HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022.04.18 Council Meeting Packet
AGENDA
City Council Regular Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, April 18, 2022
City Council Chambers & GoToWebinar
Page
1. MEETING INSTRUCTIONS for REMOTE ACCESS - Individuals, who would
like to provide public comment remotely, may continue to do so by filling out
the online form via the City’s website (www.pasco-wa.gov/publiccomment) to
obtain access information to comment. Requests to comment in meetings
must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of this meeting.
To listen to the meeting via phone, call (631) 992-3211 and use access code
613-585-088.
City Council meetings are broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on
Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at www.pasco-
wa.gov/psctvlive and on the City’s Facebook page at
www.facebook.com/cityofPasco.
2. CALL TO ORDER
3. ROLL CALL
(a) Pledge of Allegiance
4. 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.
6 - 15 (a) Approval of Meeting Minutes
To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Regular Meeting and
Regular Workshop held on April 4, 2022 and April 11, 2022.
16 - 18 (b) Bills and Communications
Page 1 of 208
To approve claims in the total amount of $3,438,405.67 ($2,263,169.50
in Check Nos. 247669-247946; $107,180.07 in Electronic Transfer
Nos. 835214-835221, 835342, 835348; $23,868.33 in Check Nos.
53864-53878; $1,026,465.18 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30173642-
30174179; $17,722.59 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 875; $538.36 in
Electronic Transfer Nos. 161-163).
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 $181,357.58 and, of that amount, authorize $0.00 to be turned over
for collection.
(RC) MOTION: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as read.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
19 - 22 (a) Proclamation - Recognizing the 110th Anniversary of the Pasco
Chamber of Commerce
Mayor Barajas will read the proclamation acknowledging the 110th
anniversary of the Pasco Chamber of Commerce and Colin Hastings,
Executive Director of the Pasco Chamber of Commerce will be present
to accept the proclamation.
6. 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 i mmediate
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.
7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS
(a) Verbal Reports from Councilmembers
8. HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS RELATING THERETO
23 - 29 (a) Continued Appeal Hearing - Findings of Fact and Ordinance
approving Duarte Rezone (APPL 2022-001 & Z 2021-017)
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4586, rezoning property
located near the northeast corner of North 28th Avenue and West Ella
Page 2 of 208
Street from from RS-12 to R-1, and further, authorize publication by
summary only.
30 - 33 (b) Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing Moratorium
Conduct Public Hearing
9. ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS
34 - 185 (a) Ordinance - Amending Pasco Municipal Code Related to Corner
Lot Fencing (CA2021-009)
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. 4587, amending the Pasco
Municipal Code related to fencing design and placement standards on
Corner Lots, and further, authorize publication by summary only.
186 - 189 (b) *Resolution - Supporting Pasco Public Facilities District ballot
proposition.
PROPOSITION 1
PASCO PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT SALES AND USE TAX
FOR AQUATICS FACILITY AND COMPETITION POOL.
The Pasco Public Facilities District Board of Directors adopted
Resolution No. 2022-02 concerning construction and operation of
an Aquatics Facility and Competition Pool. This proposition
would authorize the District to impose a sales and use tax
increase of 2/10ths of 1% in accordance with RCW 82.14.048, for
the purpose of paying the costs associated with financing,
refinancing, design, acquisition, construction, equipping,
operating, maintaining, remodeling, repairing, and reequipping of
an indoor/outdoor aquatic center and competition pool.
SHOULD THIS PROPOSITION BE APPROVED? Yes ________ No
________
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 4169, in support of
passage of Ballot Proposition No. 1 imposing a 2/10ths of 1% sales
and use tax for the purpose of funding an aquatic center to be
constructed, operated and maintained by the Pasco Public Facilities
District.
190 - 202 (c) *Resolution - Project Acceptance for the Road 36 Lift Station
Project
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. 4170, accepting work
performed by POW Contracting under contract for the Road 36 Lift
Station project.
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Page 3 of 208
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION
14. ADJOURNMENT
15. ADDITIONAL NOTES
(a) (RC) Roll Call Vote Required
* Item not previously discussed
Q Quasi-Judicial Matter
MF# “Master File #....”
203 - 208 (b) Adopted 2020-2021 Council Goals (Reference Only)
(c) REMINDERS
• Monday, April 18, 6:00 PM: LEOFF Disability Board – City
Hall Conference Room 1, Pasco City Hall (MAYOR BLANCH
BARAJAS, Rep.; MAYOR PRO TEM CRAIG MALONEY, Alt.)
• Tuesday, April 19, 4:00 PM: Pasco Public Facilities District
Board Meeting – Council Chambers, Pasco City Hall
(MAYOR PRO TEM CRAIG MALONEY, Rep.;
COUNCILMEMBER NIKKI TORRES, Alt.)
• Wednesday, April 20, 5:30 PM: Benton, Franklin & Walla
Walla Counties Good Roads & Transportation Association
Meeting – Clover Island Inn, Kennewick
(COUNCILMEMBER JOSEPH CAMPOS, Rep.;
COUNCILMEMBER PETE SERRANO, Alt.)
• Thursday, April 21, 7:30 AM: Hanford Communities
Governing Board Meeting – Richland City Council
Chambers (COUNCILMEMBER ZAHRA ROACH, Rep.;
COUNCILMEMBER PETE SERRANO, Alt.)
• Thursday, April 21, 12:30 PM: Greater Columbia
Accountable Community Health Leadership Council &
Board Meeting – Tri-Cities Community Health Board Room,
800 W. Court St. (COUNCILMEMBER ZAHRA ROACH, Rep.;
COUNCILMEMBER NIKKI TORRES, Alt.)
• Thursday, April 21, 3:30 PM: Franklin County Emergency
Management Council Meeting – EMS Office, 1011 E.
Ainsworth (MAYOR BLANCH BARAJAS, Rep.;
COUNCILMEMBER DAVID MILNE, Alt.)
• Thursday, April 21, 4:00 PM: Downtown Pasco
Development Authority – DPDA (COUNCILMEMBER NIKKI
TORRES, Rep.; MAYOR PRO TEM CRAIG MALONEY. Alt.)
Page 4 of 208
• Thursday, April 21, 4:00 PM: Tri-Cities National Park
Committee Meeting – Tri-Cities Regional Business & Visitor
Center, Bechtel Board Room, 7130 W. Grandridge Blvd.,
Kennewick (MAYOR BLANCHE BARAJAS, Rep.; MAYOR
PRO TEM CRAIG MANLONEY, Alt.)
• Monday, April 25, 4:00 PM: Hanford Area Economic
Investment Fund Advisory Committee Meeting – Ben
Franklin Transit Main Conference Room
(COUNCILMEMBER PETE SERRANO, Rep.)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on
Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at
www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the
Clerk for assistance.
Servicio de intérprete puede estar disponible con aviso. Por favor
avisa la Secretaria Municipal dos días antes para garantizar la
disponibilidad. (Spanish language interpreter service may be
provided upon request. Please provide two business day's notice
to the City Clerk to ensure availability.)
Page 5 of 208
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 13, 2022
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 4/18/22
FROM: Debra Barham, City Clerk
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: Approval of Meeting Minutes
I. REFERENCE(S):
04.04.2022 & 04.11.2022 Draft Council Minutes
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council Regular Meeting and Regular
Workshop held on April 4, 2022 and April 11, 2022.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 6 of 208
MINUTES
City Council Regular Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, April 4, 2022
City Council Chambers & GoToWebinar
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Blanche Barajas, Mayor.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Blanche Barajas, Craig Maloney, Joseph Campos, Pete
Serrano, Nikki Torres, David Milne, and Zahra Roach
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Adam Lincoln, Deputy City Manager;
Colleen Chapin, Human Resources Director; Jeff Brigg s, Assistant City Attorney;
Bob Gear, Fire Chief; Zach Ratkai, Administrative & Community Services Director;
Ken Roske, Police Chief; Richa Sigdel, Finance Director; Rick White, Community &
Economic Development Director; Steve Worley, Public Works Director; and Debby
Barham, City Clerk.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Approval of Meeting Minutes
To approve the minutes of the Pasco City Council's Regular Meeting held on March
21st, Retreat held on March 25th & March 26th, and Regular Workshop held on
March 28, 2022.
Bills and Communications
To approve claims in the total amount of $8,286,897.09 ($4,979,178.33 in Check
Nos. 247135-247668; $1,507,978.75 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 834851-834898,
834906-835002, 835004-835151, 835172-835184, 835200-835201; $17,047.63 in
Check Nos. 53853-53863; $1,777,610.23 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 30172575 -
Page 1 of 7Page 7 of 208
30173641; $4,653.07 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 874; $429.08 in Electronic Transfer
Nos. 158-160).
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 $142,153.87 and, of that amount,
authorize $0.00 to be turned over for collection.
Resolution - Incorporating the Regional Pavement Cut Policy to the City's
Design and Construction Standards and Specifications
To approve Resolution No. 4165, adopting the Regional Pavement Cut Policy and
revision to Pasco's Design and Construction Standards and Specifications for Public
Works Improvements.
Resolution - Interlocal Cooperative Agreement - Quad Cities/BFHD for Funding
of Regional Algal Bloom Screening Lab Service
To approve Resolution No. 4166, authorizing the City Manager to execute the
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with the Cities of Kennewick, Richland, Pasco,
West Richland, and the Benton Franklin Health District for the funding of a Regional
Algal Bloom Screening Laboratory and Services.
Resolution - Franklin County Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
To approve Resolution No. 4167, accepting and adopting the 2021 Franklin County
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved, and Mr. Campos seconded a motion
to approve the Consent Agenda as read.
Mr. Serrano commented on Consent Item C. "Resolution - Incorporating the
Regional Pavement Cut Policy to the City's Design and Construction Standards
and Specifications" and requested it be pulled for further discussion.
AMENDED MOTION: Councilmember Serrano moved, seconded by
Councilmember Campos to amend the main motion by removing Consent Item
C. "Resolution - Incorporating the Regional Pavement Cut Policy to the City's
Design and Construction Standards and Specifications" and placing it under
Agenda Item 10, "Unfinished Business" for discussion.
RESULT: Motion carried unanimously 7-0
AYES: Mayor Barajas, Mayor Pro Tem Maloney,
Councilmember Campos, Councilmember Serrano,
Councilmember Torres, Councilmember Milne, and
Councilmember Roach
Page 2 of 7Page 8 of 208
MAIN MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved, seconded by Councilmember
Campos to approve the Consent Agenda as amended.
RESULT: Motion carried unanimously 7-0
AYES: Mayor Barajas, Mayor Pro Tem Maloney,
Councilmember Campos, Councilmember Serrano,
Councilmember Torres, Councilmember Milne, and
Councilmember Roach
PROCLAMATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Proclaiming April 2 - May 2, 2022 as "Ramadan"
Ms. Roach introduced Mian Haq and Sabiha Khan who stepped forwarded and
provided a brief history of the local refugee community representing about 20
different cultures and expressing gratitude for the freedoms the United States offers.
They acknowledged Mayor Barajas as the first Latina Mayor and expressed
appreciation to City Council for recognizing Ramadan this year.
Mayor Barajas read and presented the proclamation acknowledging Ramada n from
April 2 to May 2, 2022 in the City of Pasco to the representatives from the Muslim
community.
Mr. Serrano commented on recognizing religious holidays by proclamation.
VISITORS - OTHER THAN AGENDA ITEMS
Ms. Alexia Strata, Pasco resident, expressed appreciation to Council for the Ramadan
proclamation.
Ms. Virginia Thomlinson, Pasco resident, expressed appreciation to Council for
providing the Ramadan proclamation and she stated that Pasco is a wonderful place to
live.
Emily Maloney, Pasco resident and Taco Crawl Committee member, announced the
6th Annual Taco Crawl benefiting the Boys & Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin
Counties noting the Crawl will start on April 22 and conclude on May 7, 2022.
REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND/OR OFFICERS
Verbal Reports from Councilmembers
Mr. Campos stated that it's the residents that makes Pasco an awesome place to
live and work in.
Ms. Torres commented on a Cable Bridge Lighting Committee she recently attended.
Page 3 of 7Page 9 of 208
Mayor Pro Tem Maloney stated that he was appointed to the Association of
Washington Cities (AWC) Legislative Priorities Committee.
General Fund Monthly Report - January 2022
Ms. Sigdel briefly commented on the General Fund Report for January 2022.
Mayor Pro Tem Maloney expressed appreciation for the monthly report.
