennae atop
an existing church. The antennae will be housed within an architecturally
integrated rooftop feature extending fifteen (15) feet above the existing roofline;
for an overall structure height of 55.4 feet above grade. The proposed wireless
communication antenna meets the requirements listed under the provisions of
PMC 25.70.075, which require wireless facilities to be located on an existing
structure taller than thirty-five (35) feet.
Wireless Facility zoning regulations were specifically developed to permit
(through special permit review) cellular tower /antenna equipment on taller
buildings within the community.
The PMC special permit review criteria for wireless facilities are written as
follows:
25.70.075 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES.
Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted under the
following conditions:
(1) Such structures shall be permitted in all industrial or C -3
zoning districts provided the location is 500 feet or more from a
residential district. Any location closer than 500 feet requires
special permit approval.
(2) Such structures may be permitted by special permit in all
other zoning districts provided said structures are:
(a) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed
building or structure that is higher than thirty five
(35) feet; or
(b) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a
water reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or
port facility.
(3) All wireless communication facilities shall comply with the
following standards
2
(a) Wireless facilities shall be screened or camouflaged by
employing the best available technology. This may be
accomplished by use of compatible materials, strategic location,
color, stealth technologies, and /or other measures to achieve
minimum visibility of the facility when viewed from public
rights -of -way, and adjoining properties such that a casual
observer cannot identify the Wireless Communication Facility.
(b) Wireless facilities shall be located in the City in the
following order of preference:
i) Attached to or located on buildings or structures
higher than 35 feet.
ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility
iii) Located on a site other than those listed in a) or b).
Commonly, cellular providers locate the equipment cabinets within a fenced
area surrounding the base of a pole; in this case the ground -level equipment is
proposed to be housed in a metal shelter designed for functionality. Renditions
submitted with the application show no fence is proposed around the metal
equipment shelter. Staff has entered a condition ( #7) requiring the equipment
enclosure be screened from view from surrounding roadways. The screening
must meet design requirements of the I -182 Overlay District (PMC 25.58).
A determination of non - significance from TOWAIR for the FAA has been
obtained by the applicant; as required by PMC 25.70.075(4) a copy has been
included in the application submittal.
STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. The site is zoned RS -12 (Suburban).
2. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for low- density residential
uses.
3. The site is approximately 1.65 acres in area.
4. The site contains a church approximately 9,200 square feet in area.
5. All municipal utilities currently serve the site.
3
6. In the RS -12 zone cellular towers may be permitted by special permit
provided the tower is either:
i) Attached to or located on an existing or proposed building or
structure that is higher than thirty -five (35) feet; or
ii) Located on or with a publicly owned facility such as a water
reservoir, fire station, police station, school, county or port
facility.
7. The cellular antennae will be mounted on top of an existing church
which is 40.4 feet in height.
8. Addition of the antennae housing appurtenance will increase the height
of the church by fifteen (15) feet for an overall height of 55.4 feet.
9. Equipment serving the proposed antennae will be located within a 275
square foot ground -level equipment enclosure approximately 11.5 feet in
height.
10. The Comprehensive Plan suggests the City ought to maintain land use
flexibility with regard to placement of infrastructure for public and
private utilities.
11. The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment.
12. Cellular equipment creates minimal demands on City infrastructure.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusions
based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060. The criteria are as follows:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically address cellular
equipment. The Comprehensive Plan goal OF -2 and policy OF -2 -A
discuss the need for sound management and coordination in the
location of utilities and community facilities. Policy ED -1 -C promotes
the need to support Pasco's urban area as a good business environment
by enhancing the infrastructure of the community. The applicability of
policy ED -1 -C is enhanced due to the fact that the new tower will
provide more /better service primarily to commercially zoned properties.
Policy UT -1 -C encourages coordination of utility providers' functional
plans with the City's land use and utility plans to ensure long term
service availability.
12
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The proposed use is a part of the communication network utilized by the
general public. The proposed equipment will be located in such a
manner so as not to impact other public utilities or services. The
proposed use does not require water and sewer.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The character of the vicinity is dominated by residential suburban
development. The addition of roof -top cellular antennae, as marked
through architecturally consistent features, will not alter or affect the
existing or intended character of the surrounding neighborhood.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The proposed antennae housing will be located on top of an existing
church building and generally will not be noticed by the public. The
cellular facility is unlikely to discourage development in the vicinity.
The tower will be designed to be integrated into the architectural design
of the existing church.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within
the district?
The proposed cellular equipment will create no fumes, dust or noise.
Cellular facilities have been located throughout the community in
residential, commercial and industrial zones without generating any
complaints received by the City.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in any way become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
The proposal is required to be designed by a professional engineer to
withstand applicable snow and wind loads. The applicant is also
required by law to coordinate with the FAA and FCC prior to obtaining a
building permit. A Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the
tower has been issued to AT&T by the FAA for the proposed facility.
5
Radio waves at frequencies utilized by local cellular networks have not
been proven to be harmful to human health. Radio wave activity is
focused on the antennas which are elevated approximately 40 to 50 feet
above grade; away from human activity. The cellular antennae and
equipment pose no true threat to public health and safety.
1) The special permit shall apply to parcel # 118 - 112 -036 addressed
9915 West Argent Road;
2) The property shall be developed in substantial conformity with the
elevations and site plan submitted with the application except as
conditioned herein;
3) The cellular antennae enclosure shall not exceed 55.4 feet in height as
measured from existing grade;
4) The cellular antennae shall be enclosed within an architecturally
integrated feature attached to the church building;
5) The ground -level equipment enclosure shall be located no closer than
ten (10) feet from the north and east property lines of parcel # 118-
112 -036;
6) The ground -level equipment shall be located within a decorative block
wall which fully blocks the view from all rights -of -way. Design of the
sight- screening shall meet the requirements of the I -182 Overlay
District (PMC 25.58);
7) The proposed cellular facility must comply with all FCC regulations;
8) The roof -top antennae housing shall not emit light;
9) The roof -top appurtenance housing the cellular antennae shall be
constructed and painted to match the architecture of the church;
10) The special permit shall be null and void if a City of Pasco building
permit is not obtained by April 30, 2015.
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 17, 2014
staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of
fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow the
installation of wireless communication facilities on tax parcel #
118 - 112 -036 addressed 9915 West Argent Road with conditions as
contained in the April 17, 2014 staff report.
0
46�
•03
� � aA •a
U v�
CIA 001 U ON
U
r
~ �saq � o
45
V1 .Pm �o�
0
z N
� v U
� o
S�iLIII'I �I� N
•� U
U
�t-
,� o
001 (IVOR
cl
U ..
P
� G�5
0
N
0
bjO
0
0
Cd
W
W
O
O
4
0
�o
0
0
N
W
.r
O
ail
ii
,I.
i
!Ii
II II
N
• r-q
I
r
O
rici
U
u
bjO
r
�C
W
MEOW
'i
�x
a�
N�
- wo
AU
1a
F
i
Y
Planning Commission Minutes
3/20/2014
Location of a Wireless Communication
A. Special Permit Facility in an RS -12 (Suburban) Zone
(AT &T) (MF# SP 2014 -0011 Continued from
the February 27, 2014 Meeting
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the location
of a wireless communication facility in an RS -12 (Suburban Zone). Mr. O Neill
stated that the applicant was unable to attend the public hearing but wished for
the hearing to still take place.
The site is located at Argent Road and Road 100 and is approximately 1.65 acres
and contains a church that is roughly 10,000 square feet in size. AT &T is
proposing to locate cellular antennas on an attachment to the roof of the existing
church building. They are also proposing a ground level equipment enclosure of
approximately 276 square feet. Typically cellular facilities propose to locate
equipment enclosures at the ground level by their towers and usually fenced. The
plans submitted with the application didn't indicate fencing, however, staff is
suggesting the permit be conditioned with fencing standards meeting the I -182
Corridor design requirements. The applicant is aware of the proposed condition
and is agreeable. Mr. O'Neill briefly reviewed the code criteria for locating wireless
communications facilities for the benefit of the Commission.
Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification on an approval condition regarding
the height exceeding 55.4 feet.
Mr. O'Neill responded that it shall not exceed 55.4 feet.
Commissioner Hoekstra questioned why Ms. Cope has been unsuccessful in
obtaining a signature.
Mr. O'Neill answered that the church has a board that serves to make decisions
about the church. He is uncertain of the reason but perhaps the board was
unable to reach an agreement internally.
David McDonald, City Planner, clarified that staff does not know why Ms. Cope
has not obtained a signature from the church. Typically the applications come
with the signature of the applicant and the property owner. Staff felt that with
this application it would beneficial to getting the process started and if the
property owners don't sign then the application can be withdrawn.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked for clarification on what type of fencing would be
required as a condition.
Mr. O'Neill responded that the I -182 Overlay District requires a decorative solid
screening for equipment enclosures so staff is leaning towards a block wall.
Mr. McDonald stated that if the Planning Commission feels it is important enough
to condition the special permit with the block wall fencing requirement then that
can be done in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood.
Chairman Cruz asked if the applicant intended on having a generator that would
produce noise.
Mr. O'Neill responded that there is no mention of a generator but there is an
equipment enclosure and sometimes the electrical devices may produce a
humming noise.
Chairman Cruz stated that they are pre -fab looking boxes and due to the public
location, a block wall would be suggested to make the area more aesthetically
pleasing and remove noise concerns.
Chairman Cruz read an email from the applicant, Julie Cope, into the record
stating that she was fine with the hearing proceeding and the tentative approval
conditions. She mentioned the antennas enclosed adding on to the top of the
church and embedding the antennas in the add -on and there are no FAA lights.
With no further comments the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Khan asked staff about a line in bold in the staff report regarding
the PMC and if the church was publicly owned.
Mr. O'Neill stated that it was not publicly owned.
