HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017.10.16 Council Meeting PacketRegular Meeting
AGENDA
PASCO CITY COUNCIL
7:00 p.m.
October 16, 2017
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
3. CONSENT AGENDA: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered
to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by roll call vote as one motion
(in the form listed below). There will be no separate discussion of these items. If
further discussion is desired by Council members or the public, the item may be
removed from the Consent Agenda to the Regular Agenda and considered
separately.
5 - 8 (a) Approval of Minutes
To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated October 2,
2017.
9 - 11 (b) Bills and Communications
To approve claims in the total amount of $4,102,173.10 ($2,373,609.95 in
Check Nos. 218489-218717; $972,917.84 in Electronic Transfer Nos.
817983, 817987-817995, 818135-818137; $37,905.45 in Check Nos. 51112-
51154; $714,063.41 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30112405-30112906;
$3,676.45 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 404-409).
To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery,
General Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non-
criminal, criminal, and parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of
$277,191.08 and, of that amount, authorize $203,063.67 to be turned over
for collection.
12 - 19 (c) Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations
To approve the allocation of 2018 Lodging Tax receipts as recommended by
the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee as shown in the minutes of September
26, 2017.
20 - 23 (d) National Citizen's Survey
To authorize staff to contract for the National Citizens Survey including
Page 1 of 139
Regular Meeting October 16, 2017
standard mail survey, Spanish and district-based geographic options, and to
include the three policy questions as discussed.
24 - 25 (e) * Accept Work - Reroof City Buildings
To approve Resolution No. 3800, accepting work performed by Elite
Construction and Development LLC for the City Buildings Reroof project.
(RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read.
4. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
(a) Presentation of Proclamation for "Community Media Day"
Council to present Proclamation to Jon Funfar, Communications Program
Manager
5. VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS: This item is provided to allow
citizens the opportunity to bring items to the attention of the City Council or to
express an opinion on an issue. Its purpose is not to provide a venue for debate or
for the posing of questions with the expectation of an immediate response. Some
questions require consideration by Council over time and after a deliberative
process with input from a number of different sources; some questions are best
directed to staff members who have access to specific information. Citizen
comments will normally be limited to three minutes each by the Mayor. Those with
lengthy messages are invited to summarize their comments and/or submit written
information for consideration by the Council outside of formal meetings.
6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS:
(a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers
26 (b) General Fund Operating Statement
7. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO:
27 - 57 (a) Q* Annexation: D&D Annexation (MF# ANX 2016-002)
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING:
MOTION A: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4354, an Ordinance relating to
annexation and annexing certain real property to the City of Pasco and,
further, authorize publication by summary only.
MOTION B: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4355, an Ordinance of the City
Page 2 of 139
Regular Meeting October 16, 2017
of Pasco, Washington, assigning C-1 zoning to the D & D Annexation Area
as recommended by the Planning Commission and, further, authorize
publication by summary only.
8. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS:
58 - 71 (a) Central Business District Zoning Regulations
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4356, amending Chapter 25.44
"Central Business District" of the Pasco Municipal Code, and further,
authorize publication by summary only.
72 - 77 (b) Chronic Nuisance Ordinance
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4357, amending the Pasco
Municipal Code Section 9.63.020 "Definitions," and further authorize
publication by summary only.
78 - 100 (c) Code Amendment: Residential Design Standards Regarding False
Dormers & Flat Roofs (MF# CA 2017-004)
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4358, amending PMC 25.70.085,
"Residential Design Standards," as recommended by the Planning
Commission and, further, authorize publication by summary only.
101 - 114 (d) Dog License Program Improvement
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4359, amending Sections
8.02.190 “License - Dogs, Required”, 8.02.200 “License – Receipts and
Tags”, 8.02.210 “License Procedures – Receipts and Tags”, 8.02.230
“License – No Cost for Adopted Animals”, and 3.07.020 “Animal Control”
and, further, authorize publication by summary only.
115 - 139 (e) Q* Rezone: RS-12 to C-1 (MF# Z 2017-003)
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4360, rezoning a portion of the
north half of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest
quarter of Section 22, Township 9 North, Range 29, East WM, from RS -12
(Suburban Residential) to C-1 (Retail Business), and further, authorize
publication by summary only.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
10. NEW BUSINESS:
11. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
Page 3 of 139
Regular Meeting October 16, 2017
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
13. ADJOURNMENT.
(RC) Roll Call Vote Required
* Item not previously discussed
Q Quasi-Judicial Matter
MF# “Master File #....”
REMINDERS:
1. 6:00 p.m., Monday, October 16, City Hall Conference Room #1 – LEOFF Disability
Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS and COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA
FRANCIK)
2. 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 18, 435 Clover Island Inn – Benton, Franklin & Walla
Walla Counties Good Roads & Transportation Association Meeting.
(COUNCILMEMBER BOB HOFFMANN, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
3. 3:30 p.m., Thursday, October 19, FCEM Office – Franklin County Emergency
Management Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS, Rep.;
COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Alt.)
4. 4:00 p.m., Thursday, October 19, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd – Tri-Cities National Park
Committee Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS)
5. 11:30 a.m., Friday, October 20, 107 E. Columbia Drive, Kennewick – Benton-
Franklin Council of Governments Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS,
Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.)
6. 1:00 p.m., Friday, October 20, Volunteer Park – Heritage Tree Planting Ceremony.
(MAYOR MATT WATKINS)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed
at www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance.
Page 4 of 139
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 5, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/16/17
FROM: Daniela Erickson, City Clerk
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes
I. REFERENCE(S):
Minutes 10.02.17
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated October 2, 2017.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 5 of 139
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
PASCO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2017
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Matt Watkins, Mayor.
ROLL CALL:
Councilmembers present: Chi Flores, Rebecca Francik, Robert Hoffmann, Tom
Larsen, Saul Martinez, Matt Watkins and Al Yenney.
Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager;
Leland Kerr, City Attorney; Richard Terway, Interim Public Works Director;
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director; Richa Sigdel,
Finance Director; Dan Dotta, Interim Administrative & Community Services
Director and Bob Metzger, Police Chief.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Approval of Minutes
To approve the Minutes of the Pasco City Council Meeting dated September
18, 2017.
Bills and Communications
To approve claims in the total amount of $2,599,695.38 ($1,264,341.63 in
Check Nos. 218282-218488; $563,339.27 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 817532-
817615, 817622-817694, 817697-817981; $92,763.67 in Check Nos. 51051-
51111; $677,250.81 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30111899-30112404;
$2,000.00 in Electronic Transfer No. 403).
Dedication Deed: Right-of-Way for a Portion of Argent Rd (MF# DEED
2017-008)
To accept the deed from the Paul and Laurie Sheehan for a portion of the
Argent Road right-of-way.
Final acceptance: Primary Clarifier No 3 Upgrade Project
To approve Resolution No. 3798, accepting work performed by Clearwater
Construction & Management, LLC. under contract for the Primary Clarifier No
3 Upgrade Project.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve the Consent Agenda as read. Mr.
Yenney seconded. Motion carried by unanimous Roll Call vote.
PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Yard and Business of the Month Awards
Mayor Watkins presented Certificates of Appreciation for September 2017
"Yard of the Month" and "Business Appearance of the Month" to:
• Kasey Russell, 318 N. 6th Avenue
• Mariana Lara, 1704 W. Hopkins Street
Page 1 of 3 Page 6 of 139
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
PASCO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2017
• Debera Odom, 4906 Seville Drive
• Agustin & Consuelo Campos, 4007 Road 108
• McCurley Integrity Subaru, 9620 Sandifur Parkway
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS:
Mr. Martinez and Mr. Zabell attended the Hanford Communities Governing
Board meeting.
Mr. Yenney asked Mr. Dotta to describe the details of the Yard of the Month
program.
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS:
Special Permit: Wireless Facility (MF# SP 2017-011)
Council and staff discussed the details of the proposed resolution.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to approve Resolution No. 3799, approving a
special permit for the location of a wireless tower and its associated ground
equipment at 2600 North 20th Avenue, as recommended by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Bid Award: Butterfield Water Treatment Plant PLC and Controls
Upgrade
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to award the Butterfield Water Treatment Plant
PLC and Controls Upgrade project to Townsend Controls & Electric LLC in
the amount of $475,412.94 and, further, authorize the City Manager to execute
the contract documents. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion carried by unanimous
Roll Call vote.
Bid Award for City Hall Remodel (Phase 1)
Council and staff discussed the details of the bids.
MOTION: Ms. Francik moved to award the construction contract for the City
Hall Select Remodel (Phase 1) Project to Vincent Brothers Construction LLC,
in the amount of $305,166, including sales tax and, further, authorize the City
Manager to execute the contract documents. Mr. Yenney seconded. Motion
carried by unanimous Roll Call vote.
MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION:
Mr. Zabell noted the new staff seating arrangement for Council Meetings. He
also reported that Pasco Police Officers will be wearing, and selling as a fund
raiser, pink shoulder patches to support Cancer Awareness.
Mr. Flores reported that Pasco Fire Department has a new Facebook page.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Page 2 of 3 Page 7 of 139
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
PASCO CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 2, 2017
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Matt Watkins, Mayor Daniela Erickson, City Clerk
PASSED and APPROVED this 16th day of October, 2017
Page 3 of 3 Page 8 of 139
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 12, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/16/17
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Director
Finance
SUBJECT: Bills and Communications
I. REFERENCE(S):
Accounts Payable 10.16.17
Bad Debt Write-off Collection 09.30.17
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
To approve claims in the total amount of $4,102,173.10 ($2,373,609.95 in Check Nos.
218489-218717; $972,917.84 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 817983, 817987-817995,
818135-818137; $37,905.45 in Check Nos. 51112-51154; $714,063.41 in Electronic
Transfer Nos. 30112405-30112906; $3,676.45 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 404-409).
To approve bad debt write-off for Utility Billing, Ambulance, Cemetery, General
Accounts, Miscellaneous Accounts, and Municipal Court (non-criminal, criminal, and
parking) accounts receivable in the total amount of $277,191.08 and, of that amount,
authorize $203,063.67 to be turned over for collection.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 9 of 139
October 16, 2017
Claims Bank Payroll Bank Gen'l Bank Electronic Bank Combined
Check Numbers 218489-218717 51112-51154
Total Check Amount $2,373,609.95 $37,905.45 Total Checks 2,411,515.40$
Electronic Transfer Numbers 817983 30112405-30112906 404-409
817987-817995
818135-818137
Total EFT Amount $972,917.84 $714,063.41 $3,676.45 $0.00 Total EFTs 1,690,657.70$
Grand Total 4,102,173.10$
Councilmember
400,919.40
36,879.63
0.00
0.00
19,107.25
8,625.35
0.00
37.82
28,964.23
60.59
1,170.01
60,994.46
387.20
29.52
140,490.00
0.00
0.00
1,512.10
10,849.52
0.00
0.00
29,860.01
0.00
0.00
151,938.00
1,454,379.15
48,463.91
13,657.05
0.00
0.00
435,489.84
0.00
1,983.20
1,256,374.86
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS:4,102,173.10$
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - REPLACEMENT BUSINESS
MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE
OLD FIRE OPEB
FLEX
PAYROLL CLEARING
STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER
LID
GENERAL CAP PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
UTILITY, WATER/SEWER
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LODGING
LITTER ABATEMENT
REVOLVING ABATEMENT
TRAC DEVELOPMENT & OPERATING
PARKS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
GOLF COURSE
SENIOR CENTER OPERATING
MULTI-MODAL FACILITY
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN
C.D. BLOCK GRANT
HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT
NSP GRANT
MARTIN LUTHER KING COMMUNITY CENTER
AMBULANCE SERVICE
CEMETERY
Councilmember
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND:
GENERAL FUND
STREET
ARTERIAL STREET
STREET OVERLAY
City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington
We, the undersigned, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury the materials have been furnished, the services rendered or the labor performed as
described herein and the claim is a just, due and unpaid obligation against the city and we are authorized to authenticate and certify to such claim.
Dave Zabell, City Manager Richa Sigdel, Finance Director
We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this
16th day of October, 2017 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment:
C I T Y O F P A S C O
Council Meeting of:
Accounts Payable Approved
The City Council
Page 10 of 139
BAD DEBT WRITE-OFF/COLLECTION
September 1 – September 30, 2017
1. UTILITY BILLING - These are all inactive accounts, 60 days or older. Direct write-off are
under $10 with no current forwarding address, or are accounts in "occupant" status. Accounts
submitted for collection exceed $10.00.
2. AMBULANCE - These are all delinquent accounts over 90 days past due or statements are
returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00. Direct
write off including DSHS and Medicare customers; the law requires that the City accept
assignment in these cases.
3. COURT ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - These are all delinquent non-criminal and criminal
fines, and parking violations over 30 days past due.
4. CODE ENFORCEMENT – LIENS - These are Code Enforcement violation penalties which
are either un-collectable or have been assigned for collections because the property owner has
not complied or paid the fine. There are still liens in place on these amounts which will
continue to be in effect until the property is brought into compliance and the debt associated
with these liens are paid.
5. CEMETERY - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned
with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00.
6. GENERAL - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are returned
with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00.
7. MISCELLANEOUS - These are delinquent accounts over 120 days past due or statements are
returned with no forwarding address. Those submitted for collection exceed $10.00.
Direct
Write-off
Referred to
Collection
Total
Write-off
Utility Billing $ .00 79.30 79.30
Ambulance $ 74,127.41 14,474.37 88,601.78
Court A/R $ .00 174,849.00 174,849.00
Code Enforcement $ .00 13,096.00 13,096.00
Cemetery $ .00 .00 .00
General $ .00 565.00 565.00
Miscellaneous $ .00 .00 .00
TOTAL: $ 74,127.41 203,063.67 277,191.08
Page 11 of 139
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 11, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/16/17
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager
Executive
SUBJECT: Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Recommendations
I. REFERENCE(S):
2018 Lodging Tax Requests
Sources and Uses, 2014-2017
2014-2017 Lodging Tax Summary
Committee Minutes dated 09/26/17
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve the allocation of 2018 Lodging Tax receipts as
recommended by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee as shown in the minutes of
September 26, 2017.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
State law has authorized collection of the 2% local tax on lodging facilities (hotels and
motels) since the mid-1970s. The funds originally could be used for stadiums and for
tourism promotion activities. In 1993, like several cities prior to that time, Pasco was
granted an additional 2% lodging tax authority to help pay specifically for the City's
share of TRAC expenses. Several years later, the legislature increased the base lodging
tax to 4% and eliminated the individual taxing authorizations, thus making the use of
lodging tax simpler for everyone. The law was also amended to require a Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee (LTAC) to review and recommend proposed uses of the lodging
tax annually. In 2013, the legislature (in response to the lodging industry) required
additional annual reporting on the use of the lodging tax. The new reporting
requirement became effective for 2014 tax uses (a copy of the City's 2016 report
completed in early 2017 is attached).
The Pasco LTAC convened on September 26, 2017 to review six proposals received
for use of the 2018 lodging tax receipts. After reviewing historical uses of the lodging
Page 12 of 139
tax, and the individual requests, the LTAC recommended allocation as outlined in the
LTAC minutes of September 26.
• $275,000 (est) TRAC, 50% of actual operating costs
• $132,609 (est) Visit Tri-Cities Promotion Services (50% of 2%)
• $ 20,000 Pasco Chamber Ag Show
• $127,188 Baseball Stadium Debt (will retire debt)
• $ 35,000 Baseball Stadium HVAC
• $ 7,000 Downtown Pasco Development Authority Event Marketing
• $596,797 TOTAL
V. DISCUSSION:
While the requests and LTAC recommendation total spending in the amount of nearly
$597,000 for 2018, annual revenue is estimated at $590,000. The Stadium/Convention
Center Fund has a fund balance of approximately $290,000 which can be allocated for
any 2018 overage, if needed.
The request for HVAC improvements at the baseball stadium is new and represents a
one-time expenditure. Additional repairs and upgrades are needed, however, as the
facility is now over 22 years old. The LTAC meeting was attended by representatives
of the Tri-City Dust Devils who discussed possible future improvements at GESA
Stadium, including the possibility of a bond issue secured by lodging tax receipts
beginning in 2019.
This item was discussed at the October 9 Workshop meeting. Staff is requesting
Council approval of the LTAC allocations, as shown in the minutes of September 26,
2017.
Page 13 of 139
2018 LODGING TAX REQUESTS
TRAC * .............................................................................................................$275,000
Baseball Stadium ** .........................................................................................$127,188
Baseball Stadium – HVAC .................................................................................$35,000
Chamber of Commerce .......................................................................................$20,000
Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau ***....................................................$132,609
Downtown Pasco Development Authority ...........................................................$7,000
TOTAL REQUESTED .................................................$596,797
ANNUAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE (est.) .................................$590,000
ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE
STADIUM/CONVENTION CENTER FUND............................$290,000
TOTAL ........................................$880,000
* Interlocal Agreement between City of Pasco and Franklin County
** Final payment on original stadium construction debt
*** Interlocal Agreement between cities of Pasco, Kennewick and Richland with Tri-Cities
Visitor and Convention Bureau (VCB) to provide 50% of annual 2% lodging tax
receipts to VCB.