HEARINGS AND COUNCIL ACTION ON ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
RELATING THERETO
Appeal - Duarte Rezone RS-12 to R-1 Denial (APPL 2022-001)
Mayor Barajas announced that the Appeal of the denial of the Duarte Rezone from
RS-12 to R-1 was a quasi-judicial action and asked Mr. Briggs to explain the
procedure for quasi-judicial items.
Mr. Briggs stated this item was Closed Record Hearing, no new evidence may be
presented, only those who participated in the Open Record Hearing in front of the
Hearing Examiner may testify and arguments must be summary only and not offer
new evidence.
Mr. Briggs read the quasi-judicial procedure including how the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine applies to it. Next, he asked a ll Councilmembers a series of
questions associated with potential conflicts of interest to disclose such potential
conflicts or appearance of conflicts. With no response from the Councilmembers, he
asked if any members of the public were seeking to disqualify a member of Council
from participating in the proceedings. No one came forward.
Mr. White provided a brief summary of the Hearing Examiner's denial of the
requested zoning change from Mr. Duarte.
Mr. Serrano and Mayor Pro Tem Maloney commented on Hearing Examiner's report
and briefly discussed the proposed denial with staff.
Ms. Duarte, the applicant appealing the denial of the rezone, spoke to Council
through her son-in-law who interpreted for her explaining her request for the rezone
for the property.
Council and staff continued the discussion of the proposed denial.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved, seconded by Councilmember Torres
to direct staff to develop Findings of Fact and accompanying ordinance
approving the (Duarte) rezone.
RESULT: Motion carried unanimously 7-0
Page 4 of 7Page 10 of 208
AYES: Mayor Barajas, Mayor Pro Tem Maloney,
Councilmember Campos, Councilmember Serrano,
Councilmember Torres, Councilmember Milne, and
Councilmember Roach
Continued Appeal Hearing of Garcia Latecomer for Watermain Installation
Mr. White provided a brief history and update to the continued appeal hearing for the
Garcia Latecomer Agreement for a watermain installation.
Mr. Briggs read the quasi-judicial procedure including how the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine applies to it. Next, he asked all Councilmembers a series of
questions associated with potential conflicts of interest to disclose such potential
conflicts or appearance of conflicts. With no response from the Councilmembers, he
asked if any members of the public were seeking to disqualify a member of Council
from participating in the proceedings. No one came forward.
Mayor Pro Tem Maloney and the appellant, Mr. Hollingsworth commented on the
updated assessment options.
Mr. Serrano and Mr. White further discussed the options and the timeframe of the
Latecomer Agreement.
RECESS
Mayor called a recess from 8:03 PM to 7 minutes to allow time for staff to reboot the
computer system.
The meeting reconvened at 8:10 PM.
Continuation of Appeal
Mayor Pro Tem Maloney provided some final comments on the options for the
Latecomer Agreement.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved, seconded by Councilmember
Campos to approve the front foot assessment for the Garcia Latecomer
Agreement.
RESULT: Motion carried unanimously 7-0
AYES: Mayor Barajas, Mayor Pro Tem Maloney,
Councilmember Campos, Councilmember Serrano,
Councilmember Torres, Councilmember Milne, and
Councilmember Roach
Page 5 of 7Page 11 of 208
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS NOT RELATING TO HEARINGS
Resolution - Setting a Public Hearing Date for Vacating the North-South Alley
of Block 2, Kurtzman’s 1st Addition to Pasco (VAC 2022-001)
Mr. White provided a brief report on the proposed vacation.
Council and staff briefly discussed the proposed vacation of an alleyway.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Maloney moved, seconded by Councilmember Roach
to approve Resolution No. 4168, setting 7:00 P.M., Monday, May 2, 2022, as the
time and date to conduct a public hearing to consider vacating the north -south
alley of Block 2 Kurtzman’s 1st addition to Pasco.
RESULT: Motion carried unanimously 7-0
AYES: Mayor Barajas, Mayor Pro Tem Maloney,
Councilmember Campos, Councilmember Serrano,
Councilmember Torres, Councilmember Milne, and
Councilmember Roach
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Resolution - Incorporating the Regional Pavement Cut Policy to the City's
Design and Construction Standards and Specifications
Mr. Serrano stated that he pulled this item to determine if this topic was presented
to the building community before bringing it forward to Council for consideration.
Mr. Worley explained that the Regional Pavement Cut Policy had not been presented
to the building community within Pasco.
Mr. Serrano and Mayor Pro Tem Maloney both expressed support for the proposed
design and construction standards and specifications; however, that it is also
important to reach out to those who will be affected by these regional standards.
Mayor Pro Tem Maloney invited Steven Bauman to come and speak to this topic and
he expressed support for the quality of cut pavement repairs but was not supportive
with requiring a wider cut as discussed in the proposed standards and specifications.
Mayor Pro Tem Maloney asked for additional information from staff to complete the
research.
Mr. Zabell summarized the discussion and stated that the Cities of Kennewick and
Richland have the design and construction standards for regional payment cuts
scheduled for approval at their next Council meetings, while the City of West
Richland is holding back a few weeks. He also noted that the 25-foot pavement cut
requirement is only for pavement less than five years old and the amount of new
Page 6 of 7Page 12 of 208
pavement laid within Pasco is about two and a half miles a year for over 1,200 lane
miles.
Council and staff agreed to bring this item back after further information is gather for
Council to review before making a final approval of the pavement cut policy.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:32 PM.
PASSED and APPROVED this ____ day of ________________, 20__.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Blanche Barajas, Mayor Debra Barham, City Clerk
Page 7 of 7Page 13 of 208
MINUTES
City Council Workshop Meeting
7:00 PM - Monday, April 11, 2022
City Council Chambers & GoToWebinar
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Blanche Barajas, Mayor.
ROLL CALL
Councilmembers present: Blanche Barajas, Craig Maloney, Joseph Campos, Pete
Serrano, David Milne, and Nikki Torres
Councilmembers absent: Zahra Roach
Staff present: Dave Zabell, City Manager; Adam Lincoln, Deputy City Manager;
Colleen Chapin, Human Resources Director; Craig Briggs, Assistant City Attorney;
Bob Gear, Fire Chief; Zach Ratkai, Administrative & Community Services Director;
Darcy Buckley, Finance Manager; Rick White, Community & Economic
Development Director; Steve Worley, Public Works Director; and Debby Barham,
City Clerk.
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS
Ms. Torres commented on the Pasco Chamber of Commerce meeting held earlier
today.
Mr. Campos commented on an upcoming Ben Franklin Transit Board meeting
scheduled for later this week.
Mr. Serrano reminded staff to prepare a proclamation for the Pasco C hamber of
Commerce and Mr. Zabell stated that staff is working with the Chamber to prepare the
proclamation.
Mayor Barajas commented on the recent Arbor Day celebration and tree planting event
held on Saturday, April 9th. She also mentioned that Voluntee r Park has plans to turn
Page 1 of 2Page 14 of 208
the park into an arboretum where 1,000 trees will be planted over the next several
years.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Strategic Review - Community and Economic Development Department
Mr. White introduced Patrick Ibarra, owner of the Mejorando Group, who reported
on the status of the current strategic review targeting the Community & Economic
Development Department.
Council and Mr. Ibarra discussed the review structure, the outreach efforts, and
types of recommendations that will come out of the review.
MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Mr. Zabell announced the Cinco de Mayo celebration is scheduled for May 6 to 8, 2022.
He also noted that the Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA) and the Latino
Business Association (LBA) are partnering on the entertainment efforts for Cinco de
Mayo.
Mayor Barajas reminded Council that they were invited to participate in the Cinco de
Mayo parade.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:23 PM.
PASSED and APPROVED this __ day of ________________, 20__.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Blanche Barajas, Mayor Debra Barham, City Clerk
Page 2 of 2Page 15 of 208
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 14, 2022
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 4/18/22
FROM: Richa Sigdel, Finance Director
Finance
SUBJECT: Bills and Communications
I. REFERENCE(S):
Accounts Payable 04.18.22
Bad Debt Write-off/Collection for March 2022
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
To approve claims in the total amount of $3,438,405.67 ($2,263,169.50 in Check
Nos. 247669-247946; $107,180.07 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 835214-835221,
835342, 835348; $23,868.33 in Check Nos. 53864-53878; $1,026,465.18 in
Electronic Transfer Nos. 30173642-30174179; $17,722.59 in Electronic Transfer
Nos. 875; $538.36 in Electronic Transfer Nos. 161-163).
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 $181,357.58 and, of that
amount, authorize $0.00 to be turned over for collection.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
V. DISCUSSION:
Page 16 of 208
REPORTING PERIOD:
April 18, 2022
Claims Bank Payroll Bank Gen'l Bank Electronic Bank Combined
Check Numbers 247669-247946 53864-53878
Total Check Amount $2,263,169.50 $23,868.33 Total Checks 2,287,037.83$
Electronic Transfer Numbers 835214-835221 30173642-30174179 875 161-163
835342
835348
Total EFT Amount $107,180.07 $1,026,465.18 $17,722.59 $538.36 Total EFTs 1,151,906.20$
Grand Total 3,438,944.03$
Councilmember
445,702.05
31,929.05
34,393.37
1,785.00
1,801.77
24,889.18
2,705.56
356.81
192.98
636.84
1,916.46
0.00
100.39
184.21
561.00
7,661.59
HOTEL/MOTEL EXCISE TAX 5,000.00
965,272.88
604,036.63
123,436.04
15,349.23
88,142.13
11,046.94
1,071,843.92
GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS:3,438,944.03$
The City Council
March 31 - April 13, 2022
C I T Y O F P A S C O
Council Meeting of:
Accounts Payable Approved
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 Darcy Buckley, Finance Manager
We, the undersigned City Councilmembers of the City Council of the City of Pasco, Franklin County, Washington, do hereby certify on this
18th day of April, 2022 that the merchandise or services hereinafter specified have been received and are approved for payment:
Councilmember
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS BY FUND:
GENERAL FUND
STREET
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES
C.D. BLOCK GRANT
HOME CONSORTIUM GRANT
MARTIN LUTHER KING COMMUNITY CENTER
AMBULANCE SERVICE
ARPA
CEMETERY
ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
SENIOR CENTER OPERATING
MULTI-MODAL FACILITY
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING GOVERNMENTAL
RIVERSHORE TRAIL & MARINA MAIN
LITTER ABATEMENT
REVOLVING ABATEMENT
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL CAP PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
UTILITY, WATER/SEWER
PAYROLL CLEARING
EQUIPMENT RENTAL - OPERATING BUSINESS
MEDICAL/DENTAL INSURANCE
FLEX
Page 17 of 208
BAD DEBT WRITE-OFF/COLLECTION
March 1 – March 31, 2022
1. UTILITY BILLING - These are all inactive accounts, 60 days or older. Direct write-offs under
$20 with no current forwarding address or are accounts in "occupant" status. Accounts
submitted for collection exceed $20.00.
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 $ 206.24 .00 206.24
Ambulance $ 181,151.34 .00 181,151.34
Court A/R $ .00 .00 .00
Code Enforcement $ .00 .00 .00
Cemetery $ .00 .00 .00
General $ .00 .00 .00
Miscellaneous $ .00 .00 .00
TOTAL: $ 181,357.58 .00 181,357.58
Page 18 of 208
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 12, 2022
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 4/18/22
FROM: Dave Zabell, City Manager
Executive
SUBJECT: Proclamation - Recognizing the 110th Anniversary of the Pasco Chamber
of Commerce
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proclamation
City Council Proclamation Requests
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Mayor Barajas will read the proclamation acknowledging the 110th anniversary
of the Pasco Chamber of Commerce and Colin Hastings, Executive Director of
the Pasco Chamber of Commerce will be present to accept the proclamation .
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Proclamations issued by the Mayor of the City of Pasco provide an opportunity
for the City to recognize exceptional events. The goal of a proclamation is to
recognize and celebrate the extraordinary achievements of Pasco citizens and
non-profit organizations, honor occasions of importance and significance, and
increase public awareness of issues to improve the well-being of the people of
this city.
Information on how to request proclamations is available on the City's website
(also attached) to provide equitable opportunity for community members and
organizations to have their events and achievements recognized and celebrated.
In recent years, staff have initiated proclamations for nationally recognized
history months when they are not requested by a community member or
organization, this has resulted in unintentional delays in recognition.
Page 19 of 208
V. DISCUSSION:
The Pasco Chamber of Commerce's mission is, "to foster a vibrant local
business environment and to enhance the quality of life in our region."
The Pasco Chamber of Commerce was established in 1912 and has served as
the “front door” for tens of thousands of individuals and businesses for over 110
years. From business to agriculture to education, the Chamber is a major
supporter of the Greater Pasco Area.