Mr. McDonald clarified that it only had to meet one of the requirements listed from
the PMC.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the hearing
on the proposed cellular wireless facility and initiate deliberations and schedule
adoption of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council
for the April 17, 2014 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes
4/17/2014
A. Special Permit Location of a Wireless Communication
Facility in an RS -12 iSuburbanl Zone (AT &Tl
IMF# SP 2014 -0011
Chairwoman Greenaway read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the
special permit application for the location of a wireless communication facility
in an RS -12 Zone. He stated that there were no additions to the staff report.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 17, 2014
staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow the installation of
wireless communication facilities on tax parcel # 118- 112 -036 addressed 9915
West Argent Road with conditions as contained in the April 17, 2014 staff
report. The motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council 1
TO: Gary Crutchfit
Rick White,
Community &
FROM: Shane O'Neill, Planner I
Development Director vV
April 28, 2014
Regular Mtg.: 515114
SUBJECT: Broadmoor Storage Special Permit for the Expansion of a Mini- Storage Facility
in a C -1 (Retail Business) Zone (MF# SP 2014 -003)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Broadmoor Storage Special Permit - Vicinity Map
2. Broadmoor Storage Special Permit - Proposed Resolution
3. Broadmoor Storage Special Permit - Report to Planning Commission
4. Broadmoor Storage Special Permit - Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 3/20/14
and 4/17/14
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
515: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving the
special permit for the expansion of a mini- storage facility at
9335 Sandifur Parkway as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
I&OW19
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On March 20, 2014, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
determine whether or not to recommend a special permit be granted for the
expansion of a mini - storage facility at 9335 Sandifur Parkway.
B. Following the conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned
that with conditions, it would be appropriate to recommend approval of a special
permit to expand the mini- storage facility.
C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution.
D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been
received.
8(d)
Vicinity Item: Special Permit
Map Applicant: Sound Investment N
File #: SP2014 -003
..
... r _ 4 "77.'777 :.
q jl,
riJ e e 6
SANDIFUR
*01
I
I
i
I
Q
A
� t
i
tk
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE
EXPANSION OF A MINI - STORAGE FACILITY IN THE C -1 (RETAIL BUSINESS)
ZONE.
WHEREAS, Sound Investment Group LLC, submitted an application for the
location of cellular facilities at 9915 W. Argent Road (Tax Parcels: 115- 430 -173, 115-
430-174,115-441-022,115-430-031 and 115- 442 -012); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 20, 2014
to review the proposed mini- storage expansion; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on April 17, 2014 the Planning Commission
recommended approval of a Special Permit for the proposed mini- storage expansion with
certain conditions; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Sound Investment Group LLC for the
expansion of a mini - storage facility in a C -1 (Retail Business) District under Master
File # SP2014 -003 with the following conditions:
a) The special permit shall apply to Franklin County tax parcel #115 -442-
012 and subsequent assignments thereof;
b) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan
submitted with the Special Permit application;
c) The property must be developed in conformance with the I -182 Overlay
District design standards;
d) All aisle -ways between buildings and all entrance driveways /roads shall
be hard - surfaced;
e) All building walls exposed to an existing city street together with all
walls visible from adjoining properties shall contain architectural
features to add interest and aesthetic qualities to building by the use of
masonry coursing, pilasters, patterning, alternating textures and
decorative molding to match the existing office building. No composite
materials, such as typical home siding, are permitted;
f) All metal roofing shall be colored to complement the existing mini -
storage buildings while minimizing glare;
g) All security lighting shall be shielded and designed to prevent the
encroachment of light onto adjoining properties;
h) A minimum ten foot wide landscaping buffer meeting the requirements
set forth in PMC 25.75.050(3)(B) shall be installed along the entire
length of the north property line;
i) Prior to obtaining a building permit for the mini - storage facility the
applicant shall complete a Boundary Line Adjustment, adjusting the
current property lines so as to create one parcel upon which the
completed mini - storage facility is to be located;
j) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not
been obtained by June 30, 2015.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 5s' day of May, 2014.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2014 -003 APPLICANT: Sound Investment Group LLC
HEARING DATE: 3/20/2014 PO Box 4770
ACTION DATE: 4/17/2014 Pasco, WA 99301
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Expansion of a Mini- Storage Facility in the C -1
Zone
1.
Legal: Parcel's #: 115 - 430 -173, 115 - 430 -174, 115 - 441 -022, 115 - 430 -031
and 115 - 442 -012: Lots 13 & 14 Binding Site Plan 2002 -05 together with Lot
3 Binding Site Plan 2005 -08, Lot 4 and the northerly 144 feet of Lot 3, Block
4 of Broadmoor Park # 1
General Location: 9335 Sandifur Parkway
Property Size: 519,244 ft' or approximately 12 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sandifur Parkway
3. UTILITIES: The existing storage facility is currently served by municipal
water and sewer. The proposed storage buildings will not require connection
to municipal sewer and water.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C -1 (Retail
Business). Most of the surrounding property is zoned C -1 and is
undeveloped. The zoning and land use of the surrounding properties are as
follows:
NORTH:
R -1 - Multi - Family Residences
SOUTH:
C -1 - Vacant/ Commercial
EAST:
C-1- Vacant
WEST:
C -1 - Vacant/ Commercial
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan
for future commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address self -
storage facilities, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of
orderly development including the development of zoning standards for off -
street parking and other development. Policy LU -1 -13 encourages
enhancement of the physical appearance of development within the City.
The Comprehensive Plan (LU -4 -B) encourages the grouping of commercial
uses to promote functional and economical marketing and operations to
produce sustainable clusters of shopping and services. Policy LU -2 -D
requires all development to be landscaped. ED -3 -E suggests the use of
landscaping to provide a buffer between less intensive uses (such as
residential) from utilitarian areas of commercial and industrial facilities.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency
for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a
threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non - Significance
(DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197 -11 -158.
ANALYSIS
The owners of the existing Broadmoor Storage self - storage facility have applied to
expand their capacity by way of new construction. The proposal involves the
addition of eight (8) new storage buildings and two (2) new carports. In the C -1
(Retail Business) zone mini- storage facilities are listed under Permitted Conditional
Uses (PMC 25.42.040(4); thereby requiring special permit approval prior to their
location or expansion.
As indicated in the site plan submitted with the application (Exhibit `11, the
proposal involves the construction of eight (8) storage buildings varying in size
from 3,077 square feet to 17,850 square feet. The total area of the proposed
storage buildings combined is approximately 91,483 square feet (2.1 acres). Also
included in the proposal are two covered parking carport structures; each carport
is 22,365 square feet for a total of 44,730 square feet. In all, a total of 136,213
square feet (3.1 acres) of new structures is proposed.
Although the proposal involves what are now five (5) separate parcels, the parcels
are currently being reconfigured so all of the new construction will occur on a
single tax parcel. The new parcel slated for development will not incur any
additional right -of -way frontage beyond what exists for the existing Broadmoor
Storage site.
Mini- storage facilities are not a permitted use in the C -1 (Retail Business District).
Mini - storage facilities are, however, a conditional use that may be permitted only
by the granting of a special permit. Special Permit reviews and determinations are
made based upon the criteria listed in PMC Section 25.86.060 and itemized below
under the "findings of fact" section. If it can be demonstrated that a mini - storage
facility will be in accordance with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, that it
will be maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
surrounding neighborhood, and that it generally supports the other criteria of PMC
Section 25.86.060, a Special Permit may be approved.
As discussed above the Special Permit review process allows the Planning
Commission to make a determination on whether or not a proposed use will be or
can be maintained in harmony with the existing or intended character of the
neighborhood. It is through this process that the Planning Commission may
develop approval conditions that would ensure the proposal will be established
and operated in harmony with the neighborhood. The intended character of the
neighborhood includes future retail and office uses as well as residential uses. The
2
neighborhood is not intended for storage and warehousing which are most
appropriate in the C -3 (General Business) and industrial zoning districts.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings
drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning
Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the result of factual
testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1. The site is addressed 9335 Sandifur Parkway.
2. The site is accessed from Sandifur Parkway.
3. Currently the site is approximately 12 acres in area.
4. Municipal sewer and water currently serve the site.
5. The site currently contains a storage facility.
6. The applicant owns and operates the existing Broadmoor Storage facility.
7. A Special Permit was granted allowing establishment of the existing facility.
8. The site is zoned C -1 (Retail Business).
9. The C -1 zone lists mini - storage facilities as a Permitted Conditional Use.
10. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for future commercial uses.
11. The site is located within the boundaries of the I -182 Overlay District.
12. The site is adjacent to the Mediterranean Villas residential subdivision, to
the north.
13. The applicant proposes to increase the capacity of the existing mini - storage
facility by constructing eight (8) new storage buildings and two (2) new
carport structures.
14. PMC 25.75.050(3)(B) requires a ten (10) foot wide landscaping buffer
between commercial and residential zones.
15. The requirements for commercial landscape buffers are listed in PMC
Section 25.75.050(3)(B).
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion based
upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or not the
proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives and
text of the Comprehensive PlanP
A mini - storage facility can be compatible with several Comprehensive Plan
policies.
Policy LU -1 -B encourages enhancement of the physical appearance of
development within the City. The proposal would replace vacant land with a
well - developed facility containing perimeter landscaping. Policy LU -2 -13
requires all development to be landscaped. Development of the site currently
includes landscaping which support policies of the Comprehensive Plan
(LU2 -D). In this case, original development of the existing facility was done
in a way that reduces the amount of right -of -way frontage. This was done to
make as much road frontage as possible available to future commercial uses
which more heavily rely on visibility from passers -by. The existing right -of-
way landscaping on this portion of Sandifur Parkway is complete; no
additional right -of -way landscaping is required.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
All municipal utilities are currently available to the site from surrounding
streets. Water and sewer demands of the proposed use will be negligible
compared to permitted uses such as restaurants and similar uses. Impacts
to the adjoining streets will likewise be minimal.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The Comprehensive Plan encourages the grouping of commercial uses to
promote functional and economical marketing and operations to produce
sustainable clusters of shopping and services (LU -4 -13). The proposed use
may be less intensive from an activity standpoint than other permitted uses
in the C -1 zone but does not necessarily support the commercial clustering
of businesses permitted in the C -1 zone.
The adjacent land to the north contains residential development. Per PMC
25.75.050(3)(B) commercially zoned properties adjacent to properties in less
intense zoning districts shall have a ten (10) foot landscape buffer on the
side immediately adjacent to the less intense zoning district. To comply
with this provision the tentative approval conditions contain a requirement
to install the necessary ten foot landscape buffer along the north property
line.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general vicinity
or impair the value thereof?
The existing self- storage facility has been designed to meet the design
requirements of the I -182 Overlay District (PMC 25.58). All walls of the
proposed structures facing a right -of -way will be required be treated with
architectural design features to meet the requirements of the I -182 Overlay
District.
Structures in the C -1 zone are limited to thirty five (35) feet in height. None
of the proposed structures will approach 35 feet in height with the tallest
structure being twenty five (25) feet in height.