Possible 2019 Lodging Tax Uses
TRAC ................................................................................................................$275,000
Chamber of Commerce .......................................................................................$20,000
Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau...........................................................$147,000
Downtown Pasco Development Authority ...........................................................$7,000
SUBTOTAL USES .......................................................$449,000
Possible Baseball Stadium Improvements Bond ..............................................$160,000
SUBTOTAL USES .......................................................$609,000
Page 14 of 139
2017 2017 2016 2015 2014
Estimated
(7/30/17)
SOURCE
2% Lodging Tax (TRAC) $ 282,000 $ 262,000 $ 271,529 $ 260,493 $ 251,069
2% Lodging Tax (General) $ 282,000 $ 262,000 $ 271,529 $ 260,493 $ 251,069
TOTAL SOURCES $ 564,000 $ 524,000 $ 543,058 $ 520,986 $ 502,138
USES
TRAC * $ 255,000 $ 255,000 $ 273,948 $ 256,366 $ 251,070
Stadium Debt ** $ 127,188 $ 118,305 $ 127,188 $ 127,188 $ 124,283
VCB Promotion Services $ 126,582 $ 125,695 $ 123,181 $ 119,895 $ 116,785
Chamber Visitor Services / Ag Show $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Downtown Pasco Development Authority $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000
Stadium Operations*** $ 19,957 $ 7,537
* TRAC Actual Expense (City 1/2) $ 255,000 $ 273,948 $ 256,366 $ 346,507
** Stadium Actual Debt Service $ 127,187 $ 127,188 $ 127,188 $ 127,188 $ 127,188
$ 520,986 $ 502,138
2014 - 2017 Lodging Tax
*** Stadium Actual Operations
(above rental income) $ (5,782) $ (9,114) $ (12,694) $ 1,156 $ (264)
TOTAL USES
Budget Actual Actual Actual
$ 533,770 $ 524,000 $ 559,274 Page 15 of 139
Lodging Tax Reporting 2014-2017 (2017 Not Yet Reported)City of Pasco
Year Organization Activity Type Activity Name Funds Requested Funds Awarded
Total Activity
Cost
Overall
Attendance
Projected
Overall
Attendance
Actual
Fifty Miles Attendance
Projected
Fifty Miles
Attendance
Actual
2014 Pasco Chamber of CommerceEvent/Festival Agricultural Trade Show 10,000$ 10,000$ 15,600$ 3,000 3,158 500 NULL
2015 Pasco Chamber of CommerceEvent/Festival Agricultural Trade Show 10,000$ 10,000$ 15,600$ 1,653 600 794
2016 Pasco Chamber of CommerceEvent/Festival Marketing/Festivals/Events 10,000$ 10,000$ 322,958$ 4,000 4,000 825 700
2017 Pasco Chamber of CommerceEvent/Festival Marketing/Festivals/Events 20,000$ 20,000$ 339,075$ 4,700 825
2014 Tri-Cities Vistor and Convention BureauMarketingDestination Marketing 117,280$ 117,280$ 2,006,401$ NULL NULL NULL NULL
2015 Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention BureauMarketingDestination Marketing 115,806$ 129,895$ 2,006,401$ 880,179 1,829,000 653,000 307,826
2016 Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention BureauMarketingDestination Marketing 123,000$ 123,000$ 2,354,084$ 91,886 38,099 91,886 38,099
2017 Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention BureauMarketingDestination Marketing 125,695$ 125,695$ 2,332,185$ 38,139 38,139
2014 City of Pasco-StadiumFacility Stadium Debt Service 127,000$ 103,000$ 127,188$ NULL 95,940 NULL 7,400
2015 City of Pasco-StadiumFacility Stadium Debt Service 122,000$ 127,188$ 142,691$ 95,940 95,396 7,400 7,200
2016 City of Pasco-StadiumFacility Professional Baseball Stadium Debt Service122,000$ 127,187$ 147,144$ 96,000 100,214 7,400 12,000
2017 City of Pasco-StadiumFacility Professional Baseball Stadium Debt Service118,305$ 127,187$ 152,000$ 96,000 7,400
2014 City of Pasco-TRACFacility TRAC Debt Service and Operations230,000$ 230,000$ 354,000$ NULL 181,331 NULL 1,803
2015 City of Pasco-TRACFacility TRAC Operations/Debt Service240,000$ 256,366$ 512,733$ 250,000 164,706 45,000 4,050
2016 City of Pasco-TRACFacility TRAC - Trade Recreation Agriculture Center255,000$ 273,948$ 273,948$ 181,000 158,304 1,803 3,154
2017 City of Pasco-TRACFacility TRAC - Trade Recreation Agriculture Center255,000$ 255,000$ 165,000 4,000
2016 Downtown Pasco Development AuthorityEvent/Festival Cinco de Mayo-Fiery Foods Festivals5,000$ 5,000$ 39,551$ 10,000 10,000 500 600
2017 Downtown Pasco Development AuthorityEvent/Festival Cinco de Mayo-Fiery Foods Festivals5,000$ 5,000$ 25,000$ 10,000 1,000 Page 16 of 139
Year
Out of
State/Country
Attendance
Projected
Out of
State/Country
Attendance
Actual
Overnight Paid
Attendance
Projected
Overnight Paid
Attendance
Actual
Overnight
UnPaid
Attendance
Projected
Overnight
UnPaid
Attendance
Actual
Paid Lodging
Nights
Projected
Paid Lodging
Nights Actual Notes
2014 350 NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL
2015 335 350 335 700 670
2016 520 450 398 338 112 112 796 612
2017 520 398 112 796
2014 NULL NULL NULL 653,000 NULL NULL 2013 actual numbers.
2015 227179 337000 653,000 1,434,000 144,000
2016 91886 38099 114,858 47,625
OOSOOC Attendance
and Overnight Unpaid
Attendance reported as
"not available"
2017 N/A 38139 N/A 47,673
2014 NULL 6,860 NULL 3,400 NULL NULL
2015 6,860 6,700 3540 3250 92,400 92,146 1,040
2016 6,860 7,000 3540 4000 3,400 3,500 2,575 2,000
2017 6,860 3540 3,400 2,575
2014 NULL 930 NULL 90 NULL NULL Franklin County Operation
2015 39,750 738 45000 1014 45,000 202
2016 930 1,413 450 789 90 158 395
2017 800 1000 200
2016 100 180 50 100 - - 150 Overnight Unpaid Attendance Unknown
2017 150 100 150 Page 17 of 139
LODGING TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 26, 2017
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm, by Matt Watkins, in conference room #9 at Pasco City
Hall.
ROLL CALL:
Board Members Present: Matt Watkins (Council); Colin Hastings (Chamber); Monica Hammerberg
(Hampton Inn); and Hector Cruz (Visit Tri-Cities).
Excused: Allison White (Sleep Inn).
Also Present: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager; and Brent Miles and Derrel Ebert, Tri-City Dust
Devils.
BUSINESS:
Matt Watkins presented the September 19, 2016 minutes of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee.
Motion was made by Colin Hastings and seconded by Monica Hammerberg, to approve the
September 19, 2016 minutes as submitted. Motion passed unanimously.
Stan briefly reviewed the following: historical allocation of lodging tax receipts; current contractual
commitments; 2016 JLARC reporting; 2014-2017 document combining JLARC reporting as well as
2018 tax allocation requests; and possible 2019 requests.
Committee discussed the requests for use of the 2018 Lodging Tax receipts, estimated to total
$596,797. Stan noted that it is proposed to pay the balance of stadium debt ($127,000) in 2018 to
retire that debt. All requests are similar to those approved for 2017, except for: an increase in the
TRAC request, due to uncertainty; the DPDA request of an additional $2,000; and a proposed new
expenditure, HVAC in visitor’s clubhouse at GESA Stadium, in the amount of $35,000. Brent and
Derrel spoke briefly to the HVAC needs.
Monica asked if DPDA had been able to track lodging stays associated with their events. Stan
noted that while some effort had been made, the fact that tickets were not required for the main
DPDA events, made tracking challenging. Monica would like to see some DPDA advertising
directed toward out-of-town visitors. Stan will make this request to DPDA.
Stan explained that while the 2018 requests slightly exceed expected revenue for the coming year,
estimated fund balance in the Stadium/Convention Center fund will cover the projected shortfall, if
needed.
Page 18 of 139
LTAC Minutes 9/26/17
Page 2 of 2
Motion was made by Monica Hammerberg and seconded by Colin Hastings to recommend the 2018
allocation estimate, as outlined below. Motion carried unanimously.
TRAC, 50% of actual operating costs ............... $275,000 (est)
VCB Promotion Services (50% of 2%) ............. $132,609 (est)
Pasco Chamber Ag Show .................................... $20,000
Baseball Stadium Debt....................................... $127,188 (will retire debt)
Baseball Stadium HVAC ....................................... 35,000
DPDA Event Marketing......................................... $7,000
TOTAL .............................. $596,797
Stan reviewed possible 2019 allocations, noting that the City and Dust Devils had been conferring
regarding replacement and upgrade needs at the stadium. A bond, similar to the one structured for
original construction (22 years ago), was being considered in the amount of $2 million, with
possible debt service over 20 years of approximately $160,000 per year. Brent and Derrel reviewed
possible improvements including seating replacements, lighting and sound system upgrades as well
as concession and clubhouse improvements. Some improvements are needed to meet professional
baseball standards.
Monica asked if stadium improvements were prioritized (not yet); Hector and Colin both noted the
value of the facility and the need for improvements. Matt expressed appreciation for each sharing
their thoughts.
Stan indicated that the committee’s recommendation for 2018, as well as a brief discussion on the
possible 2019 allocations, and beyond, will be presented to the City Council at their meeting of
October 9, with action expected at their October 16 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Committee meeting adjourned at 4:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted.
Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager
Page 19 of 139
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 11, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/16/17
FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager
Executive
SUBJECT: National Citizen's Survey
I. REFERENCE(S):
Survey Questions
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to authorize staff to contract for the National Citizens Survey
including standard mail survey, Spanish and district-based geographic options, and to
include the three policy questions as discussed.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
$15,750 for standard mail survey (web return option), plus Spanish survey (online) and
district-based geographic subgroup reporting
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Following discussion at the meeting of September 25, staff understood Council's
preference for the National Citizen Survey (NCS) was to conduct the survey primarily
by mail (with the option for participants to web return) as in the past, plus to select th e
Spanish survey (web only), also as in the past, and district-based geographic subgroup
reporting. The opt-in web survey will also be available city-wide, once the random
sample survey is completed.
For Council's further consideration, an additional policy question, regarding
Community Recreation Facilities has been developed, while the Code Enforcement
question has been revised. See draft questions under "Discussion" below.
(Following is Text from 9/25 Agenda Report): In furtherance of Council's goal of
responsive and efficient government, staff is in communication with the National
Research Center (NRC) to conduct the NCS in Pasco, a biennial community survey
effort consisting primarily of standard questions regarding the availability and quality
Page 20 of 139
of municipal services. The City has contracted for this survey to be completed in odd
years since 2005.
The results of this statistically valid survey have served as a valuable tool for Council
in goal-setting efforts and decision making with respect to public investment and
programmatic focus areas. With several cycles of experience, Council, staff and the
public can identify trend lines where the city is making progress in the opinion of
respondents, and where we are losing ground. The survey result s and subsequent
analysis provides policy-makers with reliable information on which to make decisions
in the public interest and how Pasco compares in terms of performance with other
cities utilizing the NCS as a tool. Historically, the City has conducted the NCS in the
fall so that the information is available for the Council's post-election cycle goal-setting
retreat, in this case, in early 2018.
In additional to the questions specific to the major services the City provides, the
Council may add up to three "policy" questions to the survey without additional cost.
Each of the City's previous NCS efforts included policy questions. Attachment #1
includes those questions asked in prior survey cycles. In order to have the policy
questions included in the survey this fall, NRC will need our finalized questions to
them by early November.
While the base survey has been conducted entirely by mail in the past, NRC is
currently offering the alternative of a web-based survey with a scientific sample and
invitations by mail. The cost of the web-based survey is 75% of the mailed survey as
shown below:
• $14,265 - Mailed survey (returns by mail or web; scientific sample of 1,500
households,) The City had 260 responses of a sample of 1,400 households in
2015.
• $10,710 - Web only survey (invitation by mail, returns by web; scientific
sample of 1,800 households)
The database utilized to generate the households is from the City's utility billing data.
Both options above include the ability of the City to invite residents to submit survey
responses online (in addition to those of the random sample - results to be kept separate
to maintain the scientific results of the base random survey). This option produced 327
responses in 2015.
There are other survey enhancement options which can be added to the base survey
which Council may want to consider as follows:
1. The option for Spanish-only speaking residents to review and submit the survey
online would cost $675. This option was also provided in 2015, with five total
responses.
2. Providing survey results by geographic areas is also an option. For example,
survey results could be made available for each City Council voting district.
The cost for this option is $810.
Page 21 of 139
V. DISCUSSION:
Following discussion at the Council meeting of October 9, the attached list of possible
questions has been updated to reflect the consensus of the Council.
Page 22 of 139
10/9/17
2017 Possible Policy Questions
1. Code Enforcement
The City processes approximately 3,000 code violations per year. Violations are primarily
received as complaints from citizens and are predominately related to property maintenance
(trash, weeds) or noise (loud music, barking dogs). How do you feel about the City’s code
enforcement efforts? Should there be more enforcement or less?
i. Considerably more enforcement
ii. Somewhat more enforcement
iii. Enforcement about right
iv. Somewhat less enforcement
v. Considerably less enforcement
vi. Do not know
2. Fire/EMS Facilities:
Age, growth and growth patterns in the City over the last several years have created the need
to replace two fire protection and emergency medical response facilities. Relocation and
replacement of these facilities will result in improved response times throughout the City,
and allow adequate space for staffing and modern equipment. If funding of a new fire/EMS
station was to be proposed as a property tax bond issue to the voters, would you be:
i. Strongly supportive
ii. Somewhat supportive
iii. Somewhat opposed
iv. Strongly opposed
v. Do not know
3. City Recreation Facility:
The City has been considering if residents support the construction of a community
recreation center. Such a facility could support a number of different recreation interests as
summarized below. For each of the recreation categories, please indicate your level of
interest:
Level of Interest – 0 No Interest / 1 Low Interest / 5 High Interest
i. Recreational Aquatic Features 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5-
ii. Competition Aquatic Features 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5-
iii. Gymnasium 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5-
iv. Fitness/Exercise 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5-
v. Walking/Jogging 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5-
vi. Meeting/Activity Rooms 0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5-
Page 23 of 139
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 4, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/16/17
FROM: Dan Dotta, Interim Director
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: Accept Work - Reroof City Buildings
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. ________, accepting work performed by
Elite Construction and Development LLC for the City Buildings Reroof project.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
$243,371.62 - Capital Improvement Fund
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On April 17, 2017, Council awarded the City Buildings Reroof project to Elite
Construction and Development LLC in the amount of 243,371.62.
Thermoplastic Polyolefin (TPO) roofing, with a 30 year life expectancy, was placed on
the Police Training Center, City Hall, MLK Center and Kurtzman Mini Police Station
roofs.
V. DISCUSSION:
The project was completed on budget and staff recommends Council's acceptance of
the work.
Page 24 of 139
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WORK PERFORMED BY ELITE
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT LLC FOR THE CITY BUILDINGS
REROOF PROJECT
WHEREAS, the work performed by Elite Construction and Development LLC for the
City Buildings Reroof project has been examined by Administrative & Community Services and
has been found to be in apparent compliance with the applicable project specifications, and
WHEREAS, it is Administrative & Community Services 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 Administrative & Community Services recommendation and thereby
accepts the work performed by Elite Construction and Development LLC for the City Buildings
Reroof project, as being completed in apparent conformance with the project specifications 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 Administrative & Community Services and
Finance Director.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 16th day of October, 2017.