Page 20 of 208
Proclamation
“Pasco Chamber of Commerce – 110th Anniversary”
April 15, 2022
WHEREAS, this year marks the 110th Anniversary of the Pasco Chamber of Commerce; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco Chamber of Commerce, established April 15, 1912, serves as the “front door” for tens of
thousands of individuals and businesses. From business to agriculture to education, the Chamber is a major supporter of the
greater Pasco area; and
WHEREAS, the mission of the Pasco Chamber of Commerce is to foster a vibrant local business environment and to
enhance the quality of life in our region; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco Chamber of Commerce works with businesses and industry to advance the civic, economic,
industrial, professional, and cultural life of the greater Pasco area; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco Chamber of Commerce is supported by the financial and volunteer resources of businesses
located and operating in and around the community; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco Chamber of Commerce works to promote the region's business community through information
resources and networking opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco Chamber of Commerce advocates on behalf of the agriculture community through addressing
various issues because of the impact that the ag industry makes on the region; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco Chamber of Commerce advocates on preserving the region’s hydropower system for clean, fish
friendly & carbon free energy and economic development it provides to the Northwest; and
WHEREAS, the Pasco Chamber of Commerce advocates for local businesses and empowers entrepreneurs, while
keeping Pasco’s rich history and cultural diversity at the forefront.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Blanche Barajas, Mayor of the City of Pasco, Washington,
recognize the contributions and service to the community for 110 years by the Pasco Chamber of Commerce toward
improving the community’s quality of life and encourage all residents to support local industries within this great
community.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Official Seal of the City of Pasco, State of
Washington, to be affixed this 18th day of April 2022.
____________________________
Blanche Barajas, Mayor
City of Pasco
Page 21 of 208
City Council Proclamation Request
https://www.pasco-wa.gov/FormCenter/ACS-Form-3-3/City-Council-Proclamation-Request-57-57
Proclamations issued by the Mayor of the City of Pasco ideally provide an opportunity for the City to
recognize exceptional events. The goal of a proclamation is to recognize and celebrate the extraordinary
achievements of Pasco citizens and non-profit organizations, honor occasions of importance and
significance, and increase public awareness of issues to improve the well-being of the people of this city.
Proclamation Policy
1. We ask that requests be submitted 30 days prior to the date needed.
2. All requests should clearly include contact information and affiliation of the person submitting the
request & the person(s) accepting the proclamation.
3. Requests should include draft language and background information about an exceptional event and
sponsoring organization that could be used to prepare the proclamation.
4. Each renewal request will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
5. We are unable to accommodate proclamations for out -of-community events or for-profit causes.
6. We ask that National or International groups requesting proclamations have an in -city sponsor.
Submission of a proclamation request does not guarantee issuance. Due to the volume of submissions
received, we cannot grant every request. However, we want to recognize and honor your organization’s
outstanding contributions, commitment, and excellence to our community.
Greetings/Other Recognition
Greetings from the Mayor or other forms of recognition can be issued when a proclamation request doesn’t
meet guidelines. Greetings and/or other recognition shall be used to honor special events or individuals
within the City of Pasco. These may include conventions, community celebrations, award ceremonies,
college graduations, etc. The Mayor also strongly encourages personal achievement and wishes to showcase
significant milestones in the lives of Pasco residents. We ask that any recognition be submitted 30 days prior
to the due date for issue to Pasco residents.
Page 22 of 208
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 14, 2022
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 4/18/22
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Continued Appeal Hearing - Findings of Fact and Ordinance approving
Duarte Rezone (APPL 2022-001 & Z 2021-017)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Ordinance
Vicinity Map Schematic
Vicinity Map Aerial
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. ____, rezonin g property located near
the northeast corner of North 28th Avenue and West Ella Street from from RS -
12 to R-1, and further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
None
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
On January 12, 2022, the the Hearing Examiner held an open record public
hearing to consider a request to rezone a parcel located on the northeast corner
of North 28th Avenue and West Ella Street from RS-12 (Low-Density Residential
12,000 sq ft minimum) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential 7,200 sq ft minimum).
Examiner Hearing the hearing, public Following of conduct the the
recommended denial of the applicant's request from RS -12 (Low-Density
Residential) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential).
The applicant appealed the decision. On April 4, 2022, Council held a closed-
record appeal hearing (with no new evidence or limited new evidence) to
consider the applicant's appeal.
Page 23 of 208
Following the closed-record hearing Council voted unanimously to direct staff to
develop Findings of Fact and accompanying ordinance approving the rezone,
Master File No. Z 2021-017.
V. DISCUSSION:
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained in
Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Section 25.210.030. The applicant has the burden
of proof to demonstrate compliance with all applicable laws, rules and
regulations.
In its deliberations at the closed record appeal hearing on April 4th,City Council
found that the record supports the following conclusions per Section 25.210.030
of the PMC:
1. The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan;
2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity is not materially
detrimental;
3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole;
4. The rezone application and anticipated development are subject to the
regulations and requirements of the Pasco Municipal Code and the City
of Pasco Design and Constructions Standards; and
5. A concomitant agreement is not required under these circumstances.
With these conclusions, Council is able to approve the rezone through adoption
of the attached Ordinance.
Page 24 of 208
Ordinance – Rezone Z 2021-017 - 1
FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF:
City of Pasco, Washington
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of Pasco, Washington
Attn: City Clerk
525 North 3rd Avenue
Pasco, WA 99301
____________________________________________________________________________
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON A PORTION OF THE
SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 9 NORTH, RANGE 29 EAST,
PASCO, WASHINGTON FROM RS-12 TO R-1.
WHEREAS, the Petitioner Juana Veronica Porras Duarte, seeks to rezone Parcel
119300257, situated on the northeast corner of North 28th Avenue and West Ella Street in Pasco,
Washington; and
WHEREAS, a complete petition for change of zoning classification was received by the
City and, after notice was issued under PMC 25.210.040, an open record hearing was conducted
by the Pasco Hearing Examiner upon such petition on January 12, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Hearing Examiner Report, staff report, and verbatim transcript all form
the closed record in this matter and are hereby incorporated by reference as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, based upon the above record, the Hearing Examiner recommended denial of
the rezone request on January 18, 2022, based upon a lack of compliance with petition application
criteria found in PMC 25.210.030; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to PMC 25.210.070(1), the Petitioner timely filed an appeal, of the
Hearing Examiner’s recommendation to the City Council, on January 27, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a closed-record hearing on March 4, 2022; and
WHEREAS, based upon substantial evidence in the record, the City Council finds that the
facts in the record satisfy the following requirements of PMC 25.210.030 (1) the date the zoning
became effective; (2) the changed conditions which are alleged to warrant other or additional
zoning; (3) facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and general
welfare; (4) the effect the zone change will have on the value and character of the adjacent
Page 25 of 208
Ordinance – Rezone Z 2021-017 - 2
property and the Comprehensive Plan; (5) the effect on the property owner or owners if the request
is not granted; (6) the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property; and (7) any
additional information requested by the Hearing Examiner; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that substantial evidence in the record supports the
following findings of fact and conclusions of law: (a) the proposal is in accord with the goals and
policies of the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (b) the effect of the proposal on the immediate
vicinity is not materially detrimental; (c) there is merit and value in the proposal for the community
as a whole; (d) the rezone application and anticipated development are subject to the regulations
and requirements of the Pasco Municipal Code and the City of Pasco Design and Constructions
Standards; and (e) a concomitant agreement is not required under these circumstances, the City
Council, upon appeal developed the above findings in accordance with PMC 25.210.060 and
recommends approval of the rezone, which findings and recommendation 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
(Low-Density Residential) to R-1 (Low-Density Residential), for the real property as shown in the
Exhibit A attached hereto and described as follows:
A portion of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24, Township 9 North, Range 29 East
defined as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 25, Block 24, Headlight Addition to
Pasco, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume B of Plats, Page 26, records
of Franklin County, Washington; Thence Easterly on the South line of Lot 25, on a
continuation of said line, a distance of 400 feet; Thence South parallel with the
West line of Said Block 24, the Northwesterly right-of-way line of Primary State
Highway No. 3, as established by Deed recorded December 10, 1952, under
Auditor's File No. 149402; Thence Northeasterly along said Northwesterly right-
of-way line to the center line of Jay Street in said addition; Thence Westerly along
the center line of Jay Street to the Westerly line of Block 24 extended Northerly in
a straight line; Thence Southerly along the Northerly extension of said West line
and the West line of Block 24, to the Point of Beginning. EXCEPT that portion
thereof condemned by the State of Washington for highway purposes in Franklin
County Superior Court Cause No. 12053. TOGETHER WITH the East half of
vacated Vancouver Street (Parcel 119300257).
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
Page 26 of 208
Ordinance – Rezone Z 2021-017 - 3
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, this ___ day of
______________, 2022.
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________
Page 27 of 208
N28THAVEWWERNETT
RD
W ELLA ST NUS395TOI182RAMPEWI182TOUS395RAMPSNUS395TOI182RAMPWE
I
1
8
2
T
O
U
S
3
9
5
R
A
MP
S
/
0 70 140 210 28035
Feet
"Exhibit A"
R-1
Item: Duarte Rezone RS-12 to R-1
Applicant: Juana Veronica Porras Duarte
File #: Z 2021-017
Page 28 of 208
ELLA28THI-182
WILCOX
ELLA
US 395WERNETT
S E A BROOK
ROAD 30J A Y
I-182
US395TOI182U S 3 9 5 T O I 1 8 2I182TO20TH
I182TOUS395
0 140 280 420 56070
Feet
0 140 280 420 56070
Feet
Vicinity
Map
Item: Duarte Rezone RS-12 to R-1
Applicant: Juana Veronica Porras Duarte
File #: Z 2021-017
Page 29 of 208
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 12, 2022
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 4/18/22
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing Moratorium
I. REFERENCE(S):
Resolution No. 4158 - SRO Moratorium
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Conduct Public Hearing
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 4425 passed on February 19, 2019, the City of Pasco
made provision in the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 25.162 for the siting
of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) housing in the C-1 (Retail Business), C-2
(Central Business District) and C-3 General Business Districts.
The intent of Ordinance No. 4425 was to provide low-income housing
opportunities and to bring nuisance motels and hotels into compliance.
As of April 2022, three separate hotel conversions have been issued conditional
use permits, and two of the three have been issued building permits for the
physical conversion into SRO's. All are vested under the current regulations.
On March 7, 2022, the Pasco City Council adopted Resolution No. 4158,
declaring a moratorium prohibiting permitting SRO housing and conversion
thereto, in the City of Pasco, pending the study of SRO impacts and best
development practices and policies.
Page 30 of 208
Resolution No. 4185 states the initial SRO Moratorium shall be for six (6)
months, expiring on the 7th day of September 2022, unless otherwise terminated
or extended.
A public hearing is scheduled for April 18, 2022, at the City Council Chambers
of City Hall to hear evidence and consider the comments and testimony of those
wishing to speak regarding the issue.
The City distributed a notice of a public hearing, published on April 8, 2022, in
the Tri-City Herald.
V. DISCUSSION:
There are a variety of factors that may benefit from evaluation for the
development of SRO housing, including:
• Assessment of current development standards
• Study of anti-displacement strategies and tenant protective measures
• Coordination with Visit Tri-Cities, Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, and
regional housing stakeholders
• Consideration within the Pasco Housing Action and Implementation Plan
and the Tri-Cities Consolidated Plan
If Council concurs with the factors identified above for the evaluation of SROs,
staff will coordinate and prepare this issue to addressed as a component of the
Housing Capacity Plan beginning this year.
Staff will provide a summary of any preliminary findings and any needed
additional actions before the expiration of the Moratorium on September 7, 2022.