4
Neither the location nor the height of the proposal is likely to discourage
permitted uses from establishing in the vicinity.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or flashing
lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the district?
To date, no complaints about the effects of operations for the existing mini -
storage facility have been received by the city. Typically, a mini - storage
facility will generate far less daily traffic, noise, dust, etc. than some uses
permitted in the C -1 zone; such as restaurants, taverns, night -clubs and
car- washes. The normal hours for general (customer) access to the storage
units is between 6am to l 1pm; with 24 -hour access available for an added
cost. Based on statements from Broadmoor Storage staff, only a handful of
customers take advantage to the 24 -hour access service.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
As a general land use, mini - storage facilities are not inherently dangerous to
public health or safety. The expansion however, may be noticed by the
residences to the north. Currently the storage buildings are approximately
420 linear feet away from the nearest residential property to the north.
Under the proposal at hand the northernmost storage building will be
located within fifteen (15) feet of the same residential properties. This
change in proximity to the residences may be disruptive to the lifestyles of
the existing residents. However, the same can be said for any new
development proposed adjacent to the homes. The land south of
Mediterranean Villas has been commercially zoned ever since the homes
were developed.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to Franklin County tax parcel #115442012;
2) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site plan
submitted with the Special Permit application;
3) The property must be developed in conformance with the I -182 Overlay
District design standards;
4) All aisle -ways between buildings and all entrance driveways /roads shall be
hard - surfaced;
5) All building walls exposed to an existing city street together with all walls
visible from adjoining properties shall contain architectural features to add
5
interest and aesthetic qualities to building by the use of masonry coursing,
pilasters, patterning, alternating textures and decorative molding to match
the existing office building. No composite materials, such as typical home
siding, are permitted;
6) All metal roofing shall be colored to complement the existing mini - storage
buildings while minimizing glare;
7) All security lighting shall be shielded and designed to prevent the
encroachment of light onto adjoining properties;
8) A minimum ten foot wide landscaping buffer meeting the requirements set
forth in PMC 25.75.050(3)(B) shall be installed along the entire length of the
north property line;
9) Prior to obtaining a building permit for the mini- storage facility the
applicant shall complete a Boundary Line Adjustment, adjusting the current
property lines so as to create one parcel upon which the completed mini -
storage facility is to be located;
10) The Special Permit shall be null and void if a building permit has not been
obtained by June 30, 2015.
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 17, 2014 staff report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move based on the findings of fact
and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit to allow the expansion of a mini -
storage facility on tax parcel # 115 - 442 -012 addressed 9335 Sandifur
Parkway with conditions as contained in the April 17, 2014 staff report.
0
;
�-Owlkoe twgumme
< I
%� % % O % % % % / / / /O %% • ry,
e {
VM'IX1atlNdV'A7Md X d 3 LLM1iS
NOISNVdX33VVNO1SiW OM/OS SfEV6
Oi9
v wa
r
s U
%
FO Q X
P
a
$
b
4-)
a
.rq
x
w
;
�-Owlkoe twgumme
< I
%� % % O % % % % / / / /O %% • ry,
Vicinity
Map
z
Nei
R
Item: Special Permit
Applicant: Sound Investment N
File #: SP2014 -003
,'UR PKWY
• j. t
K
h
1
i
i
I
T
i I -
Q
T
@yy=
VINCENZO DR
—Multi-Family Residences-
N NIAJESTIA LN
bi N M 0
Zoning tem: Special Permit
g Applicant: Sound Investment N
Map File #: SP2014 -003
n
U�
z
a
a
z
a
a
VINCENZO DR o
R -3 H
tedium-Density Residential)
MAJESTIA LN b
SANDIFUR PKWY
C -1
(Retail Business
a
a
r�
�MyN
�1
•*u{
VI
d
a
A
4ml
;s
0
rl)
bA
a
0
0
A
J,vt
FF
ge
17
71
ew
IA
a�
a�
•�
a
Planning Commission Minutes
3/20/2014
C. Special Permit Expansion of a Storage Facility (Sound
Investment Group LLC) (MF# SP2014 -0031
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the special permit application for the
expansion of a storage facility. The applicant is proposing to expand their existing
storage facility significantly at 9335 Sandifur Parkway. The site is zoned C -1 and
is located in the 1 -182 Corridor Overlay District. The current facility has been
developed to meet the design requirements of the Overlay District. In the C -1
Zone, storage facilities are listed under permitted conditional uses, meaning they
are not regularly permitted and are required to go through the special permit
process. The site plan submitted with the application shows 8 new storage
buildings of various sizes. The Pasco Municipal Code requires a 10 foot
landscaped buffer along the northern property line were the site adjoins a
residential zoning district. The applicant has stated that the current hours of
operation are 8:00am- 11:00pm, however they do allow 24 -hour access for
customers who wish to pay for that additional costs, meaning there could be some
noise disturbance from time to time.
Commissioner Kempf asked about curb and sidewalk requirements.
Mr. O'Neill responded that there is currently curbing but no sidewalks. The
sidewalks are not required since the applicant is reconfiguring their boundary
lines and development will not occur along the frontage of the property.
Commissioner Khan asked if staff had received any complaints or police reports
for the current storage facility.
Mr. O'Neill answered that staff has not received any complaints. Staff has not
looked any to police reports.
Commissioner Bachart asked if there was any discussion regarding building
heights for the covered carports used for RV's.
Mr. O'Neill responded that the zoning district structures to 35 feet in height.
Commissioner Bachart asked if the current structure on the property is fairly tall.
Mr. McDonald stated that the old ice arena was fairly tall and could reach up to
the 35 foot level.
Commissioner Bachart wanted to make sure that the carports wouldn't look out of
place.
Mr. McDonald replied that they would not be seen from Sandifur Parkway and
would not look out of place.
Chairman Cruz added that the structure will be set back far enough and the
structure will not have occupancy for people to look into the neighboring
backyards. There is a generous enough buffer.
Nicholas Cameron, 3308 Riverhaven, spoke on behalf of his application and
explained the lot configuration. He stated that the RV and boat covers won't be
any taller than 25 feet. They don't expect much of an increase of traffic. As for
security, they have a one -way access gate for the tenants to use with a key card,
alarms and a camera with overall security system. At this time they have not had
any security problems. The facility is also used for canine police training.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked about the setbacks on the north end of the property
and who would be responsible for maintaining the piece of land between the fence
the adjoining property.
Mr. Cameron answered that it will depend on the requirements by the City. They
intend to do low maintenance landscaping, rocks, shrubs and trees and don't plan
on having irrigation as they don't wish to plant grass.
Mr. McDonald added that the Pasco Municipal Code specifies the required
landscaping and will be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain.
Chairman Cruz stated that it doesn't have to be grass but could be rock or other
landscaping.
Mr. O'Neill replied that it is not a typical landscaping strip but rather a buffer
between the residential homes.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Hoekstra discussed the landscaping buffer and was in agreement
with the conditions.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Hoekstra, to close the
public hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and
development of a recommendation for City Council for the April 17, 2014 meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
Planning Commission Minutes
4/17/2014
C. Special Permit Expansion of a Storage Facility (Sound
Investment Group LLCI IMF# SP 2014 -0031
Chairwoman Greenaway read the master file number and asked for comments
from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the
special permit application for the expansion of a storage facility. He stated on
the tax parcel number was added to the conditions. There were no other
changes to the staff report.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 17, 2014
staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission
recommend the City Council grant a special permit to allow the expansion of a
mini - storage facility on tax parcel # 115 - 442 -012 addressed 9335 Sandifur
Parkway with conditions as contained in the April 17, 2014 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 28, 2014
a
TO: Gary Crutchfiel ; i ager Regular Mtg.: 5/5/14
Rick White,
Community & conomic Development Director
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Bethel Church Special Permit for the location of a Preschool in a C -1 (Retail
Business) Zone (MF# SP 2014 -002)
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Bethel Church Special Permit - Vicinity Map
2. Bethel Church Special Permit - Proposed Resolution
3. Bethel Church Special Permit - Report to Planning Commission
4. Bethel Church Special Permit - Planning Commission Minutes: 3/20/14 and
4/17/14
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
5/5: MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. , approving a
Special Permit for the location of a preschool at 5202 Outlet
Drive, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
NONE
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A. On March 20, 2014 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to determine
whether or not to recommend approval of a Special Permit to allow the location of
a preschool at 5202 Outlet Drive.
B. Following conduct of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended
the preschool in question be granted a Special Permit with a number of
conditions.
C. The recommended conditions are contained in the attached Resolution.
D. No written appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation has been
received.
8(e)
m 1-9
l 12
M
/ / �.fr� Li _ La
La R"Al
Ylw Ed6inloi!F.�A
AP
• �_ .I
1
t�4
♦f b -
/ Y'
r
qe
r-
u uw�u
r(twv ILu
s��ii tiffs �
U
,y� N � . u..��L]/ � ; .� ..:tom.' � Y - ;A�. •
U
39 �O a
ism •ter C� / � _ � �� S
• � ^ e� � j Y,r� � e spy � c?
am9 800wab069
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION
AND APPROVING A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A PRESCHOOL AT 5202 OUTLET DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Bethel Church submitted an application for the location of a preschool on a
portion of the south half of Section 8, Township 9 North, Range 29 WM (5202 Outlet Drive located on
parcel 115 -502 -016); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 20, 2014 to review the
proposed preschool; and,
WHEREAS, following deliberations on April 17, 2014 the Planning Commission recommended
approval of a Special Permit for the preschool with certain conditions;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO:
1. That a Special Permit is hereby granted to Bethel Church for the location of a preschool
in a C -1 (Retail Commercial) District under Master File # SP 2014 -002 with the
following conditions:
a) The special permit shall apply to 5202 Outlet Dr. located on parcel 115 -502 -016;
b) The space leased to the preschool must comply with all requirements of the
International Building Code for an "E" occupancy prior to occupancy by the
preschool;
c) The storefront appearance of the leased space cannot be altered except as needed to
comply with Building Code exiting requirements;
d) Any outdoor play area operating in conjunction with the preschool must be fenced
and otherwise comply with the requirements of WAC 170 - 295 -2130 and WAC 170-
295 -5090.
e) The building, including entrances and restrooms, must be ADA/ handicap - compliant
prior to occupancy by the preschool;
f) Occupancy of the building for preschool purposes will not be permitted until the
preschool complies with all conditions listed above;
g) The preschool shall not object to the transfer, renewal or issuance of a liquor license
for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of the property.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 5h day of May, 2014.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra L. Clark, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: SP 2014 -002 APPLICANT: Bethel Church
HEARING DATE: 3/20/2014 600 Shockley Rd.