_____________________________
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ __________________________
Daniela Erickson Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 25 of 139
APPROVED YTD % OF ADOPTED YTD % OF
2016 2016 ANNUAL 2017 2017 ANNUAL
BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET
REVENUE SOURCES:
TAXES:
PROPERTY 7,655,000$ 4,335,261$ 56.6%7,825,655$ 4,617,411$ 59.0%
SALES 11,807,000 9,075,391 76.9%12,475,000 9,811,314 78.6%
PUBLIC SAFETY 1,365,000 1,053,995 77.2%1,400,000 1,109,607 79.3%
UTILITY 9,228,000 6,604,258 71.6%9,092,000 6,895,941 75.8%
OTHER 1,158,000 896,059 77.4%1,204,000 908,164 75.4%
LICENSES & PERMITS 1,743,400 1,681,906 96.5%1,921,964 1,843,809 95.9%
INTERGOV'T REVENUE 2,151,648 1,685,996 78.4%2,178,737 1,730,783 79.4%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES 6,508,414 4,792,844 73.6%6,523,656 4,630,631 71.0%
FINES & FORFEITS 879,800 568,314 64.6%872,100 593,772 68.1%
MISC. REVENUE 493,440 435,300 88.2%498,260 428,769 86.1%
DEBT AND TRANSFERS IN 1,268,000 107,253 8.5%538,000 489,756 91.0%
TOTAL REVENUES 44,257,702 31,236,578 70.6%44,529,372 33,059,958 74.2%
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 17,289,115 17,289,115 14,633,214 14,633,214
TOTAL SOURCES 61,546,817$ 48,525,693$ 78.8%59,162,586$ 47,693,172$ 80.6%
EXPENDITURES:
CITY COUNCIL 114,323$ 77,865$ 68.1%111,975$ 82,491$ 73.7%
MUNICIPAL COURT 1,607,000 1,178,126 73.3%1,467,115 1,086,999 74.1%
CITY MANAGER 1,447,608 1,086,234 75.0%1,597,585 1,299,121 81.3%
POLICE 14,496,650 10,408,721 71.8%15,574,059 11,409,230 73.3%
FIRE 5,602,747 4,162,389 74.3%7,173,061 5,594,323 78.0%
ADMIN & COMMUNITY SVCS 8,411,191 6,575,001 78.2%7,110,928 5,548,652 78.0%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1,507,525 1,080,585 71.7%1,619,376 1,328,704 82.1%
FINANCE*- - 0.0%2,019,332 1,530,548 75.8%
ENGINEERING 1,765,221 1,377,791 78.1%1,798,269 1,222,049 68.0%
LIBRARY 1,305,200 1,064,429 81.6%1,330,220 1,112,853 83.7%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 2,648,832 1,695,505 64.0%2,206,797 1,434,005 65.0%
DEBT AND TRANSFERS OUT 7,752,675 3,237,902 41.8%2,602,400 755,632 29.0%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 46,658,972 31,944,549 68.5%44,611,117 32,404,607 72.6%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 14,887,845 16,581,143 14,551,469 15,288,565
TOTAL EXPEND & END FUND BAL 61,546,817$ 48,525,693$ 59,162,586$ 47,693,172$
UNRESTRICTED CASH AND
INVESTMENTS:9,418,593$ 11,490,632$
EXPECTED PERCENTAGE OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURE, FOR 7 MONTHS 75%75%
These statements are intended for Management use only.
*Previously included in the Administrative and Community Services Department
GENERAL FUND OPERATING STATEMENT
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2017
Page 26 of 139
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 10, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 10/16/17
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Annexation: D & D Annexation (MF# ANX 2017-002)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Vicinity Map
Annexation Petition
Proposed Annexation Ordinance
Proposed Zoning Ordinance
Planning Commission Report
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 8/17/17
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING:
MOTION A: I move to adopt Ordinance No. ________, an Ordinance relating to
annexation and annexing certain real property to the City of Pasco and, further,
authorize publication by summary only.
MOTION B: I move to adopt Ordinance No. ________, an Ordinance of the City of
Pasco, Washington, assigning C-1 zoning to the D & D Annexation Area as
recommended by the Planning Commission and, further, authorize publication by
summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
The addition of $353,200 to the assessed value of the City.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On July 17, 2017, the City Council passed Resolution No. 3781 accepting a “Notice
Page 27 of 139
and Intent” to commence annexation proceedings for the D & D Annexation Area.
Following the passage of the resolution a final petition was submitted to the City.
The petition has been reviewed by the County Assessor and has been determined to be
sufficient to constitute a legally acceptable petition under the petition method of
annexation. The petition represents 100 percent of the assessed value for the
annexation area.
The next step in the annexation process requires the City Council to hold a public
hearing on the proposed annexation.
V. DISCUSSION:
The proposed Annexation Ordinance (Motion "A"), if adopted, will cause the area in
question to be annexed to the City subject to the following conditions:
1. The Pasco Comprehensive Plan will continue to be applicable to the area.
2. The annexation area will not assume any existing bonded indebtedness.
3. The annexation area will be assigned to Voting District #4.
The Planning Commission conducted a zoning determination hearing for the proposed
annexation area on August 17, 2017 and recommended the area be zoned C-1 (Retail
Business). Motion "B" will establish C-1 zoning for the annexation area.
Page 28 of 139
VicinityMapItem: Four-Acre Road 68 AnnexationApplicant: D&D EnterprisesFile #: ANX 2017-002SITEPage 29 of 139
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF PASCO
TO:The City Council of the City of Pasco
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington 99301
The undersigned,being the owners of not less than sixty percent
(60%),in value,according to the assessed valuation for general taxation,of
the real property described in Exhibit “A"attached hereto,lying contiguous
to the City of Pasco,Washington,do hereby petition that such territory be
annexed to and made a part of the City of Pasco under the provisions of
RCW 35.l4.l20,et seq.,and any amendments thereto,of the State of
Washington.
The territory proposed to be annexed is within Franklin County,
Washington,and is described in Exhibit "1",attached hereto.
WHEREFORE,the undersigned respectively petition the Honorable
City Council and ask:
(a)That appropriate action be taken to entertain this petition,
fixing a date for a public hearing,causing notice to be published and
posted,specifying the time and place of such hearing,and inviting all
persons interested to appear and voice approval or disapproval of such
annexation;and,
(b)That following such hearing the City Council determine by
Ordinance that such annexation shall be effective;and that property so
annexed shall become a part of the City of Pasco,Washington,subject to its
laws and ordinances then and thereafter enforced.
The Petitioners subscribing hereto agree that all property within the
territory hereby sought to be annexed shall not assume any existing
indebtedness and will not require simultaneous adoption of zoning
regulations in accordance with the City Council’s acceptance of the Notice of
Intention to Commence Annexation as indicated in Resolution No.3781 as
recorded in the July 17,2017 Council minutes of the City of Pasco,
Washington.
This Petition is accompanied by and has attached hereto as Exhibit
"2"a diagram which outlines the boundaries of the property sought to be
annexed.
_..__..?T.._,..__._.§,mTT_.._.,.._.._._1 .77 T
________________________..
Page 30 of 139
WARNING:Every person who signs this petition with any other than
his/her name,or who knowingly signs more than one of these petitions,
or signs a petition seeking an election when he/she is not a legal voter,
or signs a petition when he/she is otherwise not quali?ed to sign,or who
makes herein any false statement,shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
PRAYER OF PETITION:(1)Annexation of area described and depicted
in Exhibits "1"and "2",without (2)assumption of indebtedness of the
City of Pasco and without (3)simultaneous adoption of the City of Pasco
Zoning Regulations.
DATE
0WNER’S SIGNATURE PRINT NAME/ADDRESS SIGNED
1..Daniel Aden 10-02-17
'33 8
2.
3.
4.
10.
11.
12,
Page 31 of 139
A?idavit of Signature for
Annexation Notice of Intent and Petition
Under the penalty of perjury,I declare under oath,that I am authorized to sign deeds and
encumbrances on behalf of D &D Enterprises LLC and I am further authorized to sign other
documents including Notices of Intent and Petitions.
WLQ/O3]I7
State of Washington )
):ss.
County of Benton )
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Daniel Aden is the person
who appeared before me,and said person acknowledged that (he/she)signed this instrument,on oath
stated that (he/she)was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as
the co—owner of D &D Ente rises LLC to be the free and voluntary act
of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Given under my hand and official seal this énddayof 1M M ,_£DJ_'1
\\\\\\\\u\H;\‘\\M CL "I1\'\",.\\\\\\\\i:,1"y7‘/1;NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the St Washington
Residing at:K???e M {?t H
My Commission Expires:|;#33IQ Q
%\°uE4'A"’I,
Page 32 of 139
EXHIBIT “1”
Annexation Legal
Beginning at the Northeast corner of the following described parcel:The North
261.31 feet of the South half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22,Township 9 North,Range 29
East,WM;Thence Southerly along the east line of said described parcel to the
intersection with the South line thereof;Thence Westerly along the South line
of said described parcel to the intersection with the East right—of—wayline of
Road 68;Thence Northerly along the East right-of-way line of Road 68 to the
intersection with the North line of said described parcel;Then Easterly along
said North line of said described parcel to the point of beginning.
Page 33 of 139
om_.zmmm<
m:s__._>._._O
179CIVOEI
"Id H199
mooiomNZ<gmBEN3,w+2mominro?mGadu:mo:o.E<,_aoumxo?dmwe30%2o<-Eom“So:HEENH
Page 34 of 139
WHEN RECORDED PLEASE RETURN TO:
City of Pasco
Attn: City Planner
525 North 3rd
Pasco, WA 99301
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ANNEXATION AND ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF PASCO.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco has declared, its intent to annex the
following described territory to the City of Pasco pursuant to RCW Chapter 35A.14; and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing on the proposed annexation has been published
and posted as required by law; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed annexation was held on October 16, 2017;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following described area, situated in Franklin County, Washington to-
wit:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of the following described parcel: The North 261.31 feet of the
South half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
22, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM; Thence Southerly along the east line of said
described parcel to the intersection with the South line thereof; Thence Westerly along the South
line of said described parcel to the intersection with the East right-of-way line of Road 68; Thence
Northerly along the East right-of-way line of Road 68 to the intersection with the North line of
said described parcel; Then Easterly along said North line of said described parcel to the point of
beginning, as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled Exhibit “1” be and the same is
hereby annexed to the City of Pasco and is hereby declared to be within the corporate limits of the
City of Pasco.
Section 2. That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Pasco be and the same is hereby
adopted for the above described tract of land.
Section 3. That said tract of land shall not assume any portion of the existing bonded
indebtedness of the City of Pasco.
Section 4. That said tract of land shall be in Voting District # 4.
Page 35 of 139
-2-
Section 5. That a certified copy of this ordinance be and the same shall be filed with the
Franklin County Commissioners.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on December 1, 2017.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 16th day of October 2017.
___________________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM
____________________________ _____________________________
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 36 of 139
Exhibit#1Item: Four-Acre Road 68 AnnexationApplicant: D&D EnterprisesFile #: ANX 2017-002SITEPage 37 of 139
ORDINANCE NO. ________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, ASSIGNING ZONING TO THE D & D
ANNEXATION AREA AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2017, the Planning Commission of the City of Pasco conducted a
public hearing to develop a recommendation for the assignment of zoning to certain property; in the event the
property was incorporated within the City; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2017, Ordinance No. _________, effectively annexed certain real
property to the City of Pasco; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following described area, situated in Franklin County, Washington to-wit:
Beginning at the Northeast corner of the following described parcel: The North 261.31 feet of the
South half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22,
Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM; Thence Southerly along the east line of said described
parcel to the intersection with the South line thereof; Thence Westerly along the South line of said
described parcel to the intersection with the East right-of-way line of Road 68; Thence Northerly
along the East right-of-way line of Road 68 to the intersection with the North line of said described
parcel; Then Easterly along said North line of said described parcel to the point of beginning,
as depicted in the map attached hereto and labeled Exhibit No. “1” be and the same is hereby assigned C-1
(Retail Business) zoning.
Section 2. That any and all zoning maps be and the same are hereby amended to conform to the
aforesaid assignment of zoning.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on December 1, 2017.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 16th day of October, 2017.
___________________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________ ______________________________
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 38 of 139
City of Pasco, IS Division
Exhibit 1 Item: Annex. Zoning DeterminationApplicant: City of PascoFile #: ZD 2017-002 ±
SITE
Road 68Road 64CITY LIMITS
CITY LIMITS
W Argent Rd
Page 39 of 139
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2017-002) APPLICANT: City of Pasco
HEARING DATE: 8/17/2017 PO Box 293
ACTION DATE: 9/21/2017 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REQUEST: REZONE: Development of a zoning recommendation
for the D&D Annexation Area.
1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population
D&D Annexation 3.88 acres 0 0
2) UTILITIES: A City water line is located in Argent and along Road 68.
Sewer is located in Argent Road.
3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently
zoned RS-12 and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: C-1-Vacant/Office /Single-family
SOUTH: RS- 20- Vacant
EAST: RS- 12 Single-Family
WEST: C-1- Drive thru Coffee Stand
4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The property is designated for Mixed
Residential/Commercial uses. The property can be considered for either
multi-family or commercial zoning. Policy LU-1-C encourages the
clustering of commercial development to avoid strip development up and
down major streets. LU-4-A also supports the location of commercial
facilities at major intersections (like Rd 68 & Argent) to avoid commercial
sprawl. ED-2-B suggests a wide range of commercial development should
be strategically located to support local and regional needs in the
community. ED-3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and
superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial
and residential development.
5) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made
after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non-
Page 40 of 139
2
Significance or a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
ANALYSIS
The site contains almost 4 acres and is located about 300 feet south of
the Road 68 and Argent Road intersection. Properties surround the Road
68 and Argent intersection contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru
facility, a restaurant, a City Fire Station and a commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses. The uses mentioned above are
consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Mixed Residential/Commercial land use designation would permit a
variety of multi-family structures, including large apartment buildings,
and neighborhood shopping and specialty centers, business parks,
service businesses and commercial offices. R-3 zoning allowed under the
Mixed Residential/Commercial designation would permit up to 20
dwelling units per acre or 77 units for the site in question. The
Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan
states mixed residential commercial areas should be located convenient
to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent Road. The
referenced table also indicates in Mixed Residential/Commercial
designated areas C-1 and Office zoning would be permitted.
In determining zoning for the annexation area the Planning Commission
needs to consider the existing zoning and land uses near and around the
Road 68 and Argent intersection. The northeast, northwest, and
southwest corners of the Road 68 and Argent intersection have already
been zone C-1 and are partially developed with commercial enterprises
as noted above. The City has had a long history of encouraging
commercial development at or convenient to major street intersections.
The Planning Commission also needs to consider the criteria in PMC
25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a zoning recommendation.
The proposed annexation area is within the City’s service area as
identified in the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans. Both of these
plans based future services need within the annexation area for more
intense land uses as identified in the land use map of the Comprehensive
Plan.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are
explained in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or
additional zoning:
Page 41 of 139
3
• The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary.
• The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco.
• The property is located along a major street within a convenient
distance of the Road 68/Argent Road intersection.
• The other corners of the Road 68/Argent intersection have been
zone C-1
• Properties surrounding the Road 68 and Argent intersection
contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru facility, a
restaurant, a City Fire Station and commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses.
• A traffic signal is now located at the intersection of Road 68 and
Argent Road.
• The City has installed major sewer and water lines in Argent
Road in anticipation of more intense development around and
near the Road 68 and Argent intersection.
• A major water line now extends down Road 68 past the
proposed annexation and rezone site.
• A City Fire Station is located on Road 68 340 feet north of
Argent Road.
• Road 68 and Argent Road are identified as major streets in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public
health, safety and general welfare.
The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned.
The justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation
is not determined the property could become annexed without a
zoning. For the advancement of the general welfare of the community
the property needs to be zoned consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan following the development patterns occurring around the Road
68/Argent Road intersection.
3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining
property and the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the proposed annexation area to C-1 (Retail Business) is
supported by the Comprehensive Plan land use map and land use
policies and would be considered a proper implementation of the Plan.
The nature and value of the adjoining properties have changed little
as a result of the commercial activity and traffic associated with the
Road 68 and Argent Road intersection. Rezoning the property to C-1
will have the same impact as the current C-1 zoning in the
Page 42 of 139
4
neighborhood. The C-1 zoning regulations and landscape and
screening regulations are designed to enhance the compatibility of
commercial development with residential development. These
regulations are in place to ameliorate any impacts C-1 development
may have on nearby residential development. A review of County
Assessor records were commercial development and residential
development adjoin each other reveal the value of both types of
property have continued to increase over the years (August 2017 of
the County Assessors Records).
4. The effect on the property owners or owner if the request is not
granted.
Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district,
the area will essentially be un-zoned upon annexation. The area
needs to be zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property
owners adjoining the proposed annexation area.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property.
The Plan indicates the proposed annexation area can be zoned and
developed for retail and office uses. Policies of the Plan encourage the
location of commercial development near the intersections of major
streets such as Road 68 and Argent Road. Providing land for
neighborhood shopping will benefit the community and help
implement provision of the Comprehensive Plan.
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 findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in
1994.
3) The property is being proposed for annexation by the fall of 2017.
4) The property is located near the intersection of Road 68 and Argent
Road.
5) Policy LU-1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development to
avoid strip development up and down major streets.
6) LU-4-A also supports the location of commercial facilities at major
intersections (like Rd 68 & Argent) to avoid commercial sprawl.
Page 43 of 139
5
7) ED-3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and superior
building design to enhance compatibility between commercial and
residential development. The Pasco zoning regulations contain
provision requiring landscaping, screening and setbacks designed to
implement ED-3-A.
8) Properties around and near the northwest, northeast and southwest
corners of Road 68 and Argent Road are currently zoned C-1.
9) The Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive
Plan states mixed residential or commercial areas should be located
convenient to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent
Road.
10) A review of County Assessor records were commercial development and
residential development adjoin each other reveal the value of both types
of property have continued to increase over the years (August 2017
review of the County Assessors Records).
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the proposed annexation site to C-1 supports and is consistent with
Plan Policies LU-1-C, LU-4-A, ED-3-A and ED-2-B.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The rezone to C-1 will complement the C-1 zoning on or near the other
corners of the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Rezoning the property
supports the commercial clustering or nodal concept of zoning that the city
has followed for major intersections for the past 35 years. Standards in
place within the zoning regulations are designed to ensure C-1 areas do
not become detrimental to surrounding properties.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit and value in following the guidance of the Comprehensive
Plan when assigning zoning. The proposed zoning will secure the
commercial nature of the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Providing an
area for the grouping of similar neighborhood businesses enables the
Page 44 of 139
6
businesses to fair better and will provide services to the community for a
longer period of time.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no mitigation
measures are needed. Standards within the zoning regulations for
setbacks, screening and landscaping provide mitigation measures.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 21, 2016 staff
report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the findings of fact
and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council zone the D & D annexation area (parcel # 11855203) to C-1.