Page 31 of 208
RESOLUTION NO. 4158
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DECLARING A MORATORIUM
PROHIBITING PERMITTING SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY
SRO) HOUSING AND CONVERSION THERETO IN THE
CITY OF PASCO PENDING STUDY OF IMPACTS AND BEST
DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES AND POLICY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 4425 passed on February 19, 2019, the City of Pasco
made provision in its code, at 25.162 for siting SRO facilities in its C-1 (Retail Business), C-2
Central Business District), and C-3 (General Business District); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of Ordinance 4425 was to address non-compliance of certain
public nuisance properties, while also providing for low-income housing for City residents; and
WHEREAS, SROs have historically provided low-income housing to both men and
women dating back to the
19th
Century; and
WHEREAS, SROs have also historically been the subject of unfair criticism and
stereotyping concerning their value, particularly in high value commercial districts; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco sees the potential for real impact to the City's homeless
populations, but lacks current information necessary to ensure that best practices in terms of
development and SRO policy are utilized to reach the greatest number of residents; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified appropriate zones in which to locate SROs, but
currently lacks codes, regulations, and policies which could best effectuate the original intent
behind Ordinance 4425; and
WHEREAS, SRO housing policies include a range of broad topics warranting review of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rules and regulations relating to
policy limits, to ensure equal and fair treatment of all SRO residents in the City of Pasco; and
WHEREAS, under RCW 35A.63.220 authorizes the City to adopt a Moratorium with a
public hearing which must be held within sixty (60) days of the date of the adoption of a
Moratorium.,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, hereby resolves as follows:
Section 1. Moratorium Established. A Moratorium is hereby established
suspending the permitting and conversion process for SROs pursuant to Pasco Municipal Code
25.162 to allow for the City to conduct a study on SRO's impacts and best practices in terms of
development standards and housing policy.
Resolution - Moratorium — SRO - 1
Page 32 of 208
Section 2. Term of Moratorium. The Moratorium shall expire six (6) months from
the date of its authorization by the City Council unless further extended, pursuant to RCW
35A.63.220, by the City Council of the City of Pasco.
Section 3. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be scheduled for 7:00 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the
18th
day of April, 2022, at the City Council
Chambers of City Hall, where it will hear evidence and consider the comments and testimony of
those wishing to speak at such public hearing regarding the Moratorium.
Section 4. Preliminary Findings.
A. The impacts to the City due to the application of SROs could be significant on the
City's roads and traffic system;
B. There may also be parking implications that would have impacts on the City;
C. SROs may also affect residential and commercial neighborhoods in the City; and
D. The City needs time to evaluate the impacts and to address them in terms of
potential regulations of SROs.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution and its initial Moratorium shall be in full
force and effect upon its passage and signature below, and the initial period of the Moratorium
shall be for six (6) months, expiring on the
7th
day of September, 2022, unless otherwise
terminated or extended.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, this
7th
day of March,
2022.
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
iciv
De ra Barham, CMC Kerr Fefr%30o Law, PLLC
City Clerk Cit orney
Resolution - Moratorium — SRO - 2
Page 33 of 208
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council March 30, 2022
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 4/18/22
FROM: Rick White, Director
Community & Economic Development
SUBJECT: Ordinance - Amending Pasco Municipal Code Related to Corner Lot
Fencing (CA2021-009)
I. REFERENCE(S):
Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit A - Existing Regulations
Exhibit B - Existing Regulations
Exhibit C - Proposed Regulations
Planning Commission Meeting Reports and Minutes from August 2021 to
January 2022
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. _____, amending the Pasco Municipal
Code related to fencing design and placement standards on Corner Lots, and
further, authorize publication by summary only.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) regarding fence location and height stipulates
that fencing within front yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the
fencing is proposed within the flanking street front yard area on corner lots the
following applies:
1. When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an
alley right-of-way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly
parallel streets, walls and hedges shall be limited to six feet within the
front yard adjacent to the side street. See Exhibit A.
Page 34 of 208
2. When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all
fences greater than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of
the dwelling. See Exhibit B.
Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater
than 3.5’ in height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the
requirements of situation 2, causing restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may
extend towards the frontage property line.
The Pasco Planning Commission has exerted considerable effort on this issue,
it was considered at their August 15, 2021 and September 16, 2021 workshops
and the Commission held multiple public hearings on October 21, 2021,
November 18, 2021, December 16, 2021, and January 20, 2022.
Council considered this amendment at the Workshop Meeting of March 14,
2022.
V. DISCUSSION:
Current fence design standards require setbacks that are determined by a
neighboring property’s dwelling rather than a consistent measurement. This can
create situations where a fence on a corner lot must be set back significantly,
further than what would be a safe and uniform distance from a property line.
Additionally, properties on a corner lot where the neighboring lot has yet to
develop do not have a basis for what the required fence setback may be resulting
in unsafe or overly stringent requirements depending on how that lot ultimately
develops. The proposed ordinance provides:
• When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or
nearly parallel streets, dwellings shall not be allowed to be addressed or
accessed on the shared street. This will remove the possibility of creating
unusual lot configurations and accesses; and
• When the corner lots do not form the entire frontage between two parallel,
or nearly parallel streets, fences greater than 3.5 feet in height shall be
setback 15 feet from the property line adjacent to the side street
After consideration at six workshops and meetings, the Planning Commission
recommended that fence setbacks be revised as described above and contained
in the proposed ordinance.
Page 35 of 208
Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 1
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PASCO, AMENDING
PASCO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 25.165.100 “RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN STANDARDS” AND 25.180.050 “DESIGN STANDARDS”
RELATED TO FENCING DESIGN AND PLACEMENT STANDARDS ON
CORNER LOTS.
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical
development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained ;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has Subdivision regulations that encourage orderly growth
and development; and
WHEREAS, fencing design standards require setbacks from neighboring dwellings; and
WHEREAS, residential design standards do not provide provisions for maintaining
standard lot accesses; and
WHEREAS, without such ordinance, placement of fences on corner lots is problematic
and ambiguous when lots are not developed simultaneously; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to maintain and protect the welfare of
the community and provided consistent and reasonable expectations for fence and dwelling
placement, it is necessary to amend PMC Section 25.165.100 entitled “Design Standards” and
PMC Section 25.180.050 entitled “Fences, Walls and Hedges”.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section of PMC 25.165.100(1) is hereby amended and shall read as
follows:
25.165.100 Residential design standards.
(1) Design Standards. Except for multifamily structures, the following design
standards shall apply to all newly constructed or newly placed dwellings in the
RT, R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts:
(a) The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the
dwelling is addressed;
(b) When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly
parallel streets, dwellings shall not be addressed or accessed from the shared
street;
(c) (b) A minimum of 30 square feet of glazing must be on the portion of the
Page 36 of 208
Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 2
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;
(d)(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral part of
the dwelling architecture;
(e)(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 the ordinance codified in this chapter 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.
(f)(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches;
(g)(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;
(h)(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted, except fenestrated false or
artificial dormers on roofs with at least a 5/12 pitch;
(i)(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block;
(j)(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must
meet seismic and wind loading standards for Franklin County, Washington;
(k)(j) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls
facing a street;
(l)(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;
(m)(l) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation one and one-half
to two inches. A bottom trim board does not qualify as siding and cannot be
used to cover the top of the foundation;
(n)(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;
(o)(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;
(p)(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;
(q)(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;
Page 37 of 208
Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 3
(r)(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
25.200.080. [Ord. 4358 § 1, 2017; Ord. 4110 § 26, 2013; Ord. 3731 § 23, 2005;
Code 1970 § 25.70.085.]
Section 2. That Section of PMC 25.180.050 entitled “Design Standards” is hereby
amended and shall read as follows:
25.180.050 Design standards.
(1) Fences, Walls and Hedges.
(a) The height of fences, walls and hedges located between a structure and
street or alley shall be measured from the street curb or alley grade except in
those cases where topographical irregularities occur. The height of fences,
walls and hedges between a structure and a common lot line shall be
measured from the grade along the common lot line or top of any structural
retaining wall occurring at the common lot line.
(b) Fences and walls in commercial districts shall complement the materials
used in any principal on-site structures.
(c) The height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5 feet within the
front yard area of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned
lots; provided, when two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots
separated only by an alley right-of-way, form the entire frontage between
parallel or nearly parallel streets, the height of fences, walls and hedges shall
be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street; except
where the front door of a house faces the side street all fences greater than
3.5 feet in height must be set back to the building line of the house facing
the side street.15 feet from the property line adjacent to the side street.
(d) The height of fences, walls and hedges within the side and rear yards of
residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots shall be limited
to six feet. A gate or opening with a minimum three foot width leading into
at least one side yard shall be provided.
(e) Fences shall not be constructed out of tires, pallets, bed springs, multi-
colored materials, tarps, plastic sheets, corrugated sheet metal, except in
industrial districts, wheel rims and similar or like materials not traditionally
manufactured or used for fencing purposes. Hog wire, chicken wire,
horseman wire mesh, v-mesh, field fence, woven field fence, welded utility
fence, or any similar or like wire fencing material is not permitted in
residential or commercial zones. Horseman wire mesh and the other wire
fencing listed above may be permitted in suburban residential districts on
tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. Fences built
Page 38 of 208
Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 4
with valid permits prior to the effective date of this chapter or fences on
properties annexed to the City after the effective date of this chapter are
exempt from this subsection.
(f) Fences constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block
columns of up to five feet in height may be permitted within front yards in
the R-S-20 and R-S-12 districts provided said fencing is 85 percent
transparent.
(g) Barbed and razor wire fencing is prohibited in all residential districts, in the
office district and the central business district. Barbed wire may be
permitted in suburban residential districts on tracts larger than one acre that
are used for animal husbandry. In the C-1 retail business district only one
strand of barbed wire is permitted along the top rail or within two inches of
the top rail.
(h) Electrified fences are not permitted in residential districts except as a
secondary means of securing property where the electrified fence is located
behind an existing fence or in suburban districts to contain permitted farm
animals.
(i) In all front yards, whether on properties with single, double, or triple
frontage, rails, posts and other structural fence supports shall not be visible
from a public street; except that posts and rails that are an integral part of the
fence design and aesthetics and not used solely for structural support may be visible
from a public street.
(j) All fencing in commercial and industrial districts shall be placed on the
inward side of any required perimeter landscaping, with landscape
treatments occurring along the street frontage.
(k) No fence, wall or hedge, landscape material or foliage higher than three feet
above curb grade shall be located or planted within an area 20 feet along the
property lines from the intersection of two streets, including the area
between such points, or 15 feet from the intersection of a street and an alley;
provided, however, that if an alternative fence material is used, such as
masonry, wrought iron, wood, or combination thereof, then the fence must
be 75 percent transparent and may be a maximum six feet in height; or a
smaller, 75 percent transparent fence set upon a maximum three-foot wall
or other structure not exceeding a combined height of six feet may be
erected within said area of intersection of street and alley, so long as the
fence is at all times unobstructed by foliage or other matter.
(l) Fences constructed in any zoning district may be permitted at the back of
sidewalks in public right-of-way upon approval of the City Engineer, except
as provided in PMC 25.180.050(1)(j).
(m) All residential fencing within the I-182 overlay district, as defined by PMC
25.130.020, adjacent to the I-182 right-of-way shall be constructed of
masonry block. Replacement of pre- existing Surewood fences within the
district shall use masonry block or cedar material prescribed by the City as
Page 39 of 208
Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 5
prestained, knotless cedar 23/32-inch thick, five and one-half inches wide
and six feet tall.
(n) No fence or wall shall be erected without first obtaining a building permit
from the Building Inspector.
(2) Clearance Distances. Where a fire hydrant is located within a landscape area it
shall be complemented by a minimum clearance radius of three feet; no tree, as
measured from its center, shall be located within 10 feet of a street light
standard, or within five feet of a driveway or a fire hydrant.
(3) Commercial and Industrial Districts.
(a) The first 10 feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting an
arterial street and the first five feet of all commercial and industrial property
abutting a local access street shall be treated with landscaping at the time
the property is developed. No less than 65 percent of the landscaped area
must be treated with live vegetation at the time of planting.
(b) In addition to the requirements contained in this chapter and unless specified
otherwise in Chapter 25.130 PMC, commercially and industrially zoned
properties adjacent to properties in less intense zoning districts shall have a
10-foot landscape buffer on the side immediately adjacent to the less intense
zoning district. The landscaped buffer shall meet the following standards:
(i) Live vegetation within the landscape buffer shall be planted with a mix
of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs interspersed throughout
the landscape buffer.
(ii) The live vegetation shall consist of 40 percent evergreen trees.
(iii) Trees shall be provided at a minimum rate of one tree for every 20
linear feet of property line and spaced no more than 30 feet on center
spacing along each property line, unless planted in groupings of three
trees, with groupings spaced no more than 50 feet on center along each
property line.
(iv) Shrubs shall be provided at a minimum rate of one per eight linear feet
of property line and spaced no more than 16 feet apart on center.
(v) Parking lots located adjacent to properties in less intense zoning
districts require 100 percent of the landscape buffer to be planted with
live vegetation.
(c) The area between property lines and the back edge of street curbs, within
right-of-way and exclusive of sidewalks and driveways for ingress/egress,
shall be treated with landscape materials.