ACTION DATE: 4/17/2014 Richland, WA 99352
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT: Location of a preschool in a C -1 District
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: Parcel # 115- 502 -016: a portion of the South half of Section 8,
Township 9 North, Range 29 WM;
General Location: 5202 Outlet Dr.
Property Size: Approximately 11 acres
2. ACCESS: The site has access from Sandifur Parkway by way of Outlet
Drive
3. UTILITIES: The site is served by municipal water and sewer.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned C -1 (Retail
Business). All surrounding property is zoned C -1 and is undeveloped.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated in the Comprehensive
Plan for future commercial uses. The Plan does not specifically address
preschools, but elements of the Plan encourage the promotion of orderly
development including the development of zoning standards for off - street
parking and other development.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other
information, a threshold determination resulting in a Determination of
Non - Significance (DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-
11 -158.
ANALYSIS
In September of 2012 the City Council approved a Special Permit (Resolution
3426) for Bethel Church to use four suites in the Broadmoor Outlet Mall for
worship activities, with the following conditions:
1) The special permit shall be personal to the applicant;
2) The space leased to the church must comply with all requirements
of the International Building Code for an "A" occupancy prior to
occupancy by the church;
3) The storefront appearance of the leased space cannot be altered
except as needed to comply with Building Code exiting
requirements;
4) The building, including entrances and restrooms, must be
ADA /handicap - compliant prior to occupancy by the church;
5) Occupancy of the building for church purposes will not be
permitted until the church complies with all conditions listed
above;
6) The church shall not object to the transfer, renewal or issuance of
a liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000
feet of the property;
7) This special permit shall be valid for a period of three years and
will expire on October 1, 2015.
The Church received an occupancy registration in April of 2013 and has been
operating in this location since that time. The Bethel Church leases
approximately 17,936 square feet of floor area located in the southeast corner
of the Outlet Mall Complex. The lease agreement requires the Bethel Church to
participate in all common area charges shared by all lessees within the Mall.
The Church has recently applied for a Special Permit to operate a preschool at
this same location, utilizing approximately 2,000 square feet of their lease area
for the program. The preschool plans to operate 6 mornings per week with 40
students and 5 staff members. The proposed preschool location has parking to
the north and south side of the building.
As noted above, the Church Special Permit will expire on October 1, 2015.
The Outlet Mall was constructed to meet Building Code requirements for retail
activities. Educational institutions are classified in the Building Code as "E"
occupancies. When a building is changed from one occupancy class to another
(from an "M" [Mercantile] to an "E" [Educational] for example) the building is
required to meet life /safety standards pertaining to the new occupancy
classification. Meeting these standards would be listed as a condition of
issuance of the Special Permit.
A potential problem with a preschool locating in a commercial area is the fact
that some retail establishments or restaurants sell or serve liquor. The issue is
also typically addressed by placing a condition on the Special Permit approval
limiting the preschool's ability to object to a liquor license.
2
While the Special Permit for the sponsoring entity (Bethel Church) is due to
expire in October of 2015, preschools are allowed in C -1 zones with a Special
Permit. Thus even without the church sponsorship the preschool could
continue through another organization or as a stand -alone commercial
business.
According to the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 170 - 295 - 0020(1),
"Individuals, entities and agencies that provide care for children must be
licensed unless specifically exempt under RCW 43.215.010(2)." The current
application falls under the exemption found in RCW 43.215.010(2)(e): "Nursery
schools that are engaged primarily in early childhood education with preschool
children and in which no child is enrolled on a regular basis for more than four
hours per day," as the Bethel preschool will operate only 4 hours or less per
day and engage only preschool -age children. If the preschool were to exceed
these limitations and fall under the WAC 170 -295 regulations a fenced play
area would be required (WAC 170 - 295 -5090) with "a minimum of seventy-five
usable square feet per child using the play area at any one time." (170 -295-
2130).
FINDING$ OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial
findings drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report.
The Planning Commission may add additional findings to this listing as the
result of factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record
hearing.
1. Applicant desires to locate a commercial preschool in a C -1 zone
2. Commercial preschools are unclassified uses requiring review through
the special permit process prior to locating or expanding in any zoning
district.
3. Applicant previously secured a Special Permit to operate a church (Bethel
Church) at this location in September of 2012.
4. The Church received an Occupancy Registration in March of 2013 and
has been in operation from that time to the present.
5. The Church Special Permit expires in October of 2015
6. The proposed site is in a C -1 Zoning district.
7. The proposed site is located at 5202 Outlet Drive.
3
8. The site was originally developed as the Broadmoor Outlet Mall.
9. The Outlet Mall contains over 103,000 square feet of floor area.
10. The Church occupies approximately 17,936 square feet of floor area in
the southeast corner of the Outlet Mall Complex.
11. The preschool will utilize about 2,000 square feet within the Bethel
Church lease property for their operation.
12. The preschool would operate Monday- Friday, from 9 am tol1:15 a.m.
13. About twenty -nine percent of the Outlet Mall is currently vacant.
14. The preschool would serve approximately 40 children per day under the
supervision of 5 employees.
15. The Municipal Code (PMC 25.78.170) specifies one parking space for
each employee and one space per 6 children for a daycare facility (for the
purpose of parking calculations preschools are treated like daycare
facilities). With 5 employees and 40 children the center would require 12
parking spaces for its operation.
16. Parking areas are located to the north and south of the proposed
preschool location with more than 113 parking spaces.
17. Preschools are classified as an "E" occupancy under the International
Building Code.
18. The Mall was designed and built for "M" occupancy loads.
19. "E" occupancy building design standards are different than the "M"
occupancy standards.
20. Nearly forty-three percent of the Outlet Mall is occupied by institutional
uses (Charter College, Bethel Church /Preschool and Police Mini Station).
21. Current Mall tenants include Bethel Church, Broadmoor Fitness,
Charter College, City of Pasco Police (mini station), Dress Barn, Gordon
Winery, Little Mud Pies (clothing store), and Van Heusen.
22. Gordon Winery serves alcoholic beverages.
23. The proposed preschool as represented by the application and
subsequent e-mail communications is exempt from State licensing and
oversight, as per WAC170- 295 -0020 and RCW 43.215.010(2).
4
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a special permit the Planning
Commission must develop findings of fact from which to draw its conclusion
based upon the criteria listed in P.M.C. 25.86.060 and determine whether or
not the proposal:
(1) Will the proposed use be in accordance with the goals, policies, objectives
and text of the Comprehensive Plan?
The Plan does not specifically address preschools, but elements of the
Plan encourage the promotion of orderly development including the
development of zoning standards for off -street parking and other
development standards.
(2) Will the proposed use adversely affect public infrastructure?
The Outlet Mall was designed to handle significant traffic with a large
parking lot and interior circulation. The proposed preschool will operate
in the mornings on weekdays when other Mall traffic is generally low and
utility usage is low.
(3) Will the proposed use be constructed, maintained and operated to be in
harmony with existing or intended character of the general vicinity?
The proposed preschool will be located in the Broadmoor Outlet Mall and
no exterior changes are planned to the building. The current store front
character will be maintained. The Bethel Church participates in common
area maintenance costs under its lease, which would include the
preschool. The intended character of the Outlet Mall is retail in nature.
The proposed preschool is not expected to impact the character of the
mall in a permanent manner.
(4) Will the location and height of proposed structures and the site design
discourage the development of permitted uses on property in the general
vicinity or impair the value thereof?
The proposed preschool will be located in part of the existing Outlet Mall
currently leased by Bethel Church and no structures will be built or
added to the Mall. The site design will remain unchanged. Bethel Church
pays market rent and is responsible for common area charges like all
tenants of the Mall.
(5) Will the operations in connection with the proposal be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes vibrations, dust, traffic, or
flashing lights than would be the operation of any permitted uses within the
district?
5
The preschool will generate no more dust, vibrations, flashing lights or
fumes than would be expected by permitted retail uses of the zoning
district. Traffic generated by the preschool will occur mostly on
weekday mornings when Mall traffic is minimal.
(6) Will the proposed use endanger the public health or safety if located and
developed where proposed, or in anyway will become a nuisance to uses
permitted in the district?
Past history of preschool operations within the City has shown they do
not endanger public health or safety and are generally not nuisance
generators.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
1) The special permit shall apply to 5202 Outlet Dr. located on parcel 115-
502 -016;
2) The space leased to the preschool must comply with all requirements of
the International Building Code for an "E" occupancy prior to occupancy
by the preschool;
3) The storefront appearance of the leased space cannot be altered except
as needed to comply with Building Code exiting requirements;
4) Any outdoor play area operating in conjunction with the preschool must
be fenced and otherwise comply with the requirements of WAC 170 -295-
2130 and WAC 170- 295 -5090.
5) The building, including entrances and restrooms, must be ADA/
handicap - compliant prior to occupancy by the preschool;
6) Occupancy of the building for preschool purposes will not be permitted
until the preschool complies with all conditions listed above;
7) The preschool shall not object to the transfer, renewal or issuance of a
liquor license for an existing or new establishment within 1,000 feet of
the property.
MOTION: I move to adopt findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as
contained in the April 17, 2014 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the
Planning Commission recommend the City Council grant a special permit for
the location of a preschool operation at 3315 W Court Street, with conditions
as listed in the April 17, 2014 staff report.
6
/t
AP
LU
O ya Im
If
s � = j i !l•� +wui
`J7 " Nit "iU4
U a
tt �
as l3l o / i�f.✓� �
W
..--1 4f j
U � � IV-08 ',
FQ
ei
mft. ?s
aaa CL
■■ .■ ■ \��� MINIONS, \ 1111
■■ ■■ ■ � ��: •� �- �� 111 ;
ii;ii:■ °� �i ii.ON
INS INS
MEN
mom M
■■.■■ ■ �..� � 111 � �� 11
■ ■■ -• 111 : 11 11 III
■■ ■■ INS �� '■iai�.11►
0 mm ME ME
INS
UP
■ ■■■ ■�� 111111111111 111
M004■ /
i
......, ..�. �� •••� 111 :
..... �..., �t �� ...�
oil
mm MM..�
MM, mm
1111111111111 111
go a-
a�
•ll
0
a
A
4J
''Q
V)
UG
0
•rl
rm
O
O
a
Planning Commission Minutes
3/20/2014
B. Special Permit
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application for the location of a preschool in a C -1 Zone. In September 2012,
Council approved a special permit for the church to locate in the outlet mall that is
roughly 18,000 square feet. Special permits are required for preschools, which is
what the applicant is applying for. They plan to use roughly 2,000 square feet of the
church for the preschool.