Page 45 of 139
City of Pasco, IS Division
OverviewMap
Item: Annex. Zoning DeterminationApplicant: City of PascoFile #: ZD 2017-002 ±
SITE
Road 68Road 64CITY LIMITS
CITY LIMITS
W Argent Rd
Page 46 of 139
City of Pasco, IS Division
VicinityMap
Item: Annex. Zoning DeterminationApplicant: City of PascoFile #: ZD 2017-002 ±
SITE
Road 68Road 64CITY LIMITS
CITY LIMITS
W Argent Rd
Page 47 of 139
Page 48 of 139
ZoningMap
Item: Annex. Zoning DeterminationApplicant: City of PascoFile #: ZD 2017-002 ±
SITE
Road 68Road 64CITY LIMITS
CITY LIMITS
W Argent Rd
C-1 Pending RS-12
RS-20C-1
RS-12C-1
C-1
RS-20
Page 49 of 139
Looking North Page 50 of 139
Looking East Page 51 of 139
Looking South Page 52 of 139
Looking Northwest Page 53 of 139
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
8/17/2017
C. Zoning Determination Determination of Zoning in the D&D Annexation
Area (City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2017-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained the application was a companion piece to the
prior rezone. The applicant is in the process of annexing this property. They have
submitted the required 10% petition of annexation which has been accepted by the
City Council and they passed a resolution creating the stipulations for annexation.
Now the applicant has to submit a 60% petition for annexation which needs to be
certified by the County. Once that is done a hearing can be held by the City Council
to have an ordinance passed to annex the property. As a part of the annexation
process, a companion ordinance is always adopted to establish zoning. If we didn’t do
that, the property would be un-zoned and anything could happen. The applicant is
requesting commercial zoning. The two parcels along Argent are too narrow to do a
complete commercial development. The problem they are being faced with is access
and traffic. To develop the site properly, they need to be developed together. The staff
report leans towards C-1. Staff would like input as to whether C-1 or multi-family
would be a better fit.
Rick Graff, 3321 W. 42nd Place, Kennewick, WA spoke on behalf of his application.
With regard to the annexation, they will not move forward with the annexation of the
property if it is not zoned commercial and will instead keep it in the County and work
on other options.
Chairman Cruz asked if that was because it wouldn’t have much commercial potential
without the other piece.
Mr. Graff addressed some of the issues Mr. McDonald discussed in regards to traffic
and access to the site. They do not want to congest traffic.
Mr. McDonald asked the Planning Commission for input on possibly additional
restrictions, such as an additional buffer on the south and the east. This area is not
in the I-182 Overlay Zone. The I-182 Overlay Zone has higher design standards.
Chairman Cruz asked if someone were to buy the Magill’s property if there was
anything preventing them from bulldozing and building a gas station.
Mr. McDonald said no and they have already had interest in the other corner on the
east side or Road 68 prior to the Maverick Gas Station. But there are no restrictions
on the other corners.
Page 54 of 139
Chairman Cruz responded that as much as he would like to add the provision, he
didn’t see how it would provide the residents with much protection from a potential
gas station from locating in the vicinity because if they can’t place it on one corner,
they can place it on any of the other corners.
Chairman Cruz said that he understood Mr. Hilgartner but it may not be fair to
prohibit a gas station on the proposed corner yet allow it on the other corner near a
house as well.
Mr. Hilgartner asked if there is a gas station in the I-182 Corridor abutted to
residential.
Chairman Cruz responded that the Maverick Gas Station is near multi-family
residential and while not ideal, there is nothing the Planning Commission can do to
prevent it from happening on the other corners.
Commissioner Bowers said if a smaller version of, say a Petco, at this location she
would like to see more landscape buffers.
Chairman Cruz said he didn’t jump on the I-182 Overlay idea because it is costly and
the likeness of developing happening drops. He would prefer to see more buffers than
constraints.
Commissioner Campos asked what buffers could be put in place without prohibiting
the developers.
Chairman Cruz responded with fencing, landscaping and space and then let the City
work with the developer.
Mr. Graff added that buffers and plans are in place already so that developers are
consistent and doesn’t present unfair advantages to other developers. If unfair buffers
are placed on them, it may not work for them.
Chairman Cruz replied that they have and done in the past is place different
restrictions based on the circumstances so that would not be unusual but they would
be fair.
Mr. Hilgartner said that on the east boundary the homes sit on a bluff and have a 9-
10’ buffer. If this buffer used specific trees giving more deciduous value and more
noise buffer then it wouldn’t be too cost prohibitive. And placing trees closer together
isn’t that cost prohibitive. The only people that would be affected are the homes to the
north and to the east.
Page 55 of 139
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Roach, to close the hearing
on the proposed zoning determination and set September 21, 2017 as the date of for
deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The
motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
9/21/2017
C. Zoning Determination Determination of Zoning in the D&D Annexation
Area (City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2017-002)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the zoning determination application for the
D&D Annexation Area. This item is to determine zoning on a piece of property prior to
annexation so that once it is annexed, zoning will be assigned. There will still need to
be an annexation hearing held by City Council. Staff had no additional comments.
Chairwoman Roach asked if there was a date set for the City Council annexation
hearing.
Mr. McDonald responded that it would be in October but a date has not been set.
Commissioner Alvarado asked what could happen if City Council decided not to annex
this piece of land, would that still allow the neighboring site just recommended for
rezone to develop commercial – would it have enough land still to develop commercial
without this piece of land.
Mr. McDonald answered that they have indicated that they would annexation. They
signed a resolution shortly after the initial petition came in with conditions. The
process is now in the applicant’s court to complete the second petition to move
forward.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commissioner Bykonen, to adopt
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 21, 2016
staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Greenaway moved, seconded by Commission Bykonen, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council zone the D&D Annexation Area (parcel number’s 118-552-031) to C-1.
Page 56 of 139
The motion passed unanimously.
Page 57 of 139
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 10, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/16/17
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Central Business District Zoning Regulations
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Ordinance
Memorandum to the Planning Commission
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 5/18/17, 8/17/17 and 9/21/17
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. ______, amending Chapter 25.44 "Central
Business District" of the Pasco Municipal Code, and further, authorize publication by
summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The Central Business District zoning requirements were adopted by the City in 1999.
The purpose of the CBD Zone was to recognize the common wall construction of the
Downtown area; the opportunity for pedestrians to have easy access to a variety of
retail establishments and to reverse the decline of property values in the Downtown
core.
Since that time revisions have been suggested to establish additional flexibility in the
zoning district or to clarify existing regulations. The proposed ordinance offers
revisions to the permitted uses and was vetted through the Downtown Pasco
Development Authority.
The Board of the DPDA has recommended its adoption. The Planning Commission
considered the proposed amendments at a workshop meeting in May and at a public
hearing in August. The Commission deliberated on the proposed ordinance in
September and has recommended its adoption by Council.
Page 58 of 139
City Council discussed the proposed Ordinance at the Workshop Meeting of October 9,
2017.
V. DISCUSSION:
The proposed revisions accomplish the following:
• It more clearly indicates that “antique sales” are allowed as a permitted use and
establishes a code citation to reinforce the existing definition of an “antique”;
• It provides flexibility for wine, beer and alcohol sales as an accessory use (e.g.
tasting rooms);
• It allows dwelling units outright subject to several parameters;
• It restates the inclusion of consignment sales and thrift shops as a permitted use
subject to existing parameters identified under “Use Regulations” in PMC
25.70;
• It establishes “electronic sales and repairs” subject to similar parameters for
consignment sales and thrift shops;
• Allows "drug stores" as a permitted use; and
• Prohibits commissaries for the preparation of food to be sold elsewhere.
Page 59 of 139
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, Amending Chapter 25.44
“Central Business District” of the Pasco Municipal Code
WHEREAS, Section 25.44.010 of the Pasco Municipal Code reflects the purpose of the
Central Business District Zone; and
WHEREAS, Sections 25.44.020 and 25.44.030 reflect the permitted uses and accessory uses
within the District; and
WHEREAS, Section 25.44 reflects the prohibited uses within the District; and
WHEREAS, Administration of the regulations within these Sections of the Pasco Municipal
Code have suggested needed adjustments and clarity to the variety of such permitted, accessory and
prohibited uses; and
WHEREAS, The proposed revisions have been considered by the Downtown Pasco
Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, The proposed revisions have been considered by the Pasco Planning Commission
at a public hearing and the Commission has recommended City Council approve the revisions; and
WHEREAS, The revisions reflect the best interests of the public for safety, welfare and
betterment of the economic environment in Downtown Pasco;
NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 25.44.010 of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended
and shall read as follows:
25.44.010 PURPOSE. The C-2 Central Business District is established to promote the
centralization of business and reinforce a positive public image and confidence in the Downtown
core commercial revitalization, within a compact commercial area having primarily common-wall
building construction. Such construction offers the unique opportunity within the Pasco Urban
Area to cluster together types of retail business and retail services which functionally interact well
together, and will economically fare better, as a result of close proximity by cumulatively
attracting more persons than as individual destination points. It is intended that the commercial
clustering concept be fostered by emphasizing pedestrian access and circulation within the
district, in a manner which is healthy, safe, uninhibited and convenient for employees and visitors
of all ages. Public and private off-street parking shall be located to encourage the transition from
automobile to pedestrian movement. On-street parking should be shared by vicinity businesses
and be oriented to short duration convenience parking for customers in the vicinity. In order to
preserve the public health, safety and welfare in central business district redevelopment, protect
public and private investment in property and infrastructure improvements and improve stabilize
declining property values, certain uses of the land may be restricted or prohibited.
Section 2. That Section 25.44.020 of the Pasco Municipal Code, shall be and hereby is amended
and shall read as follows:
Page 60 of 139
25.44.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the C-2 district:
(1)Antique stores as defined by 25.12.070 and 25.12.075
(2) Artist and office supplies;
(3) Bakeries;
(4) Banks and financial institutions;
(5) Barber and beauty shops;
(6) Bookstores, except adult bookstores;
(7) Clothing, shoes and accessories, and costume rentals (new/unused materials only);
(8) Consignment Stores (25.70.131) and Thrift Shops (25.70.132);
(9) Crafts, stationary and gift shops;
(10) Department and drug stores;
(11) Electronic sales and repair stores with at least 50% of the stock and floor space devoted
to the sale of new equipment;
(12) Fresh and frozen meats, including seafood;
(13) Florists;
(14) Furniture and home appliance stores;
(15) Galleries for art and restored or refinished antiques;
(16) Grocery stores with less than 10,500 square feet of gross floor area;
(17) Hardware and home improvement stores;
(18) Import shops;
(19) Jewelry and gem shops, including custom work;
(20) Offices for medical and professional services;
(21) Restaurants, sandwich shops, cafeterias and delicatessens;
(22) Sporting goods;
(23) Tailoring and seamstress shops;
(24) Theaters for movies and performances, except adult theaters;
(25) Public markets for fresh produce and craft work;
(26) Parking lots;
(27) Micro-breweries, and micro-wineries and associated tasting rooms;
(28) Research, development and assembly facilities for component devices and equipment of
an electrical, electronic or electromagnetic nature; and
(29) Home brewing and/or wine making equipment sales.
(30) Dwelling units, provided the units are within the principle building, are all above the
ground floor of said building, the ground floor of said building is designed or intended to be used for a
use permitted in Section 25.44.020 and there is at least one dedicated and off-street parking space for each
unit.
Section 3. That Section 25.44.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended
and shall read as follows:
25.44.030 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. The following accessory uses and buildings, as
respectively defined in Sections 25.12.020 and 25.12.115, shall be permitted in the C-2 district:
(1) Parking lots;
(2) Alcoholic beverage sales provided it is for on-site consumption and located within a
restaurant;
(3) Other uses clearly incidental or secondary to a principal use;
(4) Beer/wine/alcohol beverage sales for on-site and off-site consumption provided the
product is produced in Franklin, Walla Walla, Yakima and/or Benton County or on-site in a micro-
brewery/winery/distillery and/or micro-winery;
Page 61 of 139
(5) Sales of micro-brewery products and non-fortified wines for off-site consumption
provided such sales are in conjunction with an establishment selling predominately, based upon floor
area, home brewing and/or wine making equipment as permitted in Section 25.44.020.
(6) Storage buildings; excluding container storage, as defined in Section 25.12.430 are
permitted.
Section 4. That Section 25.44.040 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended
and shall read as follows:
25.44.040 CONDITIONAL USES. The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of a
special permit:
(1) Dwelling units, provided the units are within the principle building, are all above the
ground floor of said building, and the ground floor of said building is designed or intended to be used for
a use permitted in Section 25.44.020.
(1) Unclassified uses per Section 25.86.020.
Section 5. That Section 25.44.030 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended
and shall read as follows:
25.44.050 PROHIBITED USES. Evidence received by the Planning Commission and contained
in previous studies and Pasco Police Crime Reports demonstrates that certain uses make the Central
Business District less desirable or attractive to the public due to a demonstrated history of contribution to
general public disorder, loitering, nuisance and other acts detrimental to the public image of the area.
Certain other uses provide entirely, or predominately, automobile services and, thereby, do not foster the
clustering concept intended to attract pedestrian visitors. Other uses may, by their inherent nature, require
a disproportionate amount of the limited vicinal on-street parking, for an extended time, which is intended
to be available and shared by all business for the short duration convenience of customers.
The following listed businesses, for the reasons above, inhibit new business growth, contribute to
business loss and decline of property values, inhibit convenient access to vicinal businesses, do not foster
the clustering concept intended to orient the business environment to pedestrians, or perpetuate a public
image which is undesirable or unattractive and detrimental to public and private investment in
revitalization efforts and, therefore, are prohibited within the C-2 district:
(1) Gasoline and service stations, automobile services or repair, except tire stores;
(2) Outdoor storage of goods or materials;
(3) Membership clubs;
(4) Taverns;
(5) Billiard and pool halls;
(6) Amusement game centers;
(7) Pawn shops;
(8) Card rooms, bingo parlors, dance halls, nightclubs and similar places;
(9) Adult theaters, adult bookstores, tattoo parlors, bathhouses and massage parlors;
(10) Community service facilities level two;
(11) Secondhand dealers. Similar or like uses although not specifically listed are also
prohibited; and
(12) Commissaries for the preparation of food to be served elsewhere; and
(123) Adult Business Facilities.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication
as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of ________________,
2017.
Page 62 of 139
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 63 of 139
MEMORANDUM
DATE:September 15, 2017
TO:Planning Commission
FROM:Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT:Revisions to the Central Business District Zoning
The Central Business District zoning requirements were adopted by the City in 1999. Since that time a
number of revisions have been suggested to establish additional flexibility in the zoning district or to
clarify existing regulations.
The proposed ordinance does the following:
It more clearly indicates that “antique sales” are allowed as a permitted use and establishes a code
citation to reinforce the definition of an “antique”;
It provides flexibility for wine, beer and alcohol sales as an accessory use (e.g. tasting rooms);
It allows dwelling units outright subject to several parameters;
It restates the inclusion of consignment sales and thrift shops as a permitted use subject to
parameters identified under “Use Regulations” in PMC 25.70;
It establishes “electronic sales and repairs” subject to similar parameters for consignment sales
and thrift shops; and,
It prohibits commissaries (kitchens for the preparation of food to be sold elsewhere) outright.
The proposed ordinance has been discussed several times with the Downtown Pasco Development
Authority Board and various City staff. Their input is included in this final draft version for public
comment that is before the Commission.
The Commission may find the following definitions contained in Title 25 helpful as these terms are
contained in the proposed ordinance:
25.12.070 ANTIQUE. “Antique” means a piece of furniture, glassware,
silverware, art work or other items that are at least sixty years old and are distinguished
from general secondhand personal property, and collectibles by educational value,
historic value, artistic value, ornamental character or intrinsic aesthetic merits. (Ord.
3354 Sec. 2, 1999
25.70.131 CONSIGNMENT STORES. (1) “Consignment stores” as the term is
defined in this chapter, may operate in the C-1 (Retail Business District) and C-2
(Central Business District) Zones; however no new consignment store may locate closer
than 1,000 feet from an existing consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop; and,
(2) Consignment stores may operate in the C-3 (General Business District) and in
the I-1 (Light Industrial District) Zones; however no new consignment store may locate
closer than 1,000 feet from an existing consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop;
and,
(3) All business activities of consignment stores located in the C-1 (Retail
Business District), C-2 (Central Business District), and C-3 (General Business District)
Page 64 of 139
Zones shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed structure. (Ord. 4066, 2012.)
25.70.132 THRIFT SHOPS. (1) “Thrift shops” as the term is defined in this
chapter, may operate in the C-1 (Retail Business district) and C-2 (Central Business
District) Zones upon issuance of a Special Permit, as per the requirements found in PMC 25.86;
however no new thrift shop may locate closer than 1,000 feet from an existing
consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop; and,
(2) Thrift shops may operate in the C-3 (General Business District) and in the I-1
(Light Industrial District) Zones; however no new consignment store may locate closer
than 1,000 feet from an existing consignment store, thrift store, or pawn shop; and,
(3) All business activities of thrift shops in the C-1 (Retail Business District), C-2
(Central Business District), and C-3 (General Business District) Zones shall be conducted
entirely within an enclosed structure. (Ord. 4066, 2012)
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of the proposed
amendments to the Central Business District Zone as contained in the September 21, 2017 Planning
Commission staff report.