(4) Residential Districts. At least 50 percent of the required front yard area for all
residential property, including right-of-way but excluding driveways, shall be
treated with live vegetation. Planting strips shall be treated as per PMC 12.12.070;
and
(5) All areas of a lot or parcel not landscaped or covered with improvements shall
Page 40 of 208
Ordinance - Amending PMC 25.165.100 & PMC 25.180.050 - 6
be maintained in such a manner as to control erosion and dust. Gardens within
established landscapes are excluded from this provision in residential districts.
Front yard areas not covered by the required 50 percent live vegetation must be
covered by mulches or decorative rock. [Ord. 4157 § 1, 2014; Ord. 4110 § 28,
2013; Ord. 3763 §10, 2006; Code 1970 § 25.75.050.]
Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington this ___ day of _____,
202_.
_____________________________
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________________
Page 41 of 208
Page 42 of 208
Page 43 of 208
EXHIBIT C
Page 44 of 208
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 2021
6:30 PM
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I
SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing
Background
Current fencing regulations on corner lots have created situations where property owners have
lodged complaints alleging “overreach”. Requests for an analysis into fence standards have
been received by Planning staff.
Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front
yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street
front yard area on corner lots the following applies:
(1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-
way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges
shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Figure 1.
(2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater
than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Figure 2.
Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in
height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing
restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line.
An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in
height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This
fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the
fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent.
Analysis
City Planning staff has reviewed the PMC and analyzed recently platted land for potential fencing
issues within flanking front yard areas. Through this analysis it was noted that currently many
lots do not exist that still have the potential for stringent fence height restrictions in flanking front
yards. It was also noted that many of the restricted lots were created within the past 10 years
and that further review during platting processes (specifically PMC 21.20) regarding design of
Lots and Blocks would be able to mitigate the creation of lots with problematic fence height
restrictions.
Page 45 of 208
2
Through the analysis three options were drafted for consideration for fencing in flanking front
yards, with their associated pros and cons:
Option 1: Allow fences up to 6’ in height within the flanking front yard area provided the fence is
s setback a minimum of 10’ from the adjacent property line. See Figure 3.
Pros:
i. Allows for taller fencing in flanking front yard areas.
Cons:
i. Neighboring property would then have a 6’ fence within a portion
of their front yard area should the fence be located on the shared
property line.
ii. If neighboring property has their driveway located near the shared
property line with fencing-vision then may be an issue. Reversing
out of the driveway adjacent to the 6’ fencing would cause visibility
disruption of traffic on the shared frontage. This visibility disruption
is also a safety consideration for any pedestrians that may be
crossing the driveway area from the fence side.
Option 2: Allow fences up to 6’ in height setback to the building line of the dwelling on the subject
p parcel. The provision for the setback to the neighbors dwelling line would remain for s
I t situations where the dwelling is setback further than the neighboring dwelling.
Pros:
i. In situations where the adjacent dwelling is setback further than
the minimum setback requirement this would allow 6’ fencing to
be uniformly placed with the building line of the dwelling, but also
allows for additional space in unique circumstances where the
neighboring dwelling has a smaller setback to the shared frontage
property line.
Cons:
i. Only benefits situations where the adjacent dwelling is located
closer to the shared frontage property line than the subject
dwelling.
Option 3: Maintain current PMC and Standards.
Pros:
i. The current fence code allows for proper and standard locations of
fencing provided that plats are created and platted such that they
meet the PMC in regard to design of lots and blocks.
Page 46 of 208
3
Cons:
i. Existing lots will still maintain fencing restrictions in flanking front
yard areas.
Next Steps
Staff is seeking initial comments and feedback before moving forward with any proposals or
recommendations for an amendment to the PMC.
Page 47 of 208
Page 48 of 208
Page 49 of 208
Page 50 of 208
Page 51 of 208
Page 52 of 208
Page 53 of 208
Page 54 of 208
Page 55 of 208
Page 56 of 208
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
DATE: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2021
6:30 PM
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I
SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing
Background
Current fencing regulations on corner lots have created situations where property owners have
lodged complaints alleging “overreach”. Requests for an analysis into fence standards have
been received by Planning staff.
Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front
yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street
front yard area on corner lots the following applies:
(1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-
way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges
shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Figure 1.
(2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater
than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Figure 2.
Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in
height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing
restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line.
An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in
height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This
fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the
fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent.
Analysis
City Planning staff has reviewed the PMC and analyzed recently platted land for potential fencing
issues within flanking front yard areas. Through this analysis it was noted that currently many
lots do not exist that still have the potential for stringent fence height restrictions in flanking front
yards. It was also noted that many of the restricted lots were created within the past 10 years
and that further review during platting processes (specifically PMC 21.20) regarding design of
Lots and Blocks would be able to mitigate the creation of lots with problematic fence height
restrictions.
Page 57 of 208
2
Through the analysis three options were drafted for consideration for fencing in flanking front
yards, with their associated pros and cons:
Option 1: Allow fences up to 6’ in height within the flanking front yard area provided the fence is
s setback a minimum of 10’ from the adjacent property line. See Figure 3.
Pros:
i. Allows for taller fencing in flanking front yard areas.
Cons:
i. Neighboring property would then have a 6’ fence within a portion
of their front yard area should the fence be located on the shared
property line.
ii. If neighboring property has their driveway located near the shared
property line with fencing-vision then may be an issue. Reversing
out of the driveway adjacent to the 6’ fencing would cause visibility
disruption of traffic on the shared frontage. This visibility disruption
is also a safety consideration for any pedestrians that may be
crossing the driveway area from the fence side.
Option 2: Allow fences up to 6’ in height setback to the building line of the dwelling on the subject
p parcel. The provision for the setback to the neighbors dwelling line would remain for s
I t situations where the dwelling is setback further than the neighboring dwelling.
Pros:
i. In situations where the adjacent dwelling is setback further than
the minimum setback requirement this would allow 6’ fencing to
be uniformly placed with the building line of the dwelling, but also
allows for additional space in unique circumstances where the
neighboring dwelling has a smaller setback to the shared frontage
property line.
Cons:
i. Only benefits situations where the adjacent dwelling is located
closer to the shared frontage property line than the subject
dwelling.
Option 3: Maintain current PMC and Standards.
Pros:
i. The current fence code allows for proper and standard locations of
fencing provided that plats are created and platted such that they
meet the PMC in regard to design of lots and blocks.
Page 58 of 208
3
Cons:
i. Existing lots will still maintain fencing restrictions in flanking front
yard areas.
Next Steps
Staff is seeking comments and feedback about the most suitable option or direction before
moving forward with any proposals or recommendations for an amendment to the PMC.
Page 59 of 208
Page 60 of 208
Page 61 of 208
Page 62 of 208
Page 63 of 208
Page 64 of 208
Page 65 of 208
Page 66 of 208
Page 67 of 208
Page 68 of 208
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETINGMINUTES
é Pcltyoj City Hall—Council Chambers
I 0 525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,AUGUST 19,2021
6:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Tanya
Bowers.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:Tanya Bowers,Jay Hendler,Jerry Cochran Telephone:Isaac Myhrum,Abel
Campos and Rachel Teel a quorum was declared.
Commissioners Absent:Joseph Campos,Paul Mendez,Kim Lehrman
Staff Present:Community &Economic Development Director Rick White,Senior Planner Jacob
Gonzalez,Andrew Hattori Planner 1,Administrative Assistant II Kristin Webb.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Tanya Bowers led the Pledge of Allegiance.
WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Bowers explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers
appointed by City Council.
She further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendations to
City Council regarding changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant
Allocations and Zoning Code.The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term
growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community,
livability,economic opportunity,housing affordability,public services and the environment.
Chair Cochran reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of
Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times
during the next month.
She stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website,
which is Pasco-wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there.
Chair Cochran stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table.
He then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting.
For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission,please
come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and city of address for
the record.
Chair Bowers reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law
requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair,but also appear to be
fair.In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating
in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either benefited
or harmed by the Planning Commission’s decision.An objection to any Planning Commission
member hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 18 August I9,2021
Page 69 of 208
She asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time
regarding any of the items on the agenda.
There were no declarations.
Chair Bowers asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing
any of the items on the agenda.
There were no declarations.
Chair Bowers stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped
the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendations to City
Council.Furthermore,in many cases,this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and
opinions placed into the of?cial record and City Council will use to make the Commission’s decision.
He encouraged those present to take ?all advantage of this opportunity.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
'3'Commissioner Jerry Cochran moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting
Minutes of July 15,2021.Commissioner Hendler seconded,and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Drive-Through F acilig Design Standards §MF#CA 2021-004}Jacob Gonzalez,Senior Planner
stated this item is to discuss an update on our proposal to create standards for dry through facilities.
Currently,the City Pasco does not have speci?c standards for drive through facilities,so there's no
standards with regards to stacking Lane location of the drive through Lane site design,et cetera.
This has created some inconsistencies in the development review process and certainly has
increased the amount of time and challenges throughout the development review process with
prospective applicants here at the city.
I'll do my best to answer any questions throughout the presentation.On the next slide,there's a
quick overview map.There's approximately 56 drive through facility establishments in the city of
Pasco.They range from having stacking lanes as minimal as none all the way to 450ft.And as I
mentioned at the prior meeting,there is no consistency between business uses and the length of
their stacking lane either.Some fast-food restaurants have an appropriate model space,others do
not,and they're not broken down by location either.Currently today that you kind of see the lack of
design standards has led to kind of a mix of what we see here at the city today.On the next slide.
And so obviously,with the lack of standards,we end up with signi?cant con?ict points both inside
the site and off site.So,you can see on the screen here there's two different locations,one that leads
to the increase in circus along the pedestrian sidewalk and circus that leaded to entrance and exit
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 70 of 208
ways onto the public right away.That's West Court Street,just east of US 395.And while those
con?ict points exist as you enter and exit each business,as we turn onto the middle turn Lane or
around,the two lanes are on Court Street,very heavily used corridor that presents additional
problems and safety hazards.
Additionally,within the site,you can see on the picture on the bottom right that the chewing Lane
is interviews with the drive through access.With the parking lot access,you've also got three or
four businesses.They're all with separate drive through sites.It creates additional con?ict points
within the site.And on that one,there's even some challenges with vehicles that end up on the
public right away,and that's on Burden Boulevard,again,just east of Road 68.So,again,another
safety challenge for the city.
So next,we have some general policy guidance,and I'd like to focus in on speci?cally the
Comprehensive Plan Implementation Policy‘one a which is for the city to maintain code standards
and guidelines which are clear,concise,and objective.We believe that this proposal currently
meets the intent of the goals and policies of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan.On the next
slide,a few highlights of how we intended to derive the standards that are before you this evening,
and that is based on location parking and circulation,vehicle stacking or queue lengths and site
planning.On the next slide,a few of the breakdowns of the proposed criteria.The proposal today
would limit the location of a drive through facility within 125?of a residential,land use or zone.
They would not be permitted within 300ft of a signalized intersection below the level of service C.
And that kind of correlates back to our ongoing transportation system master plan with regards to
access management.We're trying to align all of our long-range planning efforts as well.
Not permitted within the Central District.Currently,the Central Business District or downtown
does prohibit auto oriented uses.This would further clarify that as well;the entrances would not be
permitted within 175ft from a public shooter intersection.This is to eliminate those circumstances
where we have both the interference in the public right away and again,entrances would not be
permitted within l50ft of another drive through business.To help with the access management.
You will notice in the draft ordinance for you tonight that there are some provisions for if there are
businesses that are side by side that they would have reciprocal inside the site versus car needed to
travel into the right of way to make a quick left or right turn.
With regards to criteria on parking circulation,some basic guidelines here.Primary access shall be
on an arterial or a collector street.The minimized attorney movements and con?icts on the public
streets.We believe that would be served by that provision,separate queuing,and circulation paths,
minimizing curb cuts.And again,that reciprocal access within the adjacent business.So again,
some standard guidelines.On the next slide,when we discussed the sacking and queue length
process,we would require clear signage and markings.Drive through Lane entrances located
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18 August I9,2021
Page 71 of 208
should be located deep within the site.You can see here we've got two adjacent businesses on
Court Street,and you can see that the business to the right has their drive through situated all the
way to the Northern end of their site,which not only offers additional stacking length,but also try
to ensure that those cars are not backing up into the right of way.And we see the business just to
the west of that that does not have that option,although they may have during the time of
development,but obviously without the standards,we had nothing to rely on.And so again,this is
to help with the site planning process of any establishment.And on the next slide,the table that
we're referring to quite a bit when we move forward with potentially this process is the speci?c
drive through queuing lanes,distance requirements for these establishments.There were some
emissions at the prior meeting,so we've added pharmacies and drug stores that is now on
there.You can see ?nancial institutions and banks,the copy with indoor seating,espresso stand.