Commissioner Bachart asked if there was any more concern with the church
continuing to operate on this property along with the daycare and if there will be an
influx of traffic.
Mr. White answered that he believes the preschool will operate six days per week.
Commissioner Bachart asked if the other tenants have raised any issues with the
additional cars.
Mr. White stated no.
Chairman Cruz added that most of the other tenants are retail, the gym and Charter
College which have more evening activity so there shouldn't be an issue with traffic
during the preschool hours.
The applicant stated that they did not wish to speak at the public hearing.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Kempf asked the applicants about outdoor play space for the children.
Chairman Cruz re- opened the public hearing to allow the applicant to respond.
Amanda Stueckle, 6216 Devon Court, responded that there is a grass area to the
east of the building that they hope to fence in but they will need to get clearance from
the landlords.
Chairman Cruz asked if it will have to be cleared with DHS.
Ms. Stueckle stated that they are not a daycare so do not need clearance through
DHS.
-1-
David McDonald, City Planner, added that since they are not a daycare they do not
need a license through the state, however they will need a fence at least 4' tall or
higher.
Commissioner Hoestra asked if the preschool will be open to the public.
Ms. Stueckle responded that it will be non - discriminatory and open to the public and
will operate 5 days a week. At most there will only be 32 children, with two
classrooms.
Commissioner Khan stated that operating hours are around the peak hours for
Charter College and the gym so there is some cause concern for traffic on Sandifur.
Mr. White responded that the preschool will generate less traffic than a retail store
would if it located in the same location so traffic concerns should not be an issue.
Commissioner Polk commented that the staff report mentioned the outlet mall is
about 29% vacant. She asked if staff knew how adding a preschool would impact
business in the outlet mall.
Mr. White responded that it may not impact the business activity in the outlet mall.
There was concern when the church applied for their special permit with this
location being a prime retail location. Whether the church continues their use there
or not, staff does not know but he doesn't see affecting other business.
Chairman Cruz added that he didn't believe the preschool would affect the business
growth since there is already a church operating at this location and the preschool
will be contained in the church that is already operating. Traffic also did not seem to
be an issue. There will be traffic peaks, in the morning and evening, but he feels the
evening is worse.
Commissioner Hoekstra asked for clarification of the Planning Commission's role on
the land use and activity that would be occurring and safety concerns for this special
permit.
Mr. White responded that from a land use stand point, the applicant will need to
apply for a city business license and go through that regulatory process. The state
has an inspection process for preschools, although they may not be licensed in the
terms normally thought of, such as with daycares. He stated that he didn't have any
issues from a safety stand point. For land use, the code speaks about the
appropriateness of the special permit process for a number of uses in any zone. Staff
does not feel that there is anything extraordinary about this particular special permit
application.
Commissioner Khan asked if there are crosswalks between the sidewalk of the outlet
mall to the parking lot or signage that might go up to warn drivers that there are
-2-
children and a speed limit to be posted accordingly.
Mr. White answered that at this point there are not crosswalks or signage.
Chairman Cruz added that the preschool is the southeastern corner of the outlet
mall and nobody goes around the backside and children will not be walking through
the parking lot.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Hoekstra moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development
of a recommendation for City Council for the April 17, 2014 meeting. The motion
passed unanimously.
-3-
B. Special Permit
Planning Commission Minutes
4/17/2014
Chairwoman Greenaway read the master file number and asked for comments from
staff.
Rick White, Community 8a Economic Development Director, discussed the special
permit application for the location of a preschool in a C -1 Zone. Per Planning
Commission discussion a condition has been added to the staff report requiring a
fence if the preschool added an outdoor play area. Additionally a discussion was
added to the staff report explaining the difference between a regulated preschool and
an unregulated preschool. In the case of the Bethel Church Preschool would be in
the unregulated preschool category due to the amount of hours the child will be at
the preschool and will not require the State requirements.
Commissioner Portugal stated that as a required school teacher realizes that children
will sometimes wander and the fence requirement would add to that protection. He
asked if the fence would be negotiated with the neighboring properties.
Mr. White responded that it was his understanding that the church doesn't know if
they will have an outdoor play area but the Commission wanted the precaution
added in case they do have an outdoor play area.
Commissioner Hoekstra discussed the fencing requirements as stated in the staff
report regarding the State requirements and possibly adding a condition for fencing
even if the State would not require the fencing.
Commissioner Portugal asked if there is going to be an indoor play area since
children that age will need several breaks.
Mr. White responded that the preschool hasn't begun yet and is unsure if there will
be an indoor play area. Addressing Commissioner Hoekstra's discussion, he stated
that they could change the language of one of the conditions in the staff report to
state that any outdoor play area must be fenced.
Commissioner Bachart stated that he felt the current condition in the staff report is
interpreted to require fencing if there should be an outdoor play area regardless of
State requirements.
Mr. White agreed with Commissioner Bachart in that the way the current condition is
written will require an outdoor play area to be fenced should they have one.
Commissioner Hoekstra agreed with Mr. Bachart regarding the fencing condition.
-1-
Commissioner Hoekstra moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the April 17, 2014 staff
report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Hoekstra moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council grant a special permit for the location of a preschool operation at 3315
W. Court Street, with conditions as listed in the April 17, 2014 staff report. The
motion passed 6 to 1, with Commissioner Kempf dissenting.
-2-
AGENDA REPORT NO. 13
FOR: City COunc April 23, 2014
TO: Gary Crutchfle anager
FROM: Ahmad Qayo , i, ublic Works Director Workshop Mtg.: 04/28/2014
Regular Mtg.: 05/05/2014
SUBJECT: Waste Water Treatment Plant 3`d Primary Clarifier
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. Waste Water Treatment Plant 3`d Primary Clarifier - Vicinity Map
2. Waste Water Treatment Plant 3`d Primary Clarifier - Professional Services
Agreement Summary Sheet
3. Waste Water Treatment Plant 3`d Primary Clarifer — Scope of Services
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
04/28: Discussion
05/05: MOTION: I move to approve the Professional Services Agreement from
HDR Engineering, Inc. authorizing design and engineering
services with respect to the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Improvements 3`d Primary Clarifier, not to exceed $238,980
and further, authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
A) $238,980 ;Sewer Utility Account
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) In June 2010, the City received a renewal permit from the Department of Ecology for
the Wastewater Treatment Plant with a condition that the City complete a
Comprehensive Engineering Study to optimize operations of the plant to meet
Department of Ecology (DOE) requirements.
B) Murray Smith & Associates completed a Draft Comprehensive Sewer Plan (reviewed
by Council on March 31) that identifies a number of capital improvements. The Sewer
Plan has recommended that the current WWTP be expanded to treat up to 12 MGD in
the next 10 -15 years to meet the upcoming regulations. The current primary clarifier
has a total capacity of 5 MGD. As of 2013 we are at 95% capacity of the first and
second primary clarifiers. It is imperative to construct a third clarifier.
C) To address growth and a future 12 MGD capacity improvement to the WWTP, the new
3`d clarifier will have capacity of 7 MGD. Adding the third clarifier will be cost
effective at this time, while providing additional efficiencies to help reduce energy for
second and tertiary waste removal treatments.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) In February 2014, the City solicited consultants for the clarifier design work. Three
responses were received. In March staff interviewed CH2MHill, HDR and MSA.
Staff included a panel of 5 staff members who scored the consultants understanding of
the project and project approach. Panel members recommend HDR as their top choice.
B) Staff negotiated the scope and fees with HDR. After extensive negotiations staff
recommends award of the professional services agreement for the Wastewater
Treatment Plant Improvements 3`d Primary Clarifier to HDR.
10(a)
Professional Services Agreement
(Summary Sheet)
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements 3rd Primary Clarifier
HDR
2805 Saint Andrews Loop, Suite A. Pasco, WA 99301
Scope of Services: attached Exhibit A
8 months Completion Date: 12/31/2014
Payments to Consultant:
❑ Hourly Rate: $
❑x Fixed Sum of: $ 238,980
❑ Other:
Insurance to be Provided:
1. Commercial General Liability:
❑ $1,000,000 each occurrence;
❑ $2,000,000 general aggregate; or
® $- 1,000,000 each occurrence; and $ 2,000,000 general aggregate
2. Professional Liability:
IN $1,000,000 per claim;
❑ $1;000,000 policy aggregate limit; or
❑ $ per claim; and $ per policy aggregate limit
Other Information:
O �
City of Pasco
Third Primary Clarifier
fal
Scope of Services
April 23, 2014
2805 Saint Andrews Loop
Suite A
Pasco, WA 99301 -6121
(509) 546 -2040
Exhibit A
I V n
Contents
Scopeof Services ........................................................................... ..............................1
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................ ..............................1
New Primary Sedimentation Facilities ........................................... ..............................1
Description of Project Design Elements ............................... ............................... 1
General Design Assumptions ............................................... ............................... 2
DesignMethodology ............................................................ ............................... 3
Task100 — Project Management .................................................... ..............................3
Objective.............................................................................. ............................... 3
ConsultantServices ............................................................. ............................... 4
City Responsibilities ............................................................. ............................... 4
Assumptions........................................................................ ............................... 4
Deliverables......................................................................... ............................... 4
Task200 — Preliminary Engineering .............................................. ..............................5
Objective.............................................................................. ............................... 5
Task 201 Primary Sedimentation Tank CFD Model ................. ..............................5
ConsultantServices ............................................................. ............................... 5
CityResponsibilities ............................................................. ............................... 5
Assumptions........................................................................ ............................... 5
Deliverables......................................................................... ............................... 6
Task 202 Preparation of 30% BIM Model and Engineering Report ......................6
ConsultantServices ............................................................. ............................... 6
CityResponsibilities ............................................................. ............................... 6
Assumptions........................................................................ ............................... 7
Deliverables......................................................................... ............................... 7
Task300 — Final Design .................................................................. ..............................7
Objective.............................................................................. ............................... 7
Task 301 Drawings and Specifications .................................... ..............................7
ConsultantServices ............................................................. ............................... 7
CityResponsibilities ............................................................. ............................... 8
Assumptions........................................................................ ............................... 8
Deliverables......................................................................... ............................... 8
Task 302 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ( OPCC) ..... ..............................9
Consultant Services ............................................................. ............................... 9
Task400 — Additional Services ...................................................... ..............................9
Consultant Services ............................................................. ............................... 9
EXHIBIT B: Drawing List ............................................................... .............................11
EXHIBIT C: Specification List ....................................................... .............................13
EXHIBIT D: Milestone Schedule ................................................... .............................17
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES
Background
The City of Pasco, Washington (City) will be expanding primary treatment capacity to
accommodate continuing community growth and maintain high - quality effluent discharge. A
new 7 MGD clarifier(s), with an expanded hydraulic distribution structure, will be provided to
achieve the necessary capacity. In addition, new primary sludge pumping will be provided to
incorporate the new clarifier as well as improve reliability of the existing primary sludge pumping
system.