Page 65 of 139
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 18, 2017
C. Code Amendment Revisions to the Central Business District
Zoning (MF# CA 2017-005)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the workshop
item for revisions to the Central Business District zoning code. This item has been
discussed by Staff and recently with the Downtown Pasco Development Authority
(DPDA). This code revision would clarify the permitted uses regarding antique stores.
There has been a misunderstanding that antique stores are not permitted downtown,
however they are allowed downtown. The consignment store issues that pertained to
Goodwill a few years ago, has been inserted into the proposed ordinance. They are
allowed but it will now be more clearly stated. Drug stores has been inserted as a
permitted use. And Staff, with the concurrence of the DPDA also inserted electronic
sales and repairs as long as a substantial portion of their stock was new equipment.
Dwelling units, which were previously permitted through the special use permit
process, have been added as a permitted use provided some parameters can be met,
particularly parking, and that the ground level is used as commercial. The idea would
be to increase the population downtown which would then increase the need for stores
and services to be located downtown, making the downtown more active and lively
putting people on the street which would ultimately lead to more security. There were
provisions added for wineries, distilleries and tasting rooms. The prohibition for
commissaries was added because there has been a problem with buildings being used
for food preparation to be sold elsewhere and the potential retail space is taken up and
not used as it should be and it does not contribute to the vitality of the downtown by
taking their product and selling it elsewhere. Staff requested input and discussion
from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Roach asked if the last item regarding commissaries would exclude the
Pasco Specialty Kitchen.
Mr. White said it wouldn’t and would in fact, help the Specialty Kitchen because they
are an incubator use and the commissaries would now be able to use the Specialty
Kitchen or use an existing restaurant.
Chairman Cruz asked what the difference was between all of the different adult uses
that were prohibited. He asked what an adult business facility would be if it’s not an
adult theater, adult bookstore, etc.
Mr. White responded that it has to do with sexually-oriented merchandise. He
couldn’t say offhand but the zoning code has all of these definitions, which was a
throwback to a different era when there was a time when certain locations lent
themselves to those kinds of uses. There were legal issues with these types of
establishments years ago with all three cities and attorneys were hired to define all of
the terms.
Page 66 of 139
Commissioner Bowers asked about the permitted use for electronic sales and repair in
which 50% of the stock must be devoted to the sales of new equipment. She asked if
it would preclude a vacuum repair store or a computer repair shop from existing.
Mr. White responded that it would allow for those items as long as 50% of the stock is
new merchandise as well as consignment stores.
Commissioner Bowers asked if there was less than 50% if they could exist in the
downtown, and if not, why.
Mr. White responded that they could not and that is because it is not good for the
downtown for a repair shop alone to exist where there should be retail activity.
Downtown should be retail oriented and you will get what you allow.
Chairman Cruz added that it’s no different from a commissary from that aspect in that
you will not get the business culture that you desire.
Commissioner Roach asked about the prohibited use for taverns and felt that it was
inconsistent with the permitted uses of tasting rooms, microbreweries and distilleries
– that one is allowed and not the other. She asked if a tavern was the same thing as a
microbrewery.
Mr. White responded that they actually make their beer at a microbrewery. There is
an investment of their product fabrication and the ability to serve food. There is a
tavern downtown that attracts clients that are often problems with law enforcement
and the perception of downtown because they have no investment in their product
despite the sales of alcoholic beverages.
Chairman Cruz briefly discussed the history of taverns in Downtown Pasco. He
understood where Staff was going but did feel that it could be inconsistent.
Commissioner Roach said that part of the appeal of a downtown is the nightlife and
this would be limiting. She stated that she understood the problematic business that
currently exists but explained that Downtown Kennewick has many bars and while
they probably have their fair share of problems, it is also a center of business.
Chairman Cruz said he believed that Downtown Kennewick billed theirs as an
entertainment district not a business district, which may be the difference.
Commissioner Campos added that he is familiar with a distillery in Richland. They
have very limited hours for the purpose of tastings and selling of their product but
close early to not cause problems in the evenings. It would attract people to the area
as well as the surrounding area. There are other great opportunities that could come
with a tasting room as opposed to a tavern.
Commissioner Roach responded that she is not opposed to a tasting room or distillery
but felt it was a bit inhibiting to not allow bars or taverns.
Chairman Cruz addressed the density of these types of establishments and that could
be used as a tool to not oversaturate the downtown with taverns. He agreed with
Page 67 of 139
Commissioner Roach that he didn’t want to completely prohibit that kind of use.
However, a tavern isn’t the same as a bar and grill and in the downtown, a bar and
grill is permitted.
Mr. White added that yes, bar and grills are allowed in the downtown under accessory
uses.
Chairman Cruz said that was a good way to mitigate it then.
Commissioner Roach agreed.
Chairman Cruz asked how much food had to be offered at a tavern.
Mr. White answered that he wasn’t sure but it was far less than a bar and grill.
Commissioner Roach said that helped and was a good distinction to make.
Commissioner Polk asked Chairman Cruz if he was suggesting that a tavern be moved
from prohibited to conditional.
Chairman Cruz said he wouldn’t be opposed to it as long as there was a distance
requirement.
Commissioner Bowers asked about allowing billiards or pool halls and said that could
be a good recreational use.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, said that back in the late 1980’s one of the worst place
in town was Marty’s Pool Hall that served alcohol and minimal food and attracted all
sorts of problems. The drug task force actually rented the top floor of the bank to look
across the street to check the people going in and out of it. Every other tavern
downtown had the same type of problems; drugs, prostitution, murders and gangs.
All of that cleared up when the taverns were closed and prohibited. Marty’s Pool Hall
had to be shut down. There was another place that had to be shut down as well. A
Council meeting was held to revoke the business license because the owner was
selling drugs behind the counter along with the beer. The whole zoning code was
changed to address all of the problems.
Chairman Cruz said an amusement/game center came into question at one time.
Mr. McDonald said that there were problems there too.
Chairman Cruz responded that he was aware but he would like to readdress some of
these issues from the past because he would like to see more family friendly things to
do in Pasco. He said that he is inclined to revisit some of those items as a code
amendment so that someday there could be more youth-oriented places.
Commissioner Campos asked if there was anything that distinguished a pool hall or a
bar with a pool table.
Mr. McDonald responded that pool halls are allowed in other parts of town, just not in
Page 68 of 139
the Central Business District. There was one over by Andy’s Restaurant but is no
longer there. They didn’t serve beer but they were strictly a pool hall.
Commissioner Polk wanted to add that she liked that the dwelling allowance has been
moved from conditional to permitted, as that could draw more traffic to the downtown
and add more of a mixed-use space.
Chairman Cruz agreed with Commissioner Polk.
There were no further questions or comments.
Page 69 of 139
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 17, 2017
H. Code Amendment Revisions to CBD Zoning (City of Pasco) (MF#
CA 2017-005)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code
amendment for revisions the Central Business District (CDB) Zoning. The Planning
Commission has seen this item before so Mr. White directed their attention to the
proposed revised ordinance. The main changes were highlighted in the memorandum.
It clarifies that antique sales are permitted; it provides flexibility for wine, beer and
alcohol sales as an accessory use, it allows dwelling units outright subject to several
parameters; it restates the inclusions of consignment sales and thrift shops; it
establishes “electronic sales and repairs” subject to similar parameters for
consignment sales and thrift shops; and it prohibits commissaries outright.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the Pasco Specialty Kitchen was a commercial kitchen.
Mr. White responded that it is a commercial incubator.
Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Campos, to close the
public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Central Business District Zone
and schedule deliberations and a recommendation to City Council for the September
21, 2017 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 70 of 139
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
E. Code Amendment Revisions to CBD Zoning (City of Pasco) (MF#
CA 2017-005)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code
amendment for revisions to the Central Business District (CBD) Zoning. There were
no additional comments from staff.
Chairwoman Roach asked if this would exclude the Pasco Specialty Kitchen.
Mr. White said no because it didn’t qualify.
Chairwoman Roach asked if consignments stores used to have to be only 300-500 feet
from another and not 1,000 feet from each other and if that changed.
Mr. White said no, it hadn’t changed and 1,000 feet is what was adopted years ago.
Commissioner Mendez asked if this ordinance would prohibit taverns and pool halls in
the downtown area.
Mr. White replied that this code amendment doesn’t but the one adopted in the 1990’s
did and there haven’t been changes made to it since.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, the Planning
Commission recommend to City Council the adoption of the proposed amendments to
the Central Business District Zone as contained in the September 21, 2017 Planning
Commission staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 71 of 139
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 10, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/16/17
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Chronic Nuisance Ordinance
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Ordinance
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. ______, amending the Pasco Municipal
Code Section 9.63.020 "Definitions," and further authorize publication by summary
only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
In May of 2016, City Council adopted the initial Chronic Nuisance Ordinance to
address nuisances which occur on properties in repetitive or chronic episodes. Chronic
nuisances are defined to include violations of local codes that are typical ly not
associated with physical property – such as loitering, personal harassment, offenses
involving drugs, offenses involving prostitution or indecent exposure and criminal
mischief. By way of summary - the Ordinance adopted by Council in May of 2016
provided the following:
• Defines chronic nuisances for single family, multi-family, commercial
residential (hotels/motels), commercial and industrial properties;
• Provides for adequate notice to the property owner or person in control of the
property;
• Establishes procedures for the City’s responsible official to determine whether
a property is a chronic nuisance property;
• Establishes a system of remedies, penalties and fines for the existence of a
chronic nuisance; and
• Provides an appeal process through the Code Enforcement Board if a
Page 72 of 139
responsible person or property owner is aggrieved.
Council amended the initial Chronic Nuisance Ordinance in January of this year as
monitoring the nuisance thresholds and regulations revealed that the "triggers" for
implementation of the solutions pertaining to a chronic nuisance were set too high for
multi-family commercial properties such as motels and hotels. Further implementation
of the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance so far this year seems to support additional
refinement of the threshold for chronic nuisances related to search warrants, warrants
of arrests or actual arrests.
The existing Chronic Nuisance Ordinance treats all property - regardless of land use or
number of units - the same for measuring a "chronic nuisance" as it relates to warrants
or arrests. Two occurrences of arrests and/or warrants on any property within a 12
month period trigger a determination of "chronic nuisance."In addition, there is
inconsistency with the time period involved in measuring arrests or warrants as all
other chronic nuisance indicators are measured in a 180 day period versus a 12 month
period.
At the Council Workshop of September 25th, Council expressed concern that the
Ordinance counted "warrants of arrest" as contributing to the calculation of a chronic
nuisance on a property when such warrants are not necessarily under the control of a
property owner. An example of this would occur when a person with an outstanding
warrant is stopped for a traffic violation and happens to pull into the parking lot of a
property. Council also expressed concern that an owner/manager may not have
knowledge of a bench warrant for an occupant of the building or property.
City Council reviewed this latest version of the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance at the
Workshop Meeting of October 9, 2017.
V. DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance revises the threshold from two occurrences per property for
arrests or warrants to the sliding scale indicated in the proposed ordinance and clarifies
that the occurrences must be related to the property or to the occupant of the property.
The proposed ordinance also revises the time frame for measurement from 12 months
to 180 days as that is consistent with the time frame for measuring other chronic
nuisance indicators.
Based on Council comments from the September 25th Workshop - this version of the
Chronic Nuisance Ordinance clarifies that arrests, warrants of arrest or search warrants
must arise out of occupants or incidents of the premises in order to be counted as a
chronic nuisance and also excludes "bench warrants" from the definitions of actions
that count as a chronic nuisance.
Page 73 of 139
It is important to note that these proposed changes would not have affected the
determination of a chronic nuisance for the several properties currently under
compliance orders related to the Ordinance.
Page 74 of 139
Chronic Nuisances Ordinance - 1
ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington Amending PMC
Section 9.63.020 "Definitions”
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has been granted Constitutional and statutory powers to protect
the safety, health and well being of its citizens; specifically providing for the definition, abatement, and
punishment regarding nuisances which pose a hazard to public health and safety and pose a
disproportionate demand for the City health and safety services; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that when certain properties within the City have been
permitted to be used in such a manner that the risk to public health and safety require multiple responses
by City emergency services, and in addition, negatively impact the quality of life in the neighborhoods in
which they are located; and
WHEREAS, City Council in 2016 adopted a “Chronic Nuisance Ordinance” providing remedies
for chronic nuisances; and
WHEREAS, monitoring the implementation and the effects of the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance
over the past year indicate that the definition of a “chronic nuisance” as relates to warrants of arrests,
search warrants or actual arrests is adversely generic as applied to multi-family properties and non –
residential properties; and
WHEREAS, the definition of a “chronic nuisance” as relates to warrants of arrests, search
warrants or actual arrests applied to multi-family properties should be revised to quantify the threshold for
the determination of a “chronic nuisance” on a more specific scale: NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 9.63.020 of the Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is
amended and shall read as follows:
9.63.020 DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases
shall mean:
A) "Chronic nuisance activity" shall mean any of the following activities, conduct,
or behavior, whenever engaged in by owners, managers, operators, tenants, occupants or guests of
the premises, or other persons that frequent or are associated with the premises:
1) Violations of Court orders as provided in PMC 9.03.011 and 9.03.012.
2) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.06 including disorderly conduct, failure to
disperse, simple assault, malicious harassment, reckless endangerment, and disorderly
place.
3) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.08, personal harassment.
4) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.11, indecent exposure and lewd conduct.
5) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.13, prostitution and related activities.
Page 75 of 139
Chronic Nuisances Ordinance - 2
6) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.24, firearms and dangerous weapons.
7) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.28, gambling.
8) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.38, offenses involving drugs, or in
violation of Chapter 69.50 RCW and Chapter 69.43 RCW.
9) Violations of RCW 9A.40.100 and RCW 9A.88.060, human trafficking.
10) Violations of PMC Chapter 8.02.320 and PMC 8.02.330, dangerous or
potentially dangerous animals.
11) Violations of PMC Chapter 9.46, criminal mischief.
12) Execution of criminal arrest warrants, search warrants or criminal arrests
on the property (excluding bench warrants).
13) Violations of RCW 9.94A, criminal street gang related offenses.
B) "Chronic nuisance property" means a premises, structure, or property, including
adjacent sidewalks, parking areas and common areas, on which:
1) A single-family residence where three or more nuisance activities
described in subsection A) above have occurred on different days during any 180-day
period; or
2) A commercial business which:
(a) Sells or serves alcoholic beverages where eight (8) or more
nuisance activities described in subsection A) above have occurred on different
days during any 180-day period; or
(b) All other commercial businesses where four (4) or more
nuisance activities described in subsection A) above have occurred on different
days during any 180-day period.
3) An industrial property where three or more nuisance activities described
in subsection A) above have occurred on different days during any 180-day period.
4) For any type of property where a search warrant or warrant of arrest or
arrest arising out of occupants on the premises or arising out of incidents on the premises
has occurred twice at such property residence, business or commercial location, or per
unit of any multi-family residential property within any 180 day 12-month period; or
where a search warrant or warrant of arrest or arrest arising out of occupants on the
premises or arising out of incidents on the premises has occurred at any multi-family
residential property within any 180 day period according to the following schedule:
(a) 0 – 4 units – 2
(b) 5 – 20 units – 3
(c) 21 – 40 units – 5
Page 76 of 139
Chronic Nuisances Ordinance - 3
(d) 41 – 60 units – 6
(e) 61 – 120 units – 8
(f) 120+ units – 9
5) For any multi-family residential property including, but not limited to,
apartments, boarding houses, rooming houses, or multi-tenant commercial properties
including, but not limited to, hotels and motels having 0.5 or more nuisance activities per
unit (occupied or not) having occurred on different days within a 180-day period of time.
C) "Person in charge" means any person or entity in actual or constructive
possession of the property, including but not limited to an owner as determined by the records of
the Franklin County Auditor, lessee, tenant, occupant, agent, or manager with the express or
implied control of the property.
D) "Responsible official" means the Chief of Police or Director of Community
Development, or any applicable department director as defined by PMC 11.02.030(3), or their
respective designees.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, and approved as provided by law
this ____ day of _____________, 2017.
______________________________
Matt Watkins, Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form:
______________________________ ______________________________
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 77 of 139
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 11, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 10/16/17
FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Code Amendment: Residential Design Standards Regarding False Dormers &
Flat Roofs (MF# CA 2017-004)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Ordinance
Planning Commission Memo
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 08/17/2017 and 9/21/2017
Correspondence Dated: October 2, 2017
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. ______, amending PMC 25.70.085,
"Residential Design Standards," as recommended by the Planning Commission; and
further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On August 17, 2017 the Planning Commission held a hearing to consider amending
PMC 25.70.085 to allow flat roofs (roofs with a pitch of 5/12 or less) and/or shed-style
roofs with varying pitches, and false dormers as specified in the attached proposed
Code Amendment Ordinance.
Following the conduct of a public hearing, the Planning Commission reasoned it would
be appropriate to recommend an ordinance amending PMC 25.70.085 (see attached
Ordinance).