This addresses some of our special stands around the community restaurants,self-service car
washes,full-service car washes,gasoline stations.
It's simply kind of impossible to try to identify every single business that may or may not use a
drive through.Our intent would be to require documentation and the review process that justi?es
the applicants proposed queuing Lane during the review process on the site planning.We had
mentioned when we brought this to the Planning Commission back early in the year or late 2020
that we also wanted to use this as an opportunity to enhance the public realm or the built
environment.
We've required that,when possible,buildings would be oriented towards the public street,the
service Loading areas located away from public right away.And we have other provisions in the
code that would require things along that as well.Compliance,obviously with the noise regulations
and entrance is again not permitted within the l75?from a public street intersection.So that kind
of concludes tonight or this evening's presentation.Happy to answer or address comments from the
Planning Commission or public.As a reminder,there was an environmental determination of non-
signi?cance issued in March,and there is a staff recommendation for approval to the City Council
on this item as well.
With that,I'll end the presentation and answer any questions.Thank you.
Commissioner Teel stated can you go back to the slide that had the Court Street and the Burden
pictures on there,please?Let's look at the one on Burden.How would the new standards ?x what's
there?
Mr.Gonzalez,we have an espresso stand that does not have clear markings.I don't believe they do.
I don't believe they exist.We also got the Queuelanes that are being interfered with the Dairy
Queen on that location.The Stacking Lane interferes with the access of the parking lot.It also
interferes with access to business immediately to the north.We've also got this interesting.It's not
signed,but you got an exit entrance.Exit entrance just north of that site,which can create quite a
problem,especially as you're located just north of Burden Boulevard.We had a chance to redo this
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 72 of 208
entire site.These regulations may come in to help mitigate to remove some of these con?ict points
outside of the site and potentially within the site as well.I also think kind going back to the
Comprehensive Plan Implementation Policy with regards to our codes and standards,the intent is to
be as objective and practical as possible.We certainly don't want to be overburdened some,but we
want to be careful.My guess is that we'll get a business that needs ten extra feet,although we didn't
require it.
There's only so much sort of future proo?ng we can do with our regulations.But had we had this in
place for both the Burden and Court Street examples,I think both of those sites would look
signi?cantly different.Speci?cally,on Court Street.Those businesses.We would have tried to
utilize the reciprocal access requirement for those folks to utilize the internal site versus interfering
with public right away.
Commissioner Bowers asked for the one on Burden,would that meet the distance from the
residential area?
Jacob Gonzalez stated there is.I'm not sure about the distance from the car wash to the residential
lots to the north.The requirement is for 125?,so it may come close,and it's based on where the
primary entrance or where a menu board may be.However,if there is an establishment that's l26ft
away,they would be required to have the site screening and noise mitigation measures as indicated
in the draft ordinance for you.
Commissioner Bowers stated and so basically,these two streets would get Grand mothered in.
Jacob Gonzalez stated yes,there is a provision that code there's existing businesses.If there's some
infrastructure improvements and they might be required to comply with in you code,I'm not sure
that‘d be more of I think maybe a building of?cial decision there with regards to Central Pasco,
which we've de?ned as the city between 395 Organ Avenue,the Columbia River and US twelve or
highway twelve.Our intent is the provision states that the application for businesses within that
area shall fully comply the requirements of this potential chapter if we try to.I think the fear is that
we would try to require a seven auto oriented use in a location of the city that was not built for that.
It might eliminate a lot of businesses from even having the potential to locate in Central Pasco.And
that's certainly not our intent either across the city,but we want to be sensitive to the characteristics
of the surrounding built environment and development patterns.
Commissioner Cochran asked are we the only city right now that's going to have these kinds of
standards in the Tri cities or are others doing similar things?
Mr.Gonzalez stated there's not clear requirements that I've come across.I'm not sure I've seen
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of l8 August I9,2021
Page 73 of 208
speci?c.I have not come across speci?c drive through regulation standards.They might be
adjusted through more detailed site development patterns or requirements,but there are numerous
cities that do have speci?c drive through criteria.They range from obviously the big Metropolitan
areas down to some smaller cities on the Northeast,Maine and that part of the country,but they all
vary.Our intent with this was to sort of provide a decent and appropriate number of regulations,
especially since this is our ?rst attempt.But we think these would be very valuable for businesses
as they look to locate in the city of Pasco.
Commissioner Cochran stated well,you seem to have started a good balance,and it seems like the
previous slide where you have the heat map,it would have cleared up a lot of that heat map if these
standards would have been in place.Have you had any feedback from the development commercial
community on these at all?
Mr.Gonzalez stated we have not we've not heard anything.I think this is our second public
hearing,but we have not heard anything from any businesses.What we heard prior to this effort
was what's the requirement?
Commissioner Myhrum stated,just a quick question.So,I'm understanding.The mitigation
requirements are required if the setback provision can't be met,is that correct?Or is mitigation like
noise and visual mitigation always required?Or can you get around it?If you meet the space
requirements.
Mr.Gonzalez responded we have our normal noise ordinance that applies to any business.It's
speci?cally referenced again in this proposal just to be certain about that impact.We also have site
screening standards that apply across the entire city and they're different depending on the corridor.
So,the additional provisions in this requirement would be within a certain distance of a residential
land user zoning district.And I just wanted to add I was looking for it here on the ordinance on
under the Noise section.Number ?ve,it States that a mitigation checklist for noise must be
submitted by an applicant when their proposed application is within 300ft of a residential and use.
And that checklist simply States that they're compliant with the city's noise ordinance and that
they've complied with the screening and noise standard or mitigation noise walls,etc.
Commissioner Myhrum stated,in that same paragraph,Mr Gonzales,on noise,I notice number two
has language saying that drive through windows is discouraged on certain parts of the building.
That term discouraged.Does that come with some ?exibility?How does that get interpreted by an
examiner or the city when making those kinds of decisions?
Mr.Gonzalez responded there is no other feasible manner for which a business to be located and its
menu board or speakers can only exist facing the public right away,I think that might be the only
situation in which staff would be okay with interpreting this as discouraged but allowed in this
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 74 of 208
case.Now,we can certainly re strike that and just eliminate that as an option.But again,with the
city's first attempt to establish strike through regulations,we don't want to be too restrictive either.
A site check will have to be done to identify how many businesses do have a set up where their
menu speaker boards facing the public right away.
Commissioner Myhrum stated great.Thank you.I appreciate that.And agree with you that having
?exibility there is good.And it sort of allows for extenuating circumstances as sort of a last resort
option.Thank you very much.
Commissioner Campos had a question regarding counting like a single Lane drive through or was
using a double lane that we,see?Does that count too as far as the capacity for amount of feet?
Jacob Gonzalez stated it would be both.If there was a ?nancial institution and they had two second
lines or three,they would have to have a minimum l60ft capacity.And we've also got a provision
that has indicated that it's 20ft per car.I guess we're trying to mitigate that kind of wiggle room
where they've got an odd number that wouldn't physically ?t a vehicle.We've got provisions for the
length of a vehicle as well in the code in that section.But it could include both.It could be 160 foot
one Lane or it could be 280 foot stacking lines.
Commissioner Bowers opened to the public hearing to speak on this particular item,please state
your name and city for the record.
Commissioner Hendler had a question on what impact would just have on the existing facilities
now?I'm just curious to know how these things would have changed had this ordinance been in
place.Any thought on that?
Mr.Gonzalez stated there's a few locations where the sites would have been altered on Court
Street.But those businesses have been there for quite a few decades.When the McDonald's on
Court Street went through its reconstruction,they signi?cantly expanded their stacking lanes and
also improve the site itself.So that's a case where our standards are minimum.You have a business
that's gone a little bit above what's necessary,but they understand their market better than we do in
the planning.Certainly,there's probably a few locations spread throughout the city,I would think
speci?cally on the espresso and coffee locations,like the copy business.Just that was in I think the
other side,we were talking about location deep in a lot,depending on the length of their property.
We would have required that Queuing Lane to be situated deep into the lot versus so close to the
entrance to the public right away.So that would be one that would likely have changed.
We probably would have tried to identify if there's some opportunities for reciprocal access.
Commissioner Hendler stated so it sounds good.It seems like you've done a lot of work in a lot of
research,and it seems like a perfect world here.We should get this thing on the books and get
going and monitor how it’s received and be ?exible to the extent that we must.Just so I think it's a
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 75 of 208
good idea.Anyway,I thank you again.
Commissioner Bowers made a motion to close public hearing.Commissioner Campos
recommended to the City Council.The proposed amendment creating a ?ction of the past to mingle
code or drive to facility design centers is continued as contained in the August 19,2021,Planning
Commission staff report.Second by Hendler.All those opposed,Hearing none,the motion passed
unanimously.
Mr.Gonzalez stated yes,the ordinance will be aviated by our legal Department and then schedule
for a workshop at the City Council this fall.
B.Short-Term Residential Rentals §MF#CA 2021-006[-Rick White,Director stated there
are two adjustments to the agenda that this item short term residential rentals should be moved to
the workshop version of the meeting underneath corner lot sensing and item D.The planned unit
development should also be moved to the workshop portion of the agenda.
Commissioner Bowers stated thank you so much for letting us know that I believe that means that
we are going I'm sorry you said item B and D or move to workshop.
Yes,moving on to the next item.
C.Car Washes Adjacent Residential Zoning Districts §MF#CA 2021-007 )-Rick White,
Director stated the Commission has seen several times now,most recently last month at a
workshop session,I will dispense with going through the staff report.It's basically identical to what
it was in July and in May,for that matter.We do have the proposed ordinance for your
consideration.The changes are shown in red.I would add that the previous item that Mr.Gonzalez
discussed in the ordinance under number 14,section C will need to be stricken because that's going
to be covered in our drive through regulations.So,the Commission can either delay this item for a
month for staff to come back with the ordinance that delete Subsection C,or you can recommend
your approval based on the assumption that Subsection C will be deleted.But in whole,I think
everything has been included in the ordinance that was discussed.We rely heavily on our existing
noise ordinance,for example,as contained in Subsection B.We do have standards for fencing
which re?ect some code provisions in other areas of our zoning code.And then we have language
related to hours of operation that are limited when they're less than 300?from a residential area,
but not when they're greater than 300?from a residential.
Commissioner Cochran stated the only thing I was curious,I don't think we've talked about this
before is it says the total number base shall be limited to ?ve.Does that mean when it's not a drive
through and it's like one of the self-car washes versus eight.Yes,because it doesn't really specify.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 76 of 208
Like because we really don't apply to a Mister car wash kind of thing where you just go through.
Rick White,Director stated yes,and we have had quite a discussion.We're not sure that coin
operated lashes are being built.I haven't seen any anywhere,in other cities as well.
Commissioner Bowers had a question about Liberty car washes,how many feet from the residential
neighborhood?That's the one on Convention and Vernon.
Rick White,Director stated it is adjacent to a residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Bowers asked how many square feet is that?
Rick White,Director answered maybe 40ft,maybe 50.
Commissioner Bowers stated so that would not be allowed under this new ordinance.And the other
thing that caught my attention was under number three on page three.In terms of noise.I was just
thinking about those vacuums at Liberty.Do we ever get complaints from residents?
Rick White,Director stated strangely,no,we get complaints about the gym on Burden,which is
almost next door because they toss tires early in the morning for some kind of exercise.But no,not
the vacuums.
Commissioner Bowers stated I'm so happy I don't live right behind there.But that is good to know.
That was.I mean,the vacuums were a question.I'm happy to see we're talking about noise
mitigation because I would not want to buy a house and have it be close to a car wash and then
have to hear vacuum at any hour of the day.
Rick White,Director responded just for the commission’s information,the existing noise ordinance
is based out of state law.That not only Pasco,I think every city in Washington state uses pretty
much the same thing,but it is extremely sensitive.My voice right now would be exceeding the
noise limits past 10:00 p.m.Just so you know,the noise limits are very sensitive to the receiving
property,the residential property.
Commissioner Teel had a question regarding the effectiveness of this car wash with new ones build
in the future?
Director Rick White responded it won't affect current car washes,they're grandfathered in.They
were developed under applicable regulations because we still have the noise ordinance which
precludes noise above certain decibel readings depending on the receiving property and on the time
of day or night.
Commissioner Handler had a question about complaints from the residential community.