The scope of services is organized into the following tasks:
Task Series 100 — Project Management and QA/QC
Task Series 200 — Preliminary Engineering
Task Series 300 — Final Design
Task Series 400 — Permitting and Public Involvement Support
Task Series 500 — Additional Services
New Primary Sedimentation Facilities
The new primary sedimentation tank will be designed, along with necessary support facilities, as
defined below.
Description of Project Design Elements
Major design components to be included in the design of the new clarification system will
consist of the following:
• Primary Sedimentation Tanks. A new rectangular primary sedimentation tank, using
two clarifier mechanisms and a central dividing wall to allow for isolation of each sub -
tank, will be designed to treat a peak flow capacity of 7 million gallons per day. The
tanks will have open tops (no covers or superstructure), manual scum troughs, spray
water for scum control, safety railing, and wash down hoses located along the perimeter.
The south wall of the new tankage will be designed to support building columns for
extension to the metal building structure to the clarifier.
Primary Sedimentation Hydraulic Distribution Structure. The existing weir /launder
flow distribution control system in the headworks building, which feeds primary influent to
the existing sedimentation tanks, will be expanded to provide a new weir /launder system
and two isolation slide gates to the new sedimentation tank. Two new primary influent
pipelines will connect the hydraulic structure to the new primary sedimentation tank.
Flow or level instrumentation will not be included. Additional HVAC or other
modifications to the headworks building are not be included.
Primary Sludge Pumping. A new sludge pumping room will be designed immediately
east of the existing primary sludge room. This new room will be designed based on the
HDR 2011 WWTP Improvements Project, which included the structural design for this
room which was not implemented as part of the final construction. Two new rotary lobe
sludge pumps (one duty, one standby) will draw sludge from the new and existing
sedimentation tanks. Electrically actuated automatic control valves on each sludge
suction line, controlled via a programmed timing sequence, will actuate to sequentially
draw sludge from each tank. A sludge flow meter, local pressure gauges /switches, and
Pasco Third Clarifier 1 April 23, 2014
a site glass will be provided for operators to monitor the system, as well as hose bibs for
wash down in the room. The roof of the structure will include access hatches for
removing equipment. HVAC will be provided at 6 air exchanges per hour with freeze
protection heating of the space. It is assumed that a sprinkler system will not be
required.
• Yard Piping. Additional yard piping will include:
• Plant non - potable water service to the new primary tanks
• Relocation of the existing 4" sludge /scum lines in conflict with the new primary
sedimentation tank footprint
• Connection of the new sludge pumps to the existing sludge discharge piping
• Routing of the new primary scum piping
• Existing Primary Sedimentation Tank Excavation Support. A shoring system and
sidewall support will be provided by the construction contractor to protect the south end
of the existing primary clarifier tanks during excavation and construction of the new
primary sedimentation tanks. The Consultant will prepare design criteria drawing notes
and specifications to delineate the requirements for the shoring design.
• Stormwater Management. New stormwater utilities will be provided, if necessary, to
account for changes in the drainage pattern of the site created by the new facilities. It is
assumed these modifications will be minimal and no additional impervious area will be
included in the design outside of the building expansions and tankage described in this
scope of work.
• Site Lighting. Additional lighting for the new primary sedimentation tanks will be
provided to accommodate work at night. No new lighting will be provided for the sludge
pumping room or hydraulic distribution structure.
• Electrical. Power supply, lighting and electrical facilities to serve the new and modified
facilities included in the expansion.
• Instrumentation and Control. Instrumentation and controls, including hardware,
software, control loop descriptions, and related facilities needed to serve the new and
modified facilities included in the expansion.
• Sitework. Site grading to include structural fill to grade and restoration of the existing
surface around the new primary sedimentation tanks. New landscaping and impervious
surface (roadways /sidewalks) will not be part of the design.
General Design Assumptions
The following general assumptions were used to develop project design scope and budget:
• New Primary Sedimentation Tank Foundation. Pilings and grade beams will not be
required to support the new primary sedimentation tanks.
• Survey and Record Drawings. Complete survey data (utilities, topography, structures,
surface features, benchmarks) is available in AutoCAD and will be provided by the City.
Record drawings of the existing plant facilities (electrical, civil, mechanical, structural)
are available in AutoCAD and will be provided by the City except for the original plant
drawings which will be provide in a paper or ".pdf" format.
Pasco Third Clarifier 2 April 23, 2014
' 8
• Geotechnical. The City will be responsible to provide all necessary geotechnical
information to the Consultant, including an updated Geotechnical Report, for use in the
design.
• Existing Primary Sedimentation Tank Safety Modifications. All safety modifications
if required to the existing primary sedimentation tanks will occur as part of a separate
contract.
• Construction Management. Contractor bidding assistance, submittal review,
inspection, and startup, if desired, will be included as part of a future construction
administration services contract with the Consultant.
• Control Systems. Field panels and instrumentation will be tied into the existing plant
control system. Modification of the existing control system is not required beyond
programming to accommodate the new equipment and systems.
• Electrical System. Existing MCC's have sufficient capacity and cabinet space for new
primary clarifier equipment. New primary distribution wiring and load centers will not be
required.
Design Methodology
The design documents will be prepared using Building Information Modeling (BIM), also referred
to as intelligent three - dimensional design. The initial design process is to create the building
information model. Final deliverable documents will be a combination of 2D plan views and
renderings /isometrics from the BIM model to provide spatial context. To minimize costs,
Traditional 2D section cuts will not be used for the process design, except where needed to
convey structural design information for the new sedimentation tanks and associated structures.
In addition, the BIM model (in conjunction with the P &IDs, electrical one -line diagrams, and site
civil drawings) will be used as the primary deliverable for the 30% and 60% milestones to
provide for more efficient review by City staff and reduce drawing production costs during the
early stages of design.
In the scope and budget information presented below, a conventional 2D drawing list (Exhibit B)
and preliminary specification list (Exhibit C) that represent the final bid documents is used to
identify the scope and complexity of the project, and the effort required to prepare the design.
However, the work flow will actually rely on the 3D model for most of the design schedule. A
preliminary schedule is provided in Exhibit D and reflects anticipated milestones that will be
required to maintain the budget.
Task 100 — Project Management
Objective
Meet with City staff to establish project goals and objectives, review the decision making
process, define anticipated work products, identify information needed to provide the
engineering services, refine the schedule, and establish points of contact and project
communications. Incorporate the results of this meeting into a Project Management Plan which
will be distributed to all key members of Consultant's team. The plan will also include
administrative procedures, such as invoicing, communication protocol, and formats. Update the
Management Plan if major changes are made to the scope or schedule.
Pasco Third Clarifier 3 April 23, 2014
Consultant Services
1. Prepare a Project Management Plan (Project Guide) outlining the project scope, team
organization, schedule, and communications information.
2. Coordinate and manage the Consultant's team.
3. Prepare monthly status reports describing with the following:
a. Services completed during the month
b. Services planned for the next month
c. Needs for additional information
d. Scope /schedule /budget issues
e. Schedule update and financial status summary
4. Prepare monthly invoices.
5. Project Manager will attend monthly project management meetings with the City Project
Manager to review project scope, schedule, and budget issues. Meetings will be
coordinated with other design meetings and may occur electronically via net/live meeting.
6. Implement Consultant's QA/QC practices for project deliverables.
City Responsibilities
1. Attend project management meetings.
2. Timely processing and payment of invoices.
3. Review and process contract change requests and amendments, if needed.
4. Respond in a timely manner to issues brought out in the progress reports and through direct
communication with the Consultant.
Assumptions
1. One project management meeting will be held per month during the design process with 2
hours of project manager time required for each meeting preparation, attendance, follow -up,
and notes. A maximum of 6 meetings will be held based on Exhibit D.
2. Invoices will be Consultant's standard invoice listing personnel and the hours they have
worked on each task. Monthly progress report will be a one page summary of the work
completed to date, work anticipated for next month, outstanding issues and budget
summary.
3. Expense backup will not be provided with invoices but will be available for review at
Consultant's office.
Deliverables
1. Scope of services, schedule (Gantt chart or project milestones), and budget (PDF file and
two copies)
2. Project Management Plan (Project Guide) (PDF file)
3. Monthly reports and invoices (one copy with invoice can be mailed or e- mailed PDF file)
4. Monthly project schedule and budget updates.
Pasco Third Clarifier 4 April 23, 2014
5. Project management meeting agenda and notes (e- mailed PDF files)
Task 200 — Preliminary Engineering
Objective
Preparation of 30% design documents and a project engineering report that will document the
appropriate sizing, equipment selection, design standards and layout for the major project
design elements. The project engineering report will serve as both a deliverable to the City as
well as to the Department of Ecology.
Task 201 Primary Sedimentation Tank CFD Model
Consultant Services
Consultant will utilize computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling to determine the size, layout,
and treatment efficiency of the new primary sedimentation tank. The results and a summary of
the model will be included in the Engineering Report. The CFD model will be partially based on
field data collected by the City regarding the settling characteristics of the primary influent
wastewater.
The CFD analysis will provide or confirm the following information for use in the 30% BIM
design:
1. Overall size of the clarifier (length and width)
2. Overflow rate and expected treatment efficiency (based on field data provided by the City)
3. Layout of effluent launders and weirs
4. Design of the sludge hopper (based on sludge density design criteria confirmed by the City)
and determination if a cross collector is needed
5. Location and type of internal flow baffling
6. Layout of influent flow distribution system /requirements
City Responsibilities
1. Complete the field testing, analytical analysis, and data collection required for the CFD
model work utilizing the protocol and equipment recommended by the Consultant. In order
to reduce project cost, the Consultant will be available by phone to discuss or assist in the
field testing, but will not make a site visit to conduct the testing in person.