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 78 of 139
The Planning Commission recommended the Council amend PMC 25.70.085 to allow
flat roofs (roofs with a pitch of 5/12 or less) and/or shed-style roofs with varying
pitches, and false dormers as specified in the attached proposed Code Amendment
Ordinance.
Page 79 of 139
ORDINANCE NO._____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS REGARDING FALSE DORMERS & FLAT ROOFS (CA 2017-004).
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development
within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and
development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, within the zoning regulations PMC Chapter 25.70.085 contains provisions
regarding residential design standards; and,
WHEREAS, Many architectural features of manufactured homes, such as low-pitch
roofs, lack of integrated porches and landings, and so forth, were historically associated with the
transportation requirements of mobile homes, reducing weight and allowing them to pass under
low freeway underpasses; and,
WHEREAS, standards dealing with roof pitch, and false dormers, technically preclude
architectural features which have been successfully utilized in stick-build construction with an
otherwise pleasing aesthetic outcome, and without triggering the “mobile home” stigma; and,
WHEREAS, several architects have periodically requested to allow for flat roofs (roofs
with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed-style roofs with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch in the
City of Pasco as part of their design strategy; and,
WHEREAS, While flat roofs and shed-style roofs with pitches under 5/12 pitch are
technically in violation of the 5/12 pitch standard specified in the code, they often lend a pleasing
appearance when built as part of an architecturally integrated design, as contrasted to the squat-
pitched mobile home roof designed to slide under low freeway bridges; and,
WHEREAS, fenestrated false dormers placed on a 5/12 roof typically present an
aesthetically pleasing façade not resembling mobile home dormers; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission considers it appropriate to allow for flat roofs
(roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and shed-style roofs with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch as
part of an architecturally integrated design; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission considers it appropriate to allow false dormers
containing windows on roof pitches with at least a 5/12 pitch; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining
a quality community and to support orderly development within the City of Pasco, it is necessary
to amend PMC Title 25.70.085 and adopts by reference the Planning Commission’s findings on
this matter; NOW THEREFORE,
Page 80 of 139
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That PMC Section 25.70.085 be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows:
25.70.085 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. (1) DESIGN STANDARDS.
Except for multi-family structures the following design standards shall apply to all newly
constructed or newly placed dwellings in RT, R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and the R-4
Districts:
(a) The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the dwelling is addressed;
(b) A minimum of 30 (thirty) square feet of glazing must be on the portion of the dwelling facing
the street. Dwellings with less than 32 square feet of glazing must contain covered porches with
a minimum of a four-foot overhang;
(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral part of the dwelling
architecture;
(d) The main roof of all dwellings shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch; except dwellings with less
than a 5/12 pitch legally established as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted
to be rebuilt, altered, enlarged or remodeled without the roof being changed to a 5/12 pitch; and
except for flat-pitched roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed-style roofs with
varying pitches as part of an architecturally integrated design.
(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches;
(f) Dwellings with 4/12 pitch roofs may be permitted provided the main roof includes one or
more secondary roofs intersecting the main roof at right angles. The secondary roof must have a
pitch of 5/12 or greater;
(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted except fenestrated false or artificial dormers on
roofs with at least a 5/12 pitch;
(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block;
(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must meet seismic and
wind loading standards for Franklin County, Washington;
(j) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls facing a street;
(k) All siding must be durable materials, such as brick, masonry, stucco, vinyl, exterior-grade
wood, or exterior grade composites, each with a lifespan of at least 20 years under normal
conditions;
Page 81 of 139
(l) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation 1 ½ to 2 inches. A bottom trim board
does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to cover the top of the foundation;
(m) All trim materials around windows, doors, corners, and other areas of the dwelling, must be
cedar or other City approved materials that are not subject to deterioration;
(n) All electric meters must be securely attached to an exterior side wall of the dwelling. Meters
are not permitted to face the street upon which the dwelling is addressed;
(o) All additions and/or other architectural features must be designed and permanently connected
to the dwelling so as to be an integral part of the dwelling;
(p) Primary driveways shall terminate into an architecturally integrated garage or carport. No
parking pad is permitted in front of a dwelling unless such pad leads to a garage or carport;
(q) At least one required off-street parking space must be located behind the front building
setback line of the dwelling.
(2) EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the design standards may be granted through the special permit
process based upon review of the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of ___________
2017.
______________________________
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Daniela Erickson Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 82 of 139
1
M E M O R A N D UM
DATE: September 12, 2017
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Residential Design Standards Regarding False Dormers & Flat
Roofs (MF# CA 2017-004)
In July of 2005, The Washington State Legislature preempted the City’s ability to
regulate the placement of new manufactured homes in the City through the
adoption of SB 6593, which precluded any city in the State of Washington from
enacting and/or enforcing any regulations not applicable to all housing types
(manufactured and site-built). The new State legislation allowed Cities to
regulate aesthetics as long as the standards apply to all housing and did not
specifically discriminate against manufactured housing units.
Many Pasco citizens opposed placement of manufactured homes in traditional,
“stick-build” or site-built neighborhoods for fear that these units would detract
from the aesthetic appeal of their neighborhoods and reduce their property
values.
As part of the campaign to push the bill through the Senate representatives from
the manufactured housing industry introduced images of aesthetically pleasing
high-end manufactured homes as examples of what the industry was willing to
do aesthetically to their units in order to overcome the “mobile home” stigma.
In response to the manufactured home industry’s campaign, and as a result of
the State mandate, the City of Pasco (and Kennewick/Richland) crafted a set of
standards that require all homes in certain zoning districts to meet a specific
level of aesthetic values. These standards were crafted so as to reduce the
likelihood of homes which would clash with the surrounding architecture in any
given neighborhood.
These standards are as follows:
25.70.085 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS.
(1) DESIGN STANDARDS. Except for multi-family structures the following
design standards shall apply to all newly constructed or newly placed dwellings
in RT, R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and the R-4 Districts:
(a) The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the
dwelling is addressed;
(b) A minimum of 30 (thirty) square feet of glazing must be on the portion
of the dwelling facing the street. Dwellings with less than 32 square feet of
glazing must contain covered porches with a minimum of a four-foot
Page 83 of 139
2
overhang;
(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral
part of the dwelling architecture;
(d) The main roof of all dwellings shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch; except
dwellings with less than a 5/12 pitch legally established as of the effective
date of this ordinance shall be permitted to be rebuilt, altered, enlarged or
remodeled without the roof being changed to a 5/12 pitch;
(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches;
(f) Dwellings with 4/12 pitch roofs may be permitted provided the main
roof includes one or more secondary roofs intersecting the main roof at
right angles. The secondary roof must have a pitch of 5/12 or greater;
(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted;
(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block;
(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must
meet seismic and wind loading standards for Franklin County,
Washington;
(j) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls
facing a street;
(k) All siding must be durable materials, such as brick, masonry, stucco,
vinyl, exterior-grade wood, or exterior grade composites, each with a
lifespan of at least 20 years under normal conditions;
(l) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation 1 ½ to 2 inches.
A bottom trim board does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to
cover the top of the foundation;
(m) All trim materials around windows, doors, corners, and other areas of
the dwelling, must be cedar or other City approved materials that are not
subject to deterioration;
(n) All electric meters must be securely attached to an exterior side wall of
the dwelling. Meters are not permitted to face the street upon which the
dwelling is addressed;
(o) All additions and/or other architectural features must be designed and
permanently connected to the dwelling so as to be an integral part of the
dwelling;
(p) Primary driveways shall terminate into an architecturally integrated
garage or carport. No parking pad is permitted in front of a dwelling
unless such pad leads to a garage or carport;
(q) At least one required off-street parking space must be located behind
the front building setback line of the dwelling.
(2) EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the design standards may be granted through
the special permit process based upon review of the criteria listed in PMC
25.86.060.
Many architectural features of manufactured homes, such as low-pitch roofs,
lack of integrated porches and landings, and so forth, were historically
associated with the transportation requirements of mobile homes, reducing
weight and allowing them to pass under low freeway underpasses.
Unfortunately, a few of these standards—namely items “f” and “g” above, dealing
Page 84 of 139
3
with roof pitch, and false dormers, respectively—technically preclude
architectural features which have been successfully utilized in stick-build
construction with an otherwise pleasing aesthetic outcome, and without
triggering the “mobile home” stigma.
For example, a handful of architects have petitioned to allow for flat roofs (roofs
with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed-style roofs with varying pitches in the
City of Pasco as part of their design strategy. While a flat roof is technically less
than the 5/12 specified in the code, it does not resemble the squat-pitched
mobile home roof designed to slide under low freeway bridges.
Similarly, false dormers with windows on a 5/12 roof present an aesthetically
pleasing façade not resembling mobile home dormers.
Findings
1. SB 6593 preempts cities in the State of Washington from regulating the
placement of new manufactured homes.
2. SB 6593 precludes cities from enacting and/or enforcing any regulations
not applicable to all housing types (manufactured and site-built).
3. The City of Pasco adopted Title 25.70.085 “RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS” in response to the passage of SB 6593.
4. Title 25.70.085 requires all homes in certain zoning districts to meet a
specific level of aesthetic values.
5. Title 25.70.085 standards were designed to keep new home designs from
clashing with the surrounding architecture in any given neighborhood.
6. Many architectural features of manufactured homes were associated with
the transportation requirements; reducing weight and allowing homes to
clear low freeway underpasses.
7. The roof pitch and false dormers standards of Title 25.70.085 technically
preclude architecturally pleasing flat roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or
less) and/or shed-style roofs with varying pitches, and dormers which
have been successfully utilized in stick-build construction without
triggering the “mobile home” stigma.
8. A handful of architects have periodically requested to allow for flat roofs
and/or shed-style roofs with varying pitches in the City of Pasco as part
of their design strategy.
9. False dormers with windows on a 5/12 roof can present an aesthetically
pleasing façade not resembling mobile home dormers.
Staff recommends that the City allow flat roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or
Page 85 of 139
4
less) and/or shed-style roofs with varying pitches, and false dormers as
specified in the attached proposed Code Amendment Ordinance.
NOTE: For the sake of consistency this recommendation, along with the language
in this report and the draft ordinance represents a slight change from the
previous recommendation as follows:
1) Recommending a 5/12 minimum roof pitch rather than 6/12 pitch for roofs
with false dormers; and
2) Replacing the minimum 5/12 pitch roof requirement for shed-style roofs with
the allowance for unlimited “varying pitches.”
RECOMMENDATION:
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as
contained in the September 21, 2017 staff memo regarding roof pitch and false
dormer requirements.
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
adopt the proposed code amendments regarding roof pitch and false dormer
requirements as attached to the September 21, 2017 staff memo to the
Planning Commission.
Page 86 of 139
ORDINANCE NO._____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PMC TITLE 25 DEALING WITH RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
STANDARDS REGARDING FALSE DORMERS & FLAT ROOFS (CA 2017-004).
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development
within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and
development of the City; and,
WHEREAS, within the zoning regulations PMC Chapter 25.70.085 contains provisions
regarding residential design standards; and,
WHEREAS, Many architectural features of manufactured homes, such as low-pitch
roofs, lack of integrated porches and landings, and so forth, were historically associated with the
transportation requirements of mobile homes, reducing weight and allowing them to pass under
low freeway underpasses; and,
WHEREAS, standards dealing with roof pitch, and false dormers, technically preclude
architectural features which have been successfully utilized in stick-build construction with an
otherwise pleasing aesthetic outcome, and without triggering the “mobile home” stigma; and,
WHEREAS, several architects have periodically requested to allow for flat roofs (roofs
with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed-style roofs with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch in the
City of Pasco as part of their design strategy; and,
WHEREAS, While flat roofs and shed-style roofs with pitches under 5/12 pitch are
technically in violation of the 5/12 pitch standard specified in the code, they often lend a pleasing
appearance when built as part of an architecturally integrated design, as contrasted to the squat-
pitched mobile home roof designed to slide under low freeway bridges; and,
WHEREAS, fenestrated false dormers placed on a 5/12 roof typically present an
aesthetically pleasing façade not resembling mobile home dormers; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission considers it appropriate to allow for flat roofs
(roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and shed-style roofs with varying pitches under 5/12 pitch as
part of an architecturally integrated design; and,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission considers it appropriate to allow false dormers
containing windows on roof pitches with at least a 5/12 pitch; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining
a quality community and to support orderly development within the City of Pasco, it is necessary
to amend PMC Title 25.70.085 and adopts by reference the Planning Commission’s findings on
this matter; NOW THEREFORE,
Page 87 of 139
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That PMC Section 25.70.085 be and the same is hereby amended to read
as follows:
25.70.085 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. (1) DESIGN STANDARDS.
Except for multi-family structures the following design standards shall apply to all newly
constructed or newly placed dwellings in RT, R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and the R-4
Districts:
(a) The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the dwelling is addressed;
(b) A minimum of 30 (thirty) square feet of glazing must be on the portion of the dwelling facing
the street. Dwellings with less than 32 square feet of glazing must contain covered porches with
a minimum of a four-foot overhang;
(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral part of the dwelling
architecture;
(d) The main roof of all dwellings shall have a minimum 5/12 pitch; except dwellings with less
than a 5/12 pitch legally established as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be permitted
to be rebuilt, altered, enlarged or remodeled without the roof being changed to a 5/12 pitch; and
except for flat-pitched roofs (roofs with a pitch of 1/12 or less) and/or shed-style roofs with
varying pitches as part of an architecturally integrated design.
(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches;
(f) Dwellings with 4/12 pitch roofs may be permitted provided the main roof includes one or
more secondary roofs intersecting the main roof at right angles. The secondary roof must have a
pitch of 5/12 or greater;
(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted except fenestrated false or artificial dormers on
roofs with at least a 5/12 pitch;
(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block;
(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must meet seismic and
wind loading standards for Franklin County, Washington;
(j) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls facing a street;
(k) All siding must be durable materials, such as brick, masonry, stucco, vinyl, exterior-grade
wood, or exterior grade composites, each with a lifespan of at least 20 years under normal
conditions;
Page 88 of 139
(l) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation 1 ½ to 2 inches. A bottom trim board
does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to cover the top of the foundation;
(m) All trim materials around windows, doors, corners, and other areas of the dwelling, must be
cedar or other City approved materials that are not subject to deterioration;
(n) All electric meters must be securely attached to an exterior side wall of the dwelling. Meters
are not permitted to face the street upon which the dwelling is addressed;
(o) All additions and/or other architectural features must be designed and permanently connected
to the dwelling so as to be an integral part of the dwelling;
(p) Primary driveways shall terminate into an architecturally integrated garage or carport. No
parking pad is permitted in front of a dwelling unless such pad leads to a garage or carport;
(q) At least one required off-street parking space must be located behind the front building
setback line of the dwelling.
(2) EXCEPTIONS. Exceptions to the design standards may be granted through the special permit
process based upon review of the criteria listed in PMC 25.86.060.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and
publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of ___________
2017.
______________________________
Matt Watkins
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Daniela Erickson Leland B. Kerr
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 89 of 139
Page 90 of 139
Page 91 of 139
Page 92 of 139
Page 93 of 139
Page 94 of 139
Page 95 of 139
Page 96 of 139
Page 97 of 139
-1-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
08/17/2017
G. Code Amendment Revisions to Residential Design Standards for False
Dormers & Flat Roofs (City of Pasco) (MF# CA 2017-
004)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment
for revisions to the residential design standards for false dormers and flat roofs. The Planning
Commission has seen this item before. It would allow for flat roofs provided they are a part of
an architecturally integrated plan and clarifies that false dormers are allowed as long as the
6/12 roof pitch is reached. Staff added photographs for the Commission to illustrate what
false dormers and flat roofs.
Commissioner Bowers asked if tiny houses would fit within this regulation.
Mr. White answered that he was unsure but as long as they met all other requirements and
design standards then likely.
Chairman Cruz added that these items are features not requirements so a tiny home cold take
advantage of these items.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Alvarado, to close the public
hearing and schedule deliberations, the adoption of findings of fact and development of a
recommendation for City Council for the August 17, 2017 meeting. The motion passed
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
Page 98 of 139
-1-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
9/21/2017
D. Code Amendment Revisions to Residential Design Standards for
False Dormers & Flat Roofs (City of Pasco) (MF#
CA 2017-004)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code
amendment for revisions to residential design standards for false dormers and flat roofs.
The Commission has seen this item several times and has had discussion. There has been
one change since the previous staff report. The proposed ordinance allows false dormers
on roof pitches at least 5/12, however last month it stated 6/12 pitch.
Chairwoman Roach asked if there would need to be 30 sq. ft of glazing or 32 sq. ft. and
what side of the property.
Mr. White clarified that it was only for the front side of the property. And there is an
option in case someone doesn’t want that much open window area.
Commissioner Mendez asked what “fenestrated false” dormers were.
Mr. White responded that it meant those that have openings.
Commissioner Alvarado asked if there has been much interest for more flat roofs and if
that was the reason for the rezone.
Mr. White replied that there has been interest but as of now there hasn’t been a tool to
handle those that do want a flat roof. There is the option to apply for a variance which is
difficult to get because there is nothing “special” about a lot to justify a flat roof. That is
the reasoning for the code amendment.
Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning
Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the September 21, 2017 staff memo
regarding roof pitch and false dormer requirements. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bykonen moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenaway, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendment regarding
roof pitch and false dormer requirements as attached to the September 21, 2017 staff
memo to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
Page 99 of 139
1
Jeff Adams
Subject:FW: Amendment to Residential Design Standards Regarding False Dormers and Flat
Roofs (Master File # CA 2017-004)
From: "Martin, Paul W ‐ CHPRC" <Paul_W_Martin@rl.gov>
Date: Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 4:57 PM ‐0700
Subject: Amendment to Residential Design Standards Regarding False Dormers and Flat Roofs (Master File # CA 2017‐
004)
To: "Rick White" <WHITER@pasco‐wa.gov>
Rick,
My wife and I would like to express our support for the amendment to PMC 25.70.085 coming before the Planning
Commission on October 9th and the Pasco City Council on October 16th. The current wording of PMC 25.70.085 basically
requires a minimum 5/12 roof pitch.
My wife and I are Kennewick residents and planning to be new Pasco residents in the next few months. We purchased a
1.25‐acre vacant lot at 809 Road 64 on April 22, 2010, and have been designing our first and last new home since that
time. Our builder submitted plans for permit approval and we received a “Plan Review on Hold/B17‐2179/809 Road
64/SFDU” dated September 26, 2017, stating:
“Per PMC 25.70.085 main roofs are required to have a 5/12 pitch.”
Our home design is a Modern Prairie Style and was chosen to match the prairie look of the property and surrounding
area. The basic definition of a Prairie Style home is “low‐pitched hipped or flat roof”, “broad, overhanging eves”, “siding
often stucco, stone or brick” and our home meets the low‐pitched roof definition with a 4/12 roof pitch and also meets
the overall architectural esthetics of a prairie style home. The 4/12 roof pitch also helps preserve river and territorial
views of homes located nearby since the ridge of the 4/12 roof will be over 2 feet lower than a 5/12 roof.
This new home will be a beautiful addition to the homes in Pasco and our “age in place” home; hence our full support
for amending PMC 25.70.085 to allow for 4/12 roof pitches.
Thanks!
Paul W. Martin
RCRA Subject Matter Expert
CHPRC Environmental Protection
Phone (509) 376-6620 / Cell 531-4489 / Fax 373-3891
Paul_W_Martin@RL.Gov
CH2MHill Plateau Remediation Company
Page 100 of 139
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 4, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Regular Meeting: 10/16/17
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Finance Director
Finance
SUBJECT: Dog License Program Improvement
I. REFERENCE(S):
Ordinance
Council Presentation 10/9/2017
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. ______, amending Sections 8.02.190
“License - Dogs, Required”, 8.02.200 “License – Receipts and Tags”, 8.02.210
“License Procedures – Receipts and Tags”, 8.02.230 “License – No Cost for Adopted
Animals”, and 3.07.020 “Animal Control” and, further, authorize publication by
summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Title 8 of the Pasco Municipal Code was adopted by the City Council in 1998 to
provide regulations for use by Code Enforcement and Finance for pet licensing.
The licenses are issued annually by the City and all expire on the last day of December.
All licenses must be renewed before the last day of February of the following. The
citizens can renew licenses at the City Hall or via mail.
The City has experienced tremendous growth in the last two decades. The population
of the City in 1998 when this policy was implemented was 27,000. The current
population of the City is approaching 72,000. The percentage growth of the number of
pets in the City has surpassed the percentage of population growth, with the current
licensed pet population at approximately 8,500.
Page 101 of 139
V. DISCUSSION:
Growth in human and pet population, small window for renewals, and the lack of an
online payment method has resulted in long lines at City Hall during the months of
January and February. The average wait times during these months for all citizens
conducting business is about 15 minutes. During certain hours and days, the wait time
has been as long as an hour.
Staff is proposing that the City change its municipal code to provide for:
• Pet licenses to be valid from the date on which the license is issued or
scheduled to be issued; and
To allow for:
• The option of a three year pet license with proof of a three year rabies
vaccination
In addition to proposed regulatory changes to the the annual license, staff is proposing
that the City partner with "PetData, Inc.", a private company, to provi de an online
platform for licensing services. Numerous cities across the state and nation utilize a
third party for this service with excellent results and improved customer service and
satisfaction.
Analysis of providing online payments, a 3-year license option, and rolling renewal
periods shows that the additional cost to be incurred by the City due to the proposed
changes will be offset by savings in overtime labor cost.
This item was discussed at the October 9, 2017 Council Workshop.
Page 102 of 139
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE of the City of Pasco, Washington, amending Sections 8.02.190
“License - Dogs, Required”, 8.02.200 “License – Receipts and Tags”, 8.02.210
“License Procedures– Receipts and Tags”, 8.02.230 “License – No Cost for
Adopted Animals”, and 3.07.020 “Animal Control”.
WHEREAS, the City provides pet licensing services whereby the customer is billed for
services rendered; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend its municipal code regarding pet licensing
requirements; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DO HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section 8.02.190 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled “License - Dogs,
Required” shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
(1) New licenses will be issued annually by the City for either a one or three-year period.
Citizens may opt to license for only one year, even if the animal has a three-year
rabies vaccination. To qualify for the three-year license, rabies vaccination should be
administered less than 60 days prior to the issuance of the new license. The license fee
must be paid after January 1st of each year but before expiration of the existing license
within 30 days after the expiration of the current license. Each license is valid until the
final day of February of the following year for one or three years based on the expiration
date of the current license. No refund shall be made of any dog license fee for any
reason.
(2) Before a license is issued for any dog, the owner must prove, by a certificate of
vaccination signed by a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been vaccinated against
rabies at the time of licensing; provided, however, the animal control officer may issue
a temporary ten (10) day license contingent upon the owner securing a veterinarian's
certificate of vaccination required under this chapter prior to the expiration of the
temporary license and further providing that all license fees, including late fees, have
been paid. If a certificate is not presented within ten (10) days, it shall be another
separate violation of this chapter for each day over ten (10) days that proof is not
presented.
(3) A veterinarian's certificate is necessary to prove that a dog has been neutered or spayed.
(4) Newly acquired dogs over the age of seven months must be vaccinated and licensed
within 30 days of acquisition. Owners of dogs which need not be licensed until after
July 1st will pay 50% applicable fee.
Page 103 of 139
(5) Fees for licenses will be established by the City Council from time to time and must be
paid before the license is issued.
(6) No license is required of non-residents staying temporarily within the City for not more
than thirty days. Licenses must be obtained within thirty days of the owners
establishing residence within the City.
(7) Any All dogs must be licensed before reaching seven months of age before the last
day of February must be licensed by that date.
Section 2. That Section 8.02.200 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled “License – Receipts
and Tags” shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
(1) License receipts shall provide space for the following information: sex, color, breed, other
identifying marks (if any), approximate age, date and serial number of vaccination, name
and address of owner, date of issuance, and amount of license fee.
(2) License tags shall bear numbers corresponding with those of the license receipts and
indicating the expiration date of such license. The shape and color of the tags shall may vary
from year to year, and they shall be of a suitable size.
Section 3. That Section 8.02.210 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled “License Procedures–
Receipts and Tags” shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
Upon the payment of the license fee and fulfillment of the licensing requirements, the
original of the receipt, together with a license tag as provided for in this chapter, shall be
delivered to the applicant. A copy shall be retained by the City and a copy said information
will be delivered to the poundmaster.
Section 4. That Section 8.02.230 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled “License – No Cost for
Adopted Animals” shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
The poundmaster is authorized to issue a no-cost animal license for an impounded, stray
animal upon its adoption under the approved process. All other license requirements shall
apply. Such license shall only be valid until one year from the date of issuance the final day
in February I the year following the year of issuance.
Section 5. That Section 3.07.020 of the Pasco Municipal Code entitled “Fee Summary –
Animal Control” shall be and hereby is amended to read as follows:
A) Penalty Provisions: Fee/Charge Reference
1) First Offense w/in 5-years $50.00 8.02.360
2) Second Offense w/in 5-years $100.00 8.02.360
3) Third Offense w/in 5-years $200.00 8.02.360
4) Four or more w/in 5-years
B) Penalty (Civil Penalty) Potentially
$400.00 8.02.360
Page 104 of 139
Dangerous Animal (RCW 16.30.060)
1) First Offense w/in 5-years $500.00 8.02.360
2) Second Offense w/in 5-years $1000.00 8.02.360
3) Third Offense w/in 5-years $1500.00 8.02.360
4) Fourth Offense or more w/in 5-years $2000.00 8.02.360
C) Annual License Fees:
1) Unaltered – 1 yr $55.00 8.02.365
2) Unaltered – 3 yr $160.00 8.02.365
2) Altered, spayed or neutered – 1 yr $15.00 8.02.365
3) Altered, spayed or neutered – 3 yr $40.00 8.02.365
3) Replacement Tags $5.00 8.02.365
4) Senior Replacement Tags $3.00 8.02.365
5) Kennel and Cattery $50.00 8.02.365
6) Potentially Dangerous or Dangerous
Animal Permit $250.00 8.02.365
7) Late Fee: $10.00 8.02.365
8) Discounts to low income Senior
Citizens- (altered, spayed or neutered) $3.00 8.02.365
D) Impound Fees:
1) First Offense w/in 12-months $35.00 8.02.080
2) Second Offense w/in 12-months $50.00 8.02.080
3) Three or more w/in 12-months $100.00 8.02.080
4) Boarding Fee (per day) $10.00 8.02.080
5) Vaccination Fee $15.00 8.02.320
Section 6. This Ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2018.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 16th day of October 2017.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 105 of 139
CITY OF PASCO –
ANIMAL LICENSING PROGRAM
IMPROVEMENT
Page 106 of 139
CITY OF PASCO -
ANIMAL LICENSING TREND
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2010 2012 2014 2016 2017 POPULATIONLICENSED ANIMALSYEAR
Population Altered Unaltered Total Shelter IntakePage 107 of 139
CURRENT LICENSING TIMELINE
December
•All licenses
expire
January
•Renewals Sent
February
•Renewals due
at the end of
month
March
•Follow up
phone calls
•Late Fees
April
•Code
Enforcement
begins
Page 108 of 139
CURRENT
•Payment Methods
•City Hall
•Mail-In
•Time Line
•All licenses expire by end of December
•All renewals due by end of February
•Type
•One-Year
Page 109 of 139
FEBRUARY/MARCH LINES
Page 110 of 139
DELINQUENCY RATE
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2014 2015 2016 2017% of Delinquent AccountsYearPage 111 of 139
PROPOSED
•Payment Methods
•City Hall –cash and checks
•Mail-In -checks
•Online through third party –checks and
credit cards
•Time Line
•All licenses expire on the date of issue
•Type
•One-Year
•Three-Year
Page 112 of 139
PETDATA, INC.
•Operating since 1994, PetData has issued over 6 million animal
licenses
•Working for over 60 cities, counties, and animal agencies
including Bothell, Edmonds and Lakewood in Washington
•Customized programs to meet the City’s needs
•Highly recommended by entities currently using their services
Page 113 of 139
BENEFITS
•Customers
•Shorter lines
•Convenient payment methods
•Online access 24/7
•City
•Alignment with demographic needs
•Improved customer service
•No fiscal impact
•Expected reduction in delinquencies
•Animal Control & Code Enforcement
•Online access to license data from the fieldPage 114 of 139
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council October 9, 2017
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
Regular Meeting: 10/16/17
FROM: Dave McDonald, City Planner
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Rezone: RS-12 to C-1 (MF# Z 2017-003)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Rezone Ordinance
Vicinity Map
Report to Planning Commission
Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 8/20/17 & 9/17/17
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. _____, rezoning a portion of the north half
of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 22,
Township 9 North, Range 29, East WM, from RS-12 (Suburban Residential) to C-1
(Retail Business), and further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On August 17, 2017 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to develop a
recommendation for the City Council on the possible rezone of the vacant lots located
at the southeast corner of Argent Road and Road 68. The applicant requested a rezone
from RS-12 (Suburban Residential) to C-1 (Retail Business).
Following conduct of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the
property in question be rezoned from RS-12 to C-1.
No written appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation has been received.
Page 115 of 139
V. DISCUSSION:
The site originally contained two houses when it was annexed in 2000. The houses
were demolished in 2009 when the current owner purchased the houses and the parcel
to the south.
The applicant is in the process of annexing the adjoining parcel to the south and is
planning on constructing a retail strip center on the two parcels in question and the
parcel to the south.
Page 116 of 139
City of Pasco, IS Division
Exhibit 1 Item: Rezone from RS-12 to C-1Applicant: Dan AdenFile #: Z 2017-003 ±
SITE
Road 68Road 64CITY LIMITS
CITY LIMITS
W Argent Rd
Page 117 of 139
ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON REZONING PARCEL
NUMBERS 118552022, and 118552081 FROM RS-12 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) TO C-1
(RETAIL BUSINESS).
WHEREAS, a complete and adequate petition for change of zoning classification has been received and an open record hearing having been conducted by the Pasco Planning Commission upon such petition; and, WHEREAS, that the effect of the requested change in zoning classification shall not be materially detrimental to the immediate vicinity; and,
WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence and demonstration of the Petitioner,
that: (A) the requested change for the zoning classification is consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan; (B) the requested change in zoning classification is consistent with or
promotes the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan serving the general public interest
in the community; and (C) there has been a change in the neighborhood or community needs or
circumstances warranting the requested change of the zoning classification; and (D) the Planning
Commission developed findings which are hereby adopted by the City Council; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Pasco, Washington, and the Zoning Map,
accompanying and being part of said Ordinance shall be and hereby is changed from
RS-12 (Suburban Residential) to C-1 (Retail Business) for the real property as shown in the
Exhibit “1” attached hereto and described as follows:
That portion of the north half of the northwest quarter of northwest quarter of the
northwest quarter of Section 22, Township 9 North, Range 29 East, WM encompassed
in parcel #s 118552022 and 118552081.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its
approval, passage and publication as required by law.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Pasco this 16th day of October, 2017.
Matt Watkins, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Daniela Erickson, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney
Page 118 of 139
City of Pasco, IS Division
VicinityMap
Item: Rezone from RS-12 to C-1Applicant: Dan AdenFile #: Z 2017-003 ±
SITE
Road 68Road 64CITY LIMITS
CITY LIMITSPage 119 of 139
1
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
MASTER FILE NO: (MF# Z2017-003) APPLICANT: Dan Aden
HEARING DATE: 8/17/2017 6200 W Brinkley Rd.
ACTION DATE: 9/21/2017 Kennewick, WA 99338
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: REQUEST: REZONE: Rezone from RS-12 to C-1 (Retail
Business)
1) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Legal: That portion of the of the north half of the northwest quarter of
northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 22, Township 9
North, Range 29 East, WM encompassed in parcel #s 118552022 and
118552081.
General Location: SW corner of Rd 68 & Argent Rd.
Property Size: Approximately 4.5 acres
2) ACCESS: The property has access from Road 68 and Argent Road.
3) UTILITIES: A City water line is located in Argent and along Road 68.
Sewer is located in Argent Road.
4) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently
zoned RS-12 and is vacant. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
NORTH: C-1-Vacant/Office/Single-family
SOUTH: RS- 20- Vacant
EAST: RS- 12 Single-Family
WEST: C-1- Drive thru Coffee Stand
5) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The property is designated for Mixed
Residential/Commercial uses. The property can be considered for either
multi-family or commercial zoning. Policy LU-1-C encourages the
clustering of commercial development to avoid strip development up and
down major streets. LU-4-A also supports the location of commercial
facilities at major intersections (like Rd 68 & Argent) to avoid commercial
sprawl. ED-2-B suggests a wide range of commercial development should
Page 120 of 139
2
be strategically located to support local and regional needs in the
community. ED-3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and
superior building design to enhance compatibility between commercial
and residential development.
6) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead
agency for this project. An environmental determination will be made
after the public hearing for this project. A Determination of Non-
Significance or a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance is likely for
this application (WAC 197-11-355).
ANALYSIS
The site contains almost 4.5 acres and is located at the southeast corner
of Road 68 and Argent Road. Properties surround the Road 68 and
Argent intersection contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru
facility, a restaurant, a City Fire Station and a commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses. The southwest corner of Road 68
and Argent Road is the only corner on this intersection that has not been
zone to C-1. When the property was annexed in 2000 there were two
houses on the property and the owner did not want to zone the parcel to
C-1 until after the houses were removed. The houses were demolished in
2009.
The Mixed Residential/Commercial land use designation would permit a
variety of multi-family structures, including large apartment buildings,
and neighborhood shopping and specialty centers, business parks,
service businesses and commercial offices. R-3 zoning allowed under the
Mixed Residential/Commercial designation would permit up to 20
dwelling units per acre or 90 units for the site in question. The
Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan
states mixed residential commercial areas should be located convenient
to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent Road. The
referenced table also indicates in Mixed Residential/Commercial
designated areas C-1 and Office zoning would be permitted.
Consideration needs to be given to the existing zoning and land uses
near and around the Road 68 and Argent intersection. The northeast,
northwest, and southwest corners of the Road 68 and Argent intersection
have already been zone C-1 and are partially developed with commercial
enterprises as noted above. The City has had a long history of
encouraging commercial development at or convenient to major street
intersections. The Planning Commission also needs to consider the
criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed below) in developing a rezone
recommendation.
Page 121 of 139
3
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are
explained in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or
additional zoning:
• The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth
Boundary.