Director Rick White responded we haven't.If where any it would be reviewed through our existing
noise regulations.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 77 of 208
Commissioner Myhrum asked so there is an applicant who requested that such facilities be allowed
within a 300-foot radius.A residential zoning was city code at that time.Was it not as sort of
descript in allowing those kinds of activities?And that's why it was requested,or it was just this
applicant had a very speci?c project and application and wanted to make an exception just for that
zoning district.
Director Rick White responded the existing code required a 300-foot distance from residential areas
just ?at out.And that was done maybe at ten years ago.
Commissioner Bowers opened the public hearing for individuals who wish to speak on this
particular item.
Resident of West Richland Rick Simon stated he was the individual that ?led the original code
amendment to allow car washes in the C-3 zone within 300?.Speaking on behalf of John Ramsay
and Broadmoor RV.We just want to go on record as saying we are supportive of the code
amendment as dra?ed by staff and we commend them for their good work on that.I believe that it
will provide a good opportunity for price of business to construct car washes that are going to be in
good locations for both the community and still protective of the residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Bowers made a motion to close the public hearing and stated it was moved by
Commissioner Cochran and seconded by Commissioner Myhrum.Let the record show that was
passed unanimously,and second motion was made by Commissioner Cochran and seconded by
Commissioner Handler.Let the record show that was passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bowers asked for further explanation from staff.
Director Rick White stated this will go to City Council for a workshop setting,and then it should
proceed to public hearing after that workshop discussion.
WORKSHOP
Workshop-Short-Term Residential Rentals §MF#CA2021-006}Rick White,Directorstated
our existing municipal code has basically no mention of short-term rentals.With the term Airbnb,I
guess.And that kind of thing are not permitted in Pasco because it doesn't say they are permitted.
But there's no code citation that references their prohibition either.What the proposed code
amendment does is clari?es several sections in the municipal code to deal with de?nitions,
including.It includes a revision to the de?nition for taxes.In chapter three,talks about the
character of the applicant that the police chief investigates in relation to rental units,and then the
remainder of the ordinance clari?es de?nitions contained in our zoning code.Essentially,it clears
things up and doesn't really provide for any new regulation.But it does help staff,not just planning
staff,but the ?nance staff deal with request for license.Business license for short tenn rental units.
Kind of a very brief explanation.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 78 of 208
Commissioner Cochran stated there is no clarity,a big concern about ADU is your neighbor builds
one and rents it out,people trash it.And seems this will address that issue as it must comply with
short term rental code.
Commissioner Cochran Stated he noticed some cities some cities like Chelan have short-term
rentals by zoning,are we doing the same or are they going to be adaptable and tweakable on per
zone basis?
Director Rick White stated they can always return to the Commission and Council.On
contrary to car washes,this item to generate a lot of complaints.Code enforcement deals with
maybe 20 to 30 of these a year,but they're intended for weekends or a week.
Commissioner Hendler what is the de?nition of a short-term rental?Is there a time span on that?
Director Rick White Stated yes,it re?ects the state de?nition,30 days or less.
Commissioner Hendler so you can rent it to a party for 30 days at the end of 30 days are out.Can
somebody else come in and run for another 30 days,so you can rent this Airbnb all yearlong.
Director Rick White answered yes,they are not de?ned as permitted use.Family dwellings,
accessory uses,etc.,short term rentals.But it doesn't say that.It’s set up like a Pyramid,if it's not
stated as permitted use,it's prohibited.We can return for a formal recommendation,?rst time
seeing this,if you are comfortable,we can move forward,its up to commission.
Commissioner Teel asked how does it look in other cities,Richland,or Kennewick?
Director Rick White stated he can get back to her with that information.
Commissioner Myhrum stated could there be a framework for allowing these sorts of rentals on a
long-term basis,assuming they went through a special permitting process?And is that something
that to be rolled up into an application process?Are the code enforcement complaints coming from
the fact that they're just as no clarity?That's creating complaints because they're not allowed
explicitly.That's the complaint not necessarily that they're,you know,partying every weekend,but
because there's ambiguity.
Director Rick White stated the code enforcement complaint center on the transitory nature of the
units.People are not comfortable with someone being there for three days and then someone being
there for seven,somebody different being there for seven.Somebody knew being there for four.
Commissioner Myhrum complaints come because there is no policy allowing short term rentals of
this kind.I guess my concern is that we're kind of taking the hard no approach and not looking at
some of the positive bene?ts that could come to this kind of development,which,again,this is not
as speci?c.It is an acceptable form of short-term rental in many parts of the country is not all.But
is it worthy of having this bigger debate about the use of Airbnb and Pasco?There is interest and
people will express it.Broader conversation is needed about this policy.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 1 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 79 of 208
Director Rick White stated again,certainly the Commission is welcome to give staff direction in
that regard.I'm just thinking off the top of my head,maybe certain amount of lot size and maybe a
special permit.Something along those lines.We could probably come up with some criteria,
situational circumstances that would warrant application.
Commissioner Myhrum states it just seems like the approach has written in this ordinance basically
outlaws any kind of short-term rental in all the residential zone.It's a hard de?ned no.Whereas
with this ambiguity,is this an opportunity to review.Maybe we could have a policy that does
accommodate this to some extent.
Commissioner Cochran like to see a comparison about other cities,maybe having a tailored
approach,having a lot density,or zoning density.When you have a big 2-acre lot and having an
Airbnb compared to having a 9000 square foot lot and you have an Airbnb on it.A tailored
approach helps with property owners that want to do this and allows that kind of economy.
Commissioner Bowers what needs to we have for short term rentals,we have enough hotels,and
they are converting hotels to be affordable housing.Huge families,visiting Doctors or nurses?
Commissioner Hendler stated if it’s a residential use,why do we care?It just seems to me like,I
don't know that we're gaining that much by having short term rental restrictions on a residential
property.
Commissioner Bowers other thoughts for Mr.White to consider?We want a comparison to similar
municipalities,around the area and the state.
Commissioner Teel is curious about how many are in Pasco available now.
Director Rick White answered they do not get licensed;we do not have a way of knowing.
Commissioner Cochran stated a special permitting process that allows it for a year or two years.
Commissioner Bowers stated not ready to move this to public hearing,need more work.
Director White stated 1 capture the ?ve concerns.We'll have some comparisons.We'll look at
available processes and criteria,including complaints or lot size and come back to the Commission.
WorskshoQ-Corner Lot Fencing Andrew Hattori Planner I stated first time meeting,I do
review a lot of building permits,particularly fences.And recently we have had a lot of complaints
Lodge regarding overreach of our fencing height restrictions,especially on comer lots.And do this.
We've done a lot of analysis into what our code says and how we might be able to maybe modify
that or maintain it.The high defenses,walls and hedges shall be limited to three and a half feet
within the front yard area of residentially zoned lots,retail business,C one and office zone lots
provided.When two contiguous or touching comer lots or two comer lots separated only by an Olli
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 80 of 208
way,our alley ride of way formed the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets.
The height of fences,walls and hedges shall be limited to 6ft within the front yard adjacent to the
side
Except for the front door of a house faces the side street.Offences greater than three and a half feet
in height must be set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.I've created a few
diagrams to kind of go through to kind of depict what our fencing height requirements for corn oats
are.Our ?rst image on the screen shows when two comer lots have the dwellings facing the
parallel streets and neither dwelling accesses the shared ?anking street.
Six-foot-tall fencing or fence is greater than three and a half feet may extend into the green shaded
area,the ?anking front yard area.And so,this is the ideal situation.
Six-foot—tallfencing or fence is greater than three and a half feet may extend into the green shaded
area,the ?anking front yard area.This is the ideal situation.this is kind of a realistic look of what
this looks like around the city of Pasco.You can see the fence extends all the way out to the
sidewalk,and neither of those houses have their entries facing the shared ?anking street.Now,the
second option or the second scenario that comes from our current code,is where one of the
dwelling does access the shared ?anking street.
Dwelling or the home on the right accesses the ?anking street or the I apologize the side street.And
the fencing for the house on the left cannot extend all the way out into the green area or up to the
property line.Our code stipulates that that fence must,at a minimum,be set back to the building
line of the neighboring property.The house is on the left.You can only have fencing greater than
three and a half feet out to the building line of the neighboring
And so this is where a lot of the concerns of overreach come from where in certain situations,yes,
you can have your fence out to your property line.But if your neighbor's house now points to the
side street,you can no longer do that.And this also works.If the house on the right is set back
further than the house on the left,that fence must be set back further than the building line of the
house on the left.You could effectively have a fence at your dining room window.
That's another major concern that we've seen.What we're looking for right now is some initial
comments and feedback.But I do have some optionsthat I prepared,and this is a real-life example
of what that code looks like.This house on the corner here,their fence does not extend all the way
out to the sidewalk or the property line adjacent to the side street is set back to the neighbor behind
them.Building line.Our PMC,that's the furthest that they could go.
The ?rst option that we've drafted you can have your fence out all the way to the property line on
the ?anking side street.The house on the left would be allowed to have six-foot fencing in every
zone except for the blue front yard.And then the house on the right would be allowed to extend
their fence all the way out to the property line in the green area as well.There are some concerns
with this extending all the way out to the property line and to kind of show that I have an example
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page l3 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 81 of 208
of a property.
This is on Cathedral Drive,and if you look at the top right,it goes towards a roundabout.Both
these houses have a sidewalk there across from or a park,with only that sidewalk being next to the
homes.And you can see that the house on the left there has fencing extended all the way out to the
sidewalk and buyer code that normally wouldn't be permitted.And this is what's shown here would
be permitted under this option on any corner lot.
The left image shows heading to the north.You can see that there's a small gap between the
dwelling and the fence there.And you can also tell that there's somewhat of a slope to the road.
And if you look at the image to the right and this is a more bene?cial image because you're in the
Lane of traf?c heading away from the driveway there,what you can see here is that your visibility
from that driveway is incredibly limited.So going if you're a pedestrian or driving or walking,
you're not going to see any cars backing out of that driveway until you're essentially at the
driveway.
If you're the homeowner backing out of your driveway,you're not going to see anybody until your
driver's side window is parallel to the sidewalk.And in situations like this,it's concerning top
fencing all the way out to the sidewalk or out to the property line just from a visibility and safety
standpoint.
This option allows for the fencing not to be dependent on your neighbors walling.It would
essentially say that you are fencing must be set back to the building line of your dwelling,so your
fence wouldn't be allowed to extend out into the green area,but it wouldn't be required to be set
back to your neighbors.This would get rid of the possibility of offense having to be set back to,
say,a window or porch.Provided if we were to go further down the road with this,we would still
leave the provision that if both homes face away from the side street,then the fences would be
allowed to extend out to the flanking front yard area.
As far as the sites,the other option that we have is that we maintain what we currently have in the
PMC.The code works provided we adhere to our Lots and Blocks standards and our Title 21
standards.A lot of the issues that we're seeing today we're created within the last ten years and
they're on streets that don't necessarily conform to our code.That should have been more in line
with the lots and blocks.And we took a pretty good look into it.We took a good look,and it was
determined that if we make sure that during the piling process,we're paying much closer attention
and stricter with our Lots and Blocks reviews,and we can mitigate a lot of these comer lot issues
and a lot of these fencing problems that we're seeing.
Commissioner Bowers thank you Mr.Hattori,What do you need from us right now?
Commissioner Hendler stated is there any problem with the de?nition of front yard?Side yard?
Other options,is now a side yard and call that my front yard?How do we define front yard inside
yard?
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 82 of 208
Planner Andrew Hattori stated front yards are determined as any point or the point on the building
line perpendicular from there to the right of way.Any portion of your yard between your building
and a right of way is considered a front yard space,which is interesting because,you know,we do
have triple frontage lot.There is a rear yard then that is be de?ned as a real yard.
Commissioner Hendler looking for possible discrepancies,If I list of my advantage,could I,for
example,call,call that green area on the le?side.My front yard is that possibility.
Planner Andrew Hattori stated by our residential design standards,your entry way is required to be
off the street that your addressed.If you were in the process of building the dwelling,you do have
the option to choose which street you want to be addressed off,provided you're not addressing off
or accessing a collector arterial.
Commissioner Teel asked How does it work when the home on the le?is getting built and they get
their fence in before the home on the right is even built?
Planner Andrew Hattori stated if you're the house on the left and you build your dwelling and
you're either on the edge of a new subdivision and the rest has been plotted or that lots just vacant
and has been built on.Yet we can't hinder that lot from building their fence out to the property line
under the possibility that the neighboring parcel will address off the shared side street.If the lot
behind you is not developed,you're allowed to extend your fence into that ?anking front yard area.