2. Provide electronic copies of all available data regarding solids removal performance of the
existing primary clarifiers.
3. Provide electronic copies of all available data regarding solids concentration of primary
sludge pumped from the existing primary clarifiers.
4. Based on discussions with the Consultant, confirm the preferred sludge concentration
desired from the new sedimentation tanks.
Assumptions
1. All field testing, analytical analysis, and data collection will be performed by the City. Data
will be made available to the Consultant as noted under City Responsibilities.
Pasco Third Clarifier 5 April 23, 2014
Deliverables
1. Summary of CFD model results and recommended primary sedimentation tank design
(included in the Engineering Report, Task 202).
Task 202 Preparation of 30% BIM Model and Engineering
Report
Consultant Services
Produce a 30% level design and review this design with the City to confirm the primary sizing,
layout, equipment, and design criteria for the project. The results of this deliverable and review
will allow the Consultant to efficiently produce final design documents that meet the intent of the
City. The 30% level design will include the following elements:
1. Produce a 30% level BIM model that includes all the major components of the project
(primary sedimentation tanks, hydraulic distribution structure, primary sludge pumping room,
influent mains from the headworks to the new primary, and sludge /scum piping). Small
diameter piping and detailing will not be included at this point. The model will be intended to
provide a broad overview
2. Prepare the pipe and pipe fitting basic requirements specification (specification 15060).
3. Develop an Engineering Report (maximum of 30 pages, not including appendices) that
addresses each of the following items:
a. Project intent and design criteria
b. Review of design standards and codes
c. Hydraulic capacity calculations and profile
d. CFD model results and primary sedimentation tank design recommendations
e. Sludge and scum handling
f. Hydraulic distribution structure design recommendation
g. Electrical and Instrumentation design criteria and preliminary load analysis
h. Structural design criteria and preliminary shoring plan for the existing primary
sedimentation tanks
i. Recommended equipment manufacturers for major components
j. Preliminary 2D plan view drawings: P &IDs, electrical one -line diagrams, site plan
4. Conduct a 30% review workshop with the City to review the key design criteria and the 30%
BIM model.
5. Finalize the engineering report, based on comments from the City during the review
workshop, and provide a final version as the basis of design.
City Responsibilities
1. City's project manager and operations staff will attend the 30% design workshop and
provide comments on the BIM model.
2. Timely review of the Engineering Report and consolidated comments provided to the
Consultant in spreadsheet format on the day of the review workshop.
Pasco Third clarifier 6 April 23, 2014
3. Confirm technology selection and design criteria to proceed to final design. Provide the
Consultant with any requirements or preferences for mechanical and electrical equipment
for incorporation into the 30% design.
4. Provide all necessary geotechnical and survey information prior to initiation of the 30%
design effort.
5. Coordinate with the Department of Ecology and submit the Engineering Report and any
other requested information as needed.
Assumptions
1. The Consultant will conduct one all day site visit during the early phase of the 30% design to
review the site conditions with the structural, electrical, and process engineers for the
project.
2. The review workshop will be over the course of one half day and will include 3 staff from the
Consultant.
3. Comments at 30% will be dispositioned for final design.
4. The Engineering Report will follow a simple, bullet point format to address the necessary
design criteria and intent.
Deliverables
1. 30% BIM model (electronic file provide to the City)
2. Electronic (pdf) copy of the draft Engineering Report
3. 30% design review workshop comment response
4. Electronic (pdf) copy of the final Engineering Report
Task 300 — Final Design
Objective
Prepare construction bid documents based on results of the 30% design workshop.
Task 301 Drawings and Specifications
Consultant Services
1. Prepare final Drawings and Specifications indicating the scope, extent, and character of the
Work to be performed and furnished by Contractor. Exhibit B provides the listing of the
drawings that are anticipated to be prepared for the construction contract. The final design
documents will be provided in the following stages:
a. A 90% design submittal will include a final BIM model, a complete draft of all 2D
drawings, and a complete set of technical specifications for review by the City.
b. Prepare and furnish final bidding documents for review by the City, its legal counsel, and
other advisors prior to bidding. Comments to the 90% design will be incorporated as
part of the final bid documents.
2. The technical specifications will be prepared in CSI format using the Consultant's standard
master specifications. Divisions 0 and 1 will be taken directly from the 2011 WWTP
Pasco Third Clarifier 7 April 23, 2014
improvement project to reduce costs for preparation by the Consultant and review time by
the City.
3. A review workshop will be conducted for the 90% design to review the BIM model and
associated documents.
City Responsibilities
1. City's project manager and operations staff will attend the 90% design workshop and
provide comments on the BIM model.
2. Review the design deliverables in a timely fashion and provide consolidated comments to
the Consultant in spreadsheet format on the day of the review workshop.
3. The City will submit documentation to the Building Department and Department of Ecology
as needed. All permitting will be the responsibility of the City.
Assumptions
1. Drawing production and detail will be in accordance with the Design Methodology outlined in
at the beginning of this scope.
2. Plan views will be annotated with dimensions and elevations, but sections will be limited to
BIM isometrics. Sections will be non - annotated or with limited information that cannot
otherwise be obtained from the model view.
3. Digital photographs will be used to supplement existing background drawings to illustrate
the extent and character of the proposed improvements.
4. Multiple disciplines ( structural - process - mechanical - electrical- instrumentation) will be shown
on the same plan drawing whenever possible.
5. Structural sections will include dimensions and annotations.
6. The City will distribute plans and specs and advertise for bid.
7. Instrumentation and automation of the sludge pumps will be limited to PLC / SCADA on /off
control and flow measurement of sludge and scum.
8. Programing of PLC and SCADA (Wonderware) will be by City Staff or third party
9. Standard Details will be published in a separate 81/2 x 11 volume and will not be shown on
drawings.
10. The review workshop (90 %) will be over the course of one half day and will include up to 3
staff from the Consultant.
Deliverables
1. 90% BIM model (electronic file provide to the City)
2. Electronic (pdf) copy of the draft 90% Drawings and Specifications
3. Electronic (pdf) copy of the final Contract Documents (for bidding). Drawing pdf files will be
provide as both full and half size sheets.
Pasco Third Clarifier 8 April 23, 2014
Task 302 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC)
Consultant Services
1. Prepare opinions of probable construction cost at the 90% design stage and update with the
submission of the bid documents. Cost estimates will be pursuant to the characteristics of
Association for Advancement of Cost Engineering Class 2 estimates.
Task 400 — Additional Services
Consultant Services
If authorized in writing or electronic means by the City, Engineer shall furnish or obtain from
others Additional Services of the types listed below. At the time of any such request for
Additional Services, Consultant shall prepare an estimate of the budget required.
1. Preparation of applications and supporting documents for private or governmental grants,
loans, or advances in connection with the Project; preparation or review of environmental
assessments and impact statements; review and evaluation of the effects on the design
requirements for the Project of any such statements and documents prepared by others;
and assistance in obtaining approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the anticipated
environmental impact of the Project.
2. Services to make measured drawings of or to investigate existing conditions or facilities, or
to verify the accuracy of drawings or other information furnished by the City or others.
3. Services resulting from significant changes in the scope, extent, or character of the portions
of the Project designed or specified by Engineer or its design requirements including, but not
limited to, changes in size, complexity, City's schedule, character of construction, or method
of financing; and revising previously accepted studies, reports, Drawings, Specifications, or
Contract Documents when such revisions are required by changes in Laws and Regulations
enacted subsequent to the Effective Date or are due to any other causes beyond Engineer's
control.
4. Services required as a result of the City providing incomplete or incorrect Project information
to Engineer.
5. Providing renderings or graphics for City use beyond the Contract Documents listed in
Exhibits B and C.
6. Undertaking investigations and studies including, but not limited to, detailed consideration of
operations, maintenance, and overhead expenses; the preparation of financial feasibility and
cash flow studies, rate schedules, and appraisals; assistance in obtaining financing for the
Project; detailed quantity surveys of materials, equipment, and labor; and audits or
inventories required in connection with construction performed by the City.
7. Services during out -of -town travel required of Engineer other than for visits to the Site or City
office.
8. Preparing for, coordinating with, participating in and responding to structured independent
review processes, including, but not limited to, construction management, cost estimating,
project peer review, value engineering, and constructability review requested by City; and
performing or furnishing services required to revise studies, reports, Drawings,
Specifications, or other Bidding Documents as a result of such review processes.
Pasco Third Clarifier 9 April 23, 2014
9. Preparing additional Bidding Documents or Contract Documents for alternate bids or prices
requested by the City for the Work or a portion thereof.
10. Provide assistance during bidding and services during construction.
11. Provide permitting assistance with regard to building permits, SEPA checklist, or
Department of Ecology submittals.
12. Provide geotechnical or survey services to supplement or expand the existing information.
13. Providing assistance in responding to the presence of any Constituent of Concern at the
Site, in compliance with current Laws and Regulations.
14. Preparing to serve or serving as a consultant or witness for Owner in any litigation,
arbitration, or other dispute resolution process related to the Project.
15. Providing more extensive services required to enable Engineer to issue notices or
certifications requested by Owner.
16. Assistance to Owner in developing procedures for (a) control of the operation and
maintenance of Project equipment and systems, and (b) related record - keeping. Overtime
work requiring higher than regular rates.
17. Other services performed or furnished by Engineer not otherwise provided for in this
Agreement.
Fee
The estimated fee for completing the scope of services as described above is shown in the table
below. This fee is based on the assumptions and deliverables listed in this scope of services.
Third Primary Clarifier
Labor
Expenses
Estimated
Fee
Task 100 — Project Management
$22,360
$500
$22,860
Task 200 — Preliminary Engineering
$58,540
$7,780
$66,320
Task 300 —Final Design
$142,200
$7,600
$149,800
Task 400— Additional Services
$0
$0
$0
Total
$223100 1
$15,880 1
$238,980
rasco i mra aaritier 10 April 23, 2014
EXHIBIT B: Drawing List
APPENDIX B
Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Sheet Index
Sheet
No.
Group Sheet
No.