• The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco.
• The property is located along a major street within a convenient
distance of the Road 68/Argent Road intersection.
• The other corners of the Road 68/Argent intersection have been
zone C-1
• Properties surrounding the Road 68 and Argent intersection
contain commercial offices, a coffee drive-thru facility, a
restaurant, a City Fire Station and commercial strip building
with various commercial businesses.
• A traffic signal is now located at the intersection of Road 68 and
Argent Road.
• The City has installed major sewer and water lines in Argent
Road in anticipation of more intense development around and
near the Road 68 and Argent intersection.
• A major water line now extends down Road 68 past the
proposed annexation and rezone site.
• A City Fire Station is located on Road 68 340 feet north of
Argent Road.
• Road 68 and Argent Road are identified as major streets in the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public
health, safety and general welfare.
The property is located at a major signalized intersection and is served
by major water and sewer lines. The rezone will encourage commercial
infill development that will provide the surrounding neighborhood
with various commercial services thereby shortening commute times
and generally enhance the general welfare of the community.
3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining
property and the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the site to C-1 (Retail Business) is supported by the
Comprehensive Plan land use map and land use policies and would
be considered a proper implementation of the Plan. The nature and
Page 122 of 139
4
value of the adjoining properties have changed little as a result of the
commercial activity and traffic associated with the Road 68 and
Argent Road intersection. Rezoning the property to C-1 will have the
same impact as the current C-1 zoning in the neighborhood. The C-1
zoning regulations and landscape and screening regulations are
designed to enhance the compatibility of commercial development
with residential development. These regulations are in place to
ameliorate any impacts C-1 development may have on nearby
residential development. A review of County Assessor records were
commercial development and residential development adjoin each
other reveal the value of both types of property have continued to
increase over the years (August 2017 of the County Assessors
Records).
4. The effect on the property owners or owner if the request is not
granted.
If the property was not rezoned to C-1 the property owners would
have the opportunity to apply for R-3 zoning and construct 90
apartment units on the site. The height and bulk of a three story
apartment building may have a greater impact on the surrounding
neighborhood than single-story offices or commercial buildings.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property.
The Plan indicates the proposed annexation area can be zoned and
developed for retail and office uses. Policies of the Plan encourage the
location of commercial development near the intersections of major
streets such as Road 68 and Argent Road. Providing land for
neighborhood shopping will benefit the community and help
implement provision of the Comprehensive Plan.
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 findings to this listing as the result of
factual testimony and evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in
1994.
3) The property is located near the intersection of Road 68 and Argent
Road.
Page 123 of 139
5
4) The Road 68 and Argent Road intersection is signalized and served by
major utility lines.
5) Policy LU-1-C encourages the clustering of commercial development to
avoid strip development up and down major streets.
6) LU-4-A also supports the location of commercial facilities at major
intersections (like Rd 68 & Argent) to avoid commercial sprawl.
7) ED-3-A encourages the use of landscaping, screening and superior
building design to enhance compatibility between commercial and
residential development. The Pasco zoning regulations contain
provisions requiring landscaping, screening and setbacks designed to
implement ED-3-A.
8) Properties around and near the northwest, northeast and southwest
corners of Road 68 and Argent Road are currently zoned C-1.
9) The Description and Allocation Table on page 17 of the Comprehensive
Plan states mixed residential or commercial areas should be located
convenient to major circulations routes such as Road 68 and Argent
Road.
10) A review of County Assessor records were commercial development
and residential development adjoin each other reveal the value of both
types of property have continued to increase over the years (August 2017
review of the County Assessors Records).
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the site to C-1 supports and is consistent with Plan Policies LU-1-
C, LU-4-A, ED-3-A and ED-2-B.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
The rezone to C-1 will complement the C-1 zoning on the other corners of
the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Rezoning the property supports the
commercial clustering or nodal concept of zoning that the city has followed
for major intersections for the past 35 years. Standards in place within the
zoning regulations are designed to ensure C-1 areas do not become
detrimental to surrounding properties.
Page 124 of 139
6
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
There is merit and value in following the guidance of the Comprehensive
Plan when assigning zoning. The proposed zoning will secure the
commercial nature of the Road 68 and Argent intersection. Providing an
area for the grouping of similar neighborhood businesses enables the
businesses to fair better and will provide services to the community for a
longer period of time.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant
adverse impacts from the proposal.
The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no mitigation
measures are needed. Standards within the zoning regulations for
setbacks, screening and landscaping provide mitigation measures.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and
the petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is not needed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
MOTION for Findings of Fact: I move to adopt findings of fact and
conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 21, 2016 staff
report.
MOTION for Recommendation: I move, based on the findings of fact
and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone parcel #s 118552022 and 118552081 at the
southwest corner of Argent and Road 68 from RS-12 to C-1.
Page 125 of 139
AINTREE DRCity of Pasco, IS Division
OverviewMap
Item: Rezone from RS-12 to C-1Applicant: Dan AdenFile #: Z 2017-003 ±
SITE
Road 68Road 64CITY LIMITS
CITY LIMITS
W Argent Rd
Road 64Page 126 of 139
City of Pasco, IS Division
VicinityMap
Item: Rezone from RS-12 to C-1Applicant: Dan AdenFile #: Z 2017-003 ±
SITE
Road 68Road 64CITY LIMITS
CITY LIMITSPage 127 of 139
ZoningMap
Item: Rezone from RS-12 to C-1Applicant: Dan AdenFile #: Z 2017-003 ±
SITE
W Argent Rd
Road 68Road 64CITY LIMITS
CITY LIMITS
C-1
RS-12RS-20C-1
RS-12RS-12C-1
RS-20
Page 128 of 139
Looking North Page 129 of 139
Looking East Page 130 of 139
Looking South Page 131 of 139
Looking Northwest Page 132 of 139
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
8/17/2017
B. Rezone Rezone from RS-12 (Suburban) to C-1 (Retail
Business) (D&D Enterprises) (MF# Z 2017-003)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from RS-12
(Suburban) to C-1 (Retail Business) stating the application and the zoning
determination application (MF# ZD 2017-002) are tied together. Both properties are
owned by the same owner and they are in the process of annexation the southern
property. The site in the City is 4.5 acres and the other site is 3.88 acres in the
county. The property was in 2008 with the intent of developing it for commercial uses.
In 2009 the two homes were removed and the lot was graded. The owners have now
made an application for a rezone and are halfway through the annexation process.
Part of the process of annexation requires the Planning Commission to determine
zoning. Both properties need to be zoned at the same time. Being located at a major
intersection at two arterial streets, the Comprehensive Plan has designated that
general area either for higher density residential development or retail commercial –
those are the only two choices of zoning available. The owners of the property are
asking for commercial zoning.
Mr. McDonald stated the Comprehensive Plan encourages the clustering of
commercial development at key intersections along arterial streets. The City has a
longstanding policy to locate commercial development at major intersections and
Argent and Road 68 is one of those intersections.
Staff received an email from one of the adjoining property owners concerned about the
impacts that commercial development could have on the houses to the east.
McDonald explained were built-in safety provisions in the zoning regulations that
would require buffer strips to protect the homes from commercial development. The
municipal code also includes noise regulations limiting the level of noise late in the
evening and early in the morning.
Chairman Cruz stated that C-1 uses aren’t too terribly intensive. At the same
intersection there is Magill’s Restaurant, a coffee stand, etc.
Mr. McDonald referred the Planning Commission to the findings of fact in the staff
report and stated a paragraph requesting additional input from the Planning
Commission on had been added to the report requesting direction on commercial
verses multi-family zoning.
Commissioner Roach stated in the past, people near this area have spoken out about
not wanting high density residential in their neighborhood. This area has many
suburban zoned properties nearby with acreage so he thought was that the existing
neighbors would not want apartment buildings at this site. She leaned towards
Page 133 of 139
commercial zoning.
Commissioner Bowers responded that she could see how it would make sense to lean
either way.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the two properties together were large enough for a
grocery store.
Mr. McDonald said all together it is 8 acres and typically grocery stores are 10 acres.
Walmart sits on roughly 20 acres.
Commissioner Bowers replied that she could see where there would be value in zoning
the property for residential apartments because she didn’t think there were a lot of
apartments in that area. On the other hand, given the fact the so much residential
being developed, it would be nice to have more commercial and retail.
Commissioner Alvarado asked if the development community has been interested in a
mixed-use development.
Mr. McDonald explained mixed use development does not work well in Pasco. Even
some areas in Seattle have issues keeping businesses on the first floors.
Commissioner Roach asked what would be more beneficial from the City’s perspective
– high density residential or commercial.
Mr. McDonald responded that high-density would be beneficial in that it creates a
built in customer base for the other commercial properties. Commercial is beneficial
due to the sales tax and utility tax and those commercial uses don’t have children so
there is less impact schools.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that apartments
are not the only residential chose the Planning Commission has. If apartments are
chosen, the Commission could address height and density to restrict how dense the
site could be developed. One of the challenges is that this is the only vacant corner
left on a soon to be very busy intersection and trying to adjust it with a series of land
uses that have been established while the property was “out in the country”.
Commissioner Bykonen agreed with Commissioner Roach in that there has been
public outcry against higher density residential in this area and the increase in traffic
so she leans towards commercial development. However, she also agreed with Mr.
White in that it doesn’t have to be apartments but something more like
condominium/duplex type of dwelling units.
Chairman Cruz asked if the applicant was present.
Mr. Graff stated that they would like to use this property for commercial development.
Page 134 of 139
They considered both, however, the problem he sees with residential is that it will
increase the already congested traffic. He felt that commercial rather than residential
would alleviate some of the traffic. Also, the other corners are already commercial and
he felt that commercial zoning for this site would be more harmonious.
Commissioner Campos asked what the vision was for this site or what type of
businesses he was hoping to attract.
Mr. Graff replied that first he wants to establish the property for commercial
development. At this time they are unsure if it would be best to have a small strip
mall or perhaps small offices/retail area in the front with workshop/storage areas in
the rear.
Dana Crutchfield, 8914 Whipple Avenue, stated she owned property at 2904 Road 68.
She received the notice in the mail and appeared on behalf of herself and her
husband. There was concern about the southern parcel that goes along with this
application. That piece of property has not yet been annexed into the City and if it
were designated as commercial, once it is annexed it would be commercial and the
neighborhood would have no recourse at that point. Just south of her property a new
subdivision has started. It is a nice development on ½ acre lots. There is some
commercial in this area but much of it is still residential. She had concerns with the
additional commercial as well as traffic. It also felt premature to rezone to commercial
without any plans in place.
Chairman Cruz responded there were two separate applications, the rezone and the
annexation, but these items are related. The discussion on the south parcel should be
tabled until the next hearing. The current hearing is regarding the rezone of the
northern parcel. He agreed that the zoning did not have to be the same for both
parcels.
Mrs. Crutchfield said that the corner property would be fine zoned commercial as it
would mimic the zoning of Magill’s and the dental office. She expressed concern about
the southern parcel being zoned for commercial. The applicant stated that they didn’t
have any particular plans for the site at this time but she felt the neighborhood
deserves to know what is being proposed.
Jim Hilgartner, 6521 W. Argent Road, stated he purchased his home 11 years ago
when the area was sparsely populated. He wants the property to be kept at RS-12
with ½ acre lots. He felt this application should be tabled until the southern property
is annexed. He did not want to see R-2 or R-3 zoning. If multi-family zoning is
determined, he will get petitions for the neighbors. There are already apartments in
the area on Chapel Hill and there is another site nearby where apartments will be
going in. There is no need to place apartments at this site. He believed RS-12 would
best fit the character of that neighborhood but if it has to be rezoned, then commercial
would be the next best choice as long as it isn’t multi-family residential. However, he
did not want to see a convenient store gas station due to the fumes that he and his
neighbors would have to smell all the time. He claimed that apartments would ruin
Page 135 of 139
the value of his property.
Chairman Cruz responded that when Mr. Hilgartner purchased his property it was
near one of the major thoroughfares in Pasco.
Mr. Hilgartner said the traffic wasn’t there when he purchased his home 11 years ago.
Chairman Cruz replied the Comprehensive Plan has had this area designated for
higher uses and it was just a matter of time before it develops. As for the item on the
agenda that goes along with this rezone pertaining to the property still in the County,
the City must determine the zoning prior to the annexation so that once the property
is annexed it has a zoning assigned to it.
Mr. McDonald stated that the City is following a long standing process of annexation
which calls for the City to determine the zoning prior to annexation. It is highly likely
that the southern piece of property will be annexed. This processed has been used for
many years. As for the northern piece of property already in the City, the rezone
process is the same on this site as it would be for any other site. He addressed Mrs.
Crutchfield’s comment to table the zoning determination for the southern property
until there is a plan but that is not how the process works. Typically rezones should
not be based on plans because there is nothing that locks developers into building
according to a plan. Sometimes the applicants will paint a pretty picture of what they
would like to do but those plans often fall through.
Commissioner Campos said that if the property were rezoned to multi-family, he didn’t
see too many of the other businesses benefiting aside from the coffee shop. The
dentist office wouldn’t likely see much of an impact and even Magill’s he wouldn’t see
that many people going every day to grab a bite to eat there.
Mr. Graff addressed some of the concerns presented by those who spoke. The
Washington State Law and the code as written by the City of Pasco dictates this
process as it is. D&D Enterprises does not wish to annex the southern piece of
property if this northern parcel is not rezoned to commercial. Similarly, they do not
wish to rezone the property to the north if they cannot have commercial zoning
determined on the southern parcel prior to annexation. They need both parcels to
have the same zoning. The difficulty is that half of the property is in the City and half
is still in the County.
Chairman Cruz said that with the parcel being at roughly 8 acres it would be a modest
development. He asked if a strip mall would be around 16,000 square feet.
Mr. Graff said yes, about 16,000 square feet but the issue is that the City has specific
requirements for the number of parking spaces, landscaping around the property and
between the residential zones which limits the size of the building. For example, a
grocery store couldn’t cover 70% of the property because it would fail to meet the other
requirements.
Page 136 of 139
Mrs. Crutchfield spoke again stating she was happy that the development couldn’t
happen so quickly and that the public has had a chance to speak. She was happy Mr.
Graff clarified that two different letters went out which is why her map looks different.
But there the same concern. The denial of this application or delay would not prohibit
that development from happening in the future she felt it was premature.
Mr. Hilgartner spoke again said that the site would be disproportionate to the other
commercial properties on the other three corners. He would like to see it stay at RS-
12. If it does go to C-1 he asked if restrictions could be made as to what type of
commercial establishments go in, such as gas stations or convenient stores that sell
fuel. As it is now he can smell Magill’s so he knows that he would smell the fuel.
Chairman Cruz said that is something that could be done but he wasn’t sure if they
would.
Chairman Cruz asked the audience if they would be in support of the additional
landscape requirements.
There were hands from audience members raised in response.
Mr. Hilgartner asked if there could be additional buffer requirements along Argent.
Chairman Cruz responded that he wasn’t sure about that.
With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bowers said after looking at this further, C-1 zoning would make the
most sense and is the most harmonious. And if anything, the property to the south
RS-12 would be the most consistent if not C-1.
Commissioner Roach said she was in favor of this particular site being zoned C-1. The
concern of additional buffering should be in place for the residential neighbors.
Commissioner Campos asked if they can dictate access and egress.
Chairman Cruz that will be dictated by regulations already in place.
Commissioner Alvarado replied that he was in favor of C-1 on the corner or Argent and
Road 68.
Commissioner Bykonen said that she counted the number of RS-12 lots, there would
be roughly 15-20 lots for the whole piece (City and County properties). She felt that
the single-family residences would actually create more traffic than commercial.
Chairman Cruz felt that this needed to be done altogether with the same zoning on all
the parcels otherwise development may not be possible. This is also a nice node for
Page 137 of 139
commercial that would not be too intensive. And while it is unfortunate to have RS-12
near a major intersection, that is how it worked out for many lots in West Pasco. He
said it wasn’t about money for him but what makes sense for the City.
Commissioner Roach moved, seconded by Commissioner Bowers, to close the hearing
on the proposed zoning determination and set September 21, 2017 as the date for
deliberations and the development of a recommendation for the City Council. The
motion passed unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
9/21/2017
B. Rezone Rezone from RS-12 (Suburban) to C-1 (Retail
Business) (D&D Enterprises) (MF# Z 2017-003)
Chairwoman Roach read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the rezone application from RS-12 to C-1.
Staff had no additional comments to add to this item.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the final determination after last month’s discussion
was in favor of rezoning to multi-family residential or commercial.
Mr. McDonald responded that the recommendation is to rezone from Residential
Suburban (RS-12) to Retail Commercial (C-1).
Commissioner Greenaway asked if this parcel was within the city limits.
Mr. McDonald responded that this piece of property was in the city limits.
Commissioner Mendez asked if there are any known developments that will be
occurring on this site.
Mr. McDonald said the applicant didn’t have a specific plan other than some type of
commercial. This site would lend itself to a small strip development.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Alvarado, to adopt findings
of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the September 2, 2017 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers moved, seconded by Commissioner Alvarado, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted, the Planning Commission recommend the
City Council rezone parcel number’s 118-552-022 and 118-552-081 at the southwest
Page 138 of 139
corner of Argent and Road 68 from RS-12 to C-1. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 139 of 139