Sheet Description
SERIES 000 - GENERAL
1
OOG -01
COVER SHEET, VICINITY AND LOCATION MAP, INDEX
2
OOG -02
GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS
3
OOG -03
GENERAL LEGEND
4
OOG -04
DESIGN DATA TABLE AND GENERAL LIQUID PROCESS
FLOW SCHEMATIC
5
OOG -05
MODIFIED HYDRAULIC PROFILE
6
OOC -01
GENERAL CIVIL LEGEND
7
OOC -Ol
EXISTING SITE PLAN AND CONSTRACTOR'S STAGING AREA
8
OCE -01
EXPANDED SITE PLAN PIPING AND GRADING
9
6OA -01
CODE REVIEW AND SCHEDULES
10
OOS -01
GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES
11
OOS -02
GENERAL STRUCTURAL DETAI S -I
12
OOS -03
GENERAL STRUCTURAL DETAILS -2
13
OOS -04
GENERAL STRUCTURAL DETAILS -3
14
OOM of
MECHANICAL SYMBOLS
15
OOM -02
GENERAL HVAC SCHEDULES AND DETAILS
16
OOE -01
ELECTRICAL LEGEND
17
00E -02
ELECTRICAL CONTROL DIAGRAMS
18
OOE -03
ELECTRICAL CONTROL DIAGRAMS AND SCHEDULES
19
OOE -04
CONDUIT LIGHTING AND PANEL SCHEDULES
20
60Y -01
GENERAL INSTRUMENTATION LEGEND
SERIES 100 - HEADWORKS MODIFICATION
21
OlSDME -01
PLAN AND SECTION SPLITTER BOX MODIFICATIONS
22
OISDME -02
BIM ISOMETRIC DETAILS
SERIES 200 - PRIMARY CLARIFIER
23
02S -01
SHORING DESIGN NOTES
24
02S -02
FOUNDATION AND UPPER LEVEL STRUCTURAL PLAN
02S -03
WALL SECTIONS AND DETAILS
26
P
02Y -01
P &ID PRIMARY CLARIFIER
27
02Y -02
P &ID PRIMARY SLUDGE AND SCUM PUMPING
2825
02DE -01
CLARIFIER PIPING AND POWER PLAN
Pasco Third Clarifier 11 April 23, 2014
29 1 02SDME -02 I PUMPING ROOM PLAN AND SECTION
30 02E -01 ONE -LINE DIAGRAM MODIFICATIONS AND MCC
ELEVATIONS
Pasco Third Clarifier 12 April 23, 2014
EXHIBIT C: Specification List
APPENDIX C
Specification Listing
SPEC NO.
SPEC NAME
DIVISION 0 - PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS
00020
Invitation to Bid
00100
Instructions to Bidders
00101
Bidder's Checklist
00300
Bid Form
00340
Bid Bond
00390
EPA Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters
00391
Equal Em to ment OvPortunity (EEO-1) Certification
00400
Proposed Subcontractors
00410
Proposed Suppliers
00430
Bid Bond
00450
Statement of Qualifications
00460
Anti- Discrimination Certificate
00470
Contractor's Non - Collusion Affidavit
00500
Agreement
00510
Notice of Award
00610
Performance Bond - Construction
00615
Payment Bond - Construction
00620
1 Notice to Proceed
00630
In Lieu of Retention Bond
00700
Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract
00805
Supplementary Conditions to EJCDC General Conditions, Construction contract
DIVISION 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
01010
Summary of Work
01060
Special Conditions
01150
Measurement and Payment
01340
Submittals
01342
O&M Manuals
01370
Schedule of Values
01400
Quality Assurance
01560
Environmental Protection and Special Controls
Product Delivery, Storage, and Handling
01600
01640
Product Substitutions
01650
Facility Startup
01710
Cleaning
01800
O enin s and Penetrations in Constructions
DIVISION 2 - SITE WORK
02072 1
Demolition, Cutting and Patching
Pasco Third Clarifier 13 April 23, 2014
02200
Earthwork
02221
Trenching, Backfillin , and Compacting for Utilities
02260
Top Soil and Finish Grading
02270
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
02515
Precast Concrete Manhole Structures
02278
Geotextiles
02930
Seeding, Soddin and Lansdca in
DIVISION 3 - CONCRETE
03108
Formwork
03208
Reinforcement
03308
Concrete, Materilas and Proportioning
03311
Concrete Mixing, Placing, Jointing, and Curing
03348
Concrete Finishing and Repair
03350
Testing
03431
Precast and Prestressed Concrete
DIVISION 4 - MASONRY NOT USED
DIVISION 5 - METALS
05505
Metal Fabrications
DIVISION 6 - WOOD PLASTICS AND COMPOSITES
06100
Rough Carpentry
06610
Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Fabrications
DIVISION 7 - THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION
07190
UnderslabVapor Retarder
07210
Building Insulation
07410
Prefortned Factory-Insulated Metal Wall Panels
07534
Adhered Elastomeric Sheet Roof
07600
Flashing and Sheet Metal
07900
Joint Sealants
DIVISION 8 - DOORS AND WINDOWS
08110
Metal Doors and Frames
08700
Finish Hardware
DIVISION 9 - FINISHES
09905 1
Painting and Protective Coatings
DIVISION 10
- SPECIALTIES
10200
Louvers and Vents
10400
Identification Devices
10444
Si na e
DIVISION 11
-EQUIPMENT
11005
Equipment: Basic Requirements
11060
Pumping ui ment: Basic Recluirements
11081
Pumping ui ment: Lobe
Pasco Third Clarifier 14 April 23, 2014
11150
Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic Baffles
11336
Primary Sedimenation Clarifier Solids Collection Equipment
- FURNISHINGS NOT USED
DIVISION 12
DIVISION 13
- SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
13440
Instrumentation for Process Control: Basic Requirements
Control Loop Descriptions
13441
13442
Primary Elements and Transmitters
13446
Control Auxiliaries
13448
Control Panels and Enclosures
13449
Sure Protection Devices for Instrumentation and Control Equipment
13500
Pro ble Logic Controller Control Systems
DIVISION 14
- CONVEYING SYSTEMS
14301
1 Hoists, Trolleys, and Monorails
DIVISION 16
- MECHANICAL
15060
Pipe and Pipe Fittings: Basic Requirements
15061
Pipe - Steel
15062
Pipe - Ductile
15063
Pipe - Copper
15064
Pipe - Plastic
15067
Pipe - HDPE
15073
Pipe Cast Iron Soil
15090
Pipe, Duct and Conduit Support Systems
15100
Valves: Basic Requirements
15102
Plug Valves
15104
Ball Valves
15105
Globe Valves
15106
Check Valves
15114
Miscellaneous Valves
15115
Water Control Gates
15183
Pipe, Duct and Equipment Insulation
15440
Plumbing Fixtures and Equipment
15605
HVAC: Equipment
15890
HVAC: Ductwork
15970
Instrumentation and Control for HVAC Systems
15990
HVAC Systems: Balancing and Testis
DIVISION 16 - ELECTRICAL
16010
Electrical: Basic Requirements
16012
Seismic Bracing Systems
16060
Grounding
16080
Acceptance Testis
16120
Wire and Cable: 600 Volt and Below
Pasco Third Clarifier is April 23, 2014
16125
Heat Tracing Cable
16130
Raceways and Boxes
16135
Electrical: Exterior Underground
16140
Wiring Devices
16260
Static Uninterru tible Power Supply System
16265
Variable Frequency Drives
16410
Safety Switches
16412
Separately Mounted Circuit Breakers
16432
Arc Flash Report
16441
Panelboards
16442
Motor Control Equipment
16460
Dry-Type Transformers
16470
Package Power Supply
16490
Overcurrent and Short Circuit Protective Devices
16491
Low Voltage Surge Protection Devices (SPD)
16493
Control Equipment Accessories
16500
Indoor and Exterior Lighting
Pasco Third Clarifier 16 April 23, 2014
M
EXHIBIT D: Milestone Schedule
Third Primary Clarifier
Date
Notice to Proceed
May 6, 2014
City provides necessary survey, geotechnical,
and existing as -built files and information
May s, 2014
Initial Site Visit by Consultant
May 15, 2014
City completes initial testing and data
collection to support the CFD modeling
effort
May 19, 2014
Submit 30% BIM model and Draft
Engineering Report
July 11, 2014
City completes second round of testing and
data collection to support the CFD modeling
effort
July 11, 2014
30% Workshop and Comments
_
July 16, 2014
Submit Final Engineering Report and
Comment Responses
July 18, 2014
_
Submit 90% BIM model and Contract
Documents
November 7, 2014
90% Workshop and Comments
November 12, 2014
Submit Bid Documents
Decembers, 2014
Pasco Third Clarifier 17 April 23, 2014
AGENDA REPORT NO. 12
FOR: City Counc' April 30, 2014
TO: Gary Crutch anager
Ahmad Qayo Pu is Works Director
FROM: Michael A. Pawlak, City Engineer Regular Mtg.: 5/5/14
SUBJECT: Bid Award: 2014 Overlays
Project #M3- OV- 3R -14 -01
I. REFERENCE(S):
1. 2014 Overlays - Vicinity Map
2. 2014 Overlays - Bid Summary
Il. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
05/05: MOTION: I move to award the low bid for the 2014 Overlays Project to
Inland Asphalt Company in the amount of $599,599.99, and
further, authorize the Mayor to sign the contract documents.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
Overlay Fund
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
A) The project involves the installation of HMA, planing and pedestrian ramps on
various roadways.
B) The project was advertised on April 13 and April 20, 2014 with a bid opening
held on April 29, 2014.
V. DISCUSSION:
A) On April 29, 2014, the City received three (3) bids for the project. The low bid
was received from Inland Asphalt Company in the amount of $599,599.99. The
second low bid was received from Central Washington Asphalt, Inc. in the
amount of $686,538.45 The Engineer's Estimate is $1,213.630.00. The bid is
within the available project budget.
B) Staff has reviewed the bid submittal and found no exceptions or significant
irregularities.
C) Staff recommends award of the contract to Inland Asphalt Company in the
amount of 599,599.99.
10(b)
Q
z_
U_
Q
J
W
W
>
O
O
N
City of Pasco
2014 Overlays
Project #M3- OV- 3R -13 -01
April 29, 2014
BID SUMMARY
Engineers Estimate
Inland Asphalt
Central Washington Asphalt
Granite Construction
$1,213,630.00
$599,599.99
$686,538.45
$731,292.02