Commissioner Bowers safety is my biggest concern,I would want whatever solution allows for
cars or pedestrians to be able to see someone backing out.
Planner Andrew Hattori stated I completely agree.And that's why I think that a lot of the stuff or
what our code says today mitigate any possibility that there's obstruction in your visibility backing
out or going down the street on a walk.
Commissioner Bowers if there are any other concerns?
Commissioner Cochran stated the code to date,if you made no changes each option one,option
two,but just put more scrutiny on the permitting process,you can mitigate most of the safety
issues.
Planner Andrew Hattori stated we can mitigate a lot of the current problems that we're having.It
wouldn't the perfect solution.I'm not sure if there is one here.We would still run into possibilities
where property under think we're overreaching,but in the future,we would not see nearly as much
of the items that we're having today.
Commissioner Cochran it seems like probably owner should be able to put their fences how they
want given without withstanding creating safety issues.Discussions need to be had and maybe
public comment too.I don't know that we would get a lot of,like,say,developer feedback on
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 83 of 208
something like this,because it's the homeowners that are putting up the fences,not the developers.
In fact,the developers are building the homes and then leavingthe homeowners to build their own
fences.It's probably going to be hard to get individual homeowners as much visibility for
homeowners.But I agree that safety should be the concern.But do we need a bunch of more code
to do that,or should we just be more rigorous in our permitting?Does every fence in the city
require a permit?
Planner Andrew Hatorri stated yes.
Director Rick White having the provision that's dependent on a building line that is maybe from a
building that isn't there yet is problematic.And I don't know what the right answer is how to
address that,but I think we should take a further look at that at the least,let alone diving into more
of the ?anking front yard discussion in general.
Commissioner Cochran eliminating the problem where the ?rst gadget build sets the lines because
it can really ruin the whole development of the ?rst house.
Commissioner Bowers something else that I noticed,we talk about fences or hedges.If it's
supposed to be 6ft or three and a half feet,does it then become a question of code enforcement?So
just to make sure they keep to whatever the limit is for a hedge because hedges grow.
Planner Andrew Hattori stated yes,right.It's upon the responsibilities on the homeowner to ensure
that that height does not increase above what is allowed.
Commissioner Bowers questions,no questions.Move on to the next workshop.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT jMF#CA 2021-0111Jacob Gonzalez stated
this is a brief staff report for you this evening.You may remember that in most of 2019,staff had
taken on the effort of revising our planet development regulations.At the time.The primary
changes were made to the minimum site area,the amount of open space and cleared up and
clari?ed some of the design standard provisions of the plane development regulations.And since
that time since its adoption in early 2020,staff has seen a variable interest in the PUD option.
But there have been barriers indicated by the development community,home builders and
developers about the limits of the existing PUD options for not being used.It is usable,but it's not
as it currently is in the code today,not in its best form.There's some con?icting language that
remain from the prior PUD ordinance that requires for it to go through the preliminary plat process,
although it's not a preliminary plat.What we'd like to do is two things,is re?ne.It’s similar what
we did with that front plat public frontage ordinance where we brought it back a year or so after its
adoption,cleaned it.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 84 of 208
Now it's ready to go.We'd like to perform that exact same thing with the PUD regulations.And in
addition to that,we'd like to take another look at its ?exibility and really make this an option for
creative,diverse development.In addition to being strictly residential,we are considering utilizing
the PUD regulations to begin to explore mixed use zoning and development,if that's of the interest
of the developer or the applicant.In addition to those,we would look at ensuring that it complies
with our recently adopted comprehensive plan.
That comprehensive plan has several new land use classi?cations that are not yet that we're not a
part of this ordinance when it went through.And we would also take a look at permitting the PUD
potentially in the C one district,which is our general retail,assuming that there's a portion of it that
remains for some sort of business or commercial service.And whether that's a 50 50 split,some
communities have it as a 90 ten split,90%residential,10%commercial.It's a little dif?cult to
predict the commercial real estate market these days with everything.
Staff would appreciate any comments and obviously direction from the Planning Commission on if
there's an agreement to move forward with revising and re?ning the code.And then we look
forward to bringing this back to you for further discussion.Thank you.
Commissioner Cochran we passed it,forwarded to City Council in February.Having had any
applications,talked to developers and there’s improvements need to be made.Developers probably
never showed up for public hearings.This will allow us to make it more attractive.Open to mix
uses,like Richland is doing the big pit.
Jacob Gonzalez stated it would be part of this intent of re?ning and amending this regulation.In
addition to the mixed-use concept,we would explore both vertical and horizontal mixed use.
Certainly,it's everyone's kind of ideal to have your commercial on the bottom and residential on
top.But that's extremely costly and risky for a property or a developer when you can't run out or
lease the bottom retail space because it's not attractive enough.For whatever reason it maybe it
remains vacant in a lot of cases in larger cities,those vacant spaces of the cost to maintain them and
getting passed on to the residential users.And rather than requiring a strict mixed-use building in
one building,we would explore not only attached but detached mixed use as well.
Commissioner Hendler I’ve had the pleasure being involved in many of these and you know what
has really dictated the mix,a residential versus commercial is more market than anything else.
Developer is not going to put anything out there that he doesn’t,or she doesn't feel it can be a
success ?nancially.I'm not so sure I would have a 90 10 or 50 50.I don't think that's really viable
is my opinion.And certainly,for one really appreciate the idea of PUD’s and what they bring to an
area as far as exciting developments residentially.I'm all in favor of this ordinance and stem by
help all I can.I've been involved in many of them.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 18 August 19,202]
Page 85 of 208
CommissionerBowers I am a fan of diversity and variety,so I can see this being something that
could be helpful over Broadmoor.I would love it if you could even bring it over by Road 68 where
we are behind the movie theater.I am in favor of this.
Commissioner Hendler IV Glade at one time is a PUD and one time had a 20 to 30,000 square foot
commercialretail area up in the Northeast corner.This master plan included an interesting pathway
down to the river and everything.But when the second phase is sold to the developers out of
Portland for economic reasons,they came in and they rezoned it went all residential.But it's kind of
interesting that I be glad at one time was a mixed-use development.
OTHER BUSINESS
Rick White stated starting Monday,the mask command date is back.So even if you're vaccinated,
you'll be wearing a mask in indoor settings and my note here says that during a declared emergency
by the governor,his directors have the force of loss.So that's what we'll be following the
Commission tonight.We did a pretty good job there,I think.Four commissioners attending
virtually almost for three.But to the great extent possible,we’ll be trying to resume that.I know
it's clumsy at times.And.But anyway,that's what we'll be trying to do.Council,you might have if
you've seen any Council meetings lately,they've been following the same queue.If you have a
presentation here,for example,with Council,that's complicated,or you really need to be here,then
you show up that otherwise you're requested to stay put at your home.You'll be seeing changes to
the Chambers because we're going to have to do the six-foot thing again.
I just wanted to get that out there.That's the guidance.It's not going to affect us this month,of
course.But in September,it will.Our ?re chief,who's very involved in the whole covet effort,
seems to indicate that the expected peak of this upswing in cases where experiencing will peak
either in October or November.
7:59 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Webb,Administrative Assistant II
Community &Economic Development Department
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18 August 19,2021
Page 86 of 208
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
DATE: THURSDAY, October 21, 2021
6:30 PM
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I
SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing
Background
Current fencing regulations on corner lots have created situations where property owners have
lodged complaints alleging “overreach”. Requests for an analysis into fence standards have
been received by Planning staff.
Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front
yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street
front yard area on corner lots the following applies:
(1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-
way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges
shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Figure 1.
(2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater
than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Figure 2.
Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in
height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing
restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line.
An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in
height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This
fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the
fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent.
Analysis
City Planning staff has reviewed the PMC and analyzed recently platted land for potential fencing
issues within flanking front yard areas. Through this analysis it was noted that currently many
lots do not exist that still have the potential for stringent fence height restrictions in flanking front
yards. It was also noted that many of the restricted lots were created within the past 10 years
and that further review during platting processes (specifically PMC 21.20) regarding design of
Lots and Blocks would be able to mitigate the creation of lots with problematic fence height
restrictions.
Page 87 of 208
2
Through the analysis three options were drafted for consideration for fencing in flanking front
yards, with their associated pros and cons:
Option 1: Allow fences up to 6’ in height within the flanking front yard area provided the fence is
s setback a minimum of 10’ from the adjacent property line. See Figure 3.
Pros:
i. Allows for taller fencing in flanking front yard areas.
Cons:
i. Neighboring property would then have a 6’ fence within a portion
of their front yard area should the fence be located on the shared
property line.
ii. If neighboring property has their driveway located near the shared
property line with fencing-vision then may be an issue. Reversing
out of the driveway adjacent to the 6’ fencing would cause visibility
disruption of traffic on the shared frontage. This visibility disruption
is also a safety consideration for any pedestrians that may be
crossing the driveway area from the fence side.
Option 2: Allow fences up to 6’ in height setback to the building line of the dwelling on the subject
p parcel. The provision for the setback to the neighbors dwelling line would remain for s
I t situations where the dwelling is setback further than the neighboring dwelling.
Pros:
i. In situations where the adjacent dwelling is setback further than
the minimum setback requirement this would allow 6’ fencing to
be uniformly placed with the building line of the dwelling, but also
allows for additional space in unique circumstances where the
neighboring dwelling has a smaller setback to the shared frontage
property line.
Cons:
i. Only benefits situations where the adjacent dwelling is located
closer to the shared frontage property line than the subject
dwelling.
Option 3: During permitting phase for dwellings, ensure that dwellings are addressed and faced
off the appropriate street. Existing or unavoidable corner lots with fencing concerns
will be allowed to have fencing set either to the building line of the neighboring
dwelling or equal to the front yard building setback of the underlying zone.
Pros:
i. Ensuring that the home is built so that it is addressed off the
appropriate street would allow for corners to be designed to avoid
conflicts with fencing, driveways, and visibility.
Page 88 of 208
3
ii. Addition to allow fences to be placed a minimum distance equal to
front yard building setback would mitigate concerns of having a
fence required to be built behind the building line of dwelling.
iii. Would still allow for the provision for fences to be built out to the
neighbors building when dwellings are setback further than the
minimum.
Cons:
i. Some existing lots will still maintain fencing restriction in the
flanking front yard areas.
Option 4: Maintain current PMC and Standards.
Pros:
i. The current fence code allows for proper and standard locations of
fencing provided that plats are created and platted such that they
meet the PMC in regard to design of lots and blocks.
Cons:
i. Existing lots will still maintain fencing restrictions in flanking front
yard areas.
Next Steps
Staff is seeking comments and feedback about the most suitable option or direction before
moving forward with any proposals or recommendations for an amendment to the PMC.
Page 89 of 208
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETING MINUTES&Cltyof City Hall —Council Chambers
'525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,SEPTEMBER16,2021
6:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Tanya
Bowers.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:Tanya Bowers Remotely:Paul Mendez,Kim Lehrman,Isaac Myhrum,
Rachel Teel,Jerry Cochran a quorum was declared.
Commissioners Absent:Joseph Campos,Abel Campos,Jay Hendler
Staff Present:Community &Economic Development Director Rick White,Senior Planner Jacob
Gonzalez,Andrew Hattori Planner 1,Administrative Assistant II Maria Fernandez.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Tanya Bowers led the Pledge of Allegiance.
WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Bowers explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers
appointed by City Council.
She further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendations to
City Council regarding changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant
Allocations and Zoning Code.The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term
growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community,
livability,economic opportunity,housing affordability,public services,and the environment.
Chair Bowers reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of
Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times
during the next month.
She stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website,
which is Pasco-wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there.
Chair Bowers stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table.
She then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting.
For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission,please
come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone,and state your name and city of address for
the record.
Chair Bowers reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law
requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair,but also appear to be
fair.In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating
in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either bene?ted
or harmed by the Planning Commission’s decision.An objection to any Planning Commission
member hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 12 September 16,2021
Page 90 of 208
She asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time
regarding any of the items on the agenda.
There were no declarations.
Chair Bowers asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing
any of the items on the agenda.
There were no declarations.
Chair Bowers stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped
the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendations to City
Council.Furthermore,in many cases,this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and
opinions placed into the of?cial record and City Council will use to make the Commission’s decision.
She encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
'3'Commissioner Jerry Cochran moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting
Minutes ofA ugust I 9,2021.Commissioner Myhrum seconded,and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Street Connectivig §MF#CA2019-013[-Mr.Jacob Gonzalez,Senior Planner stated this proposal
went through lengthy public hearings throughout most of 201 9 and 2020.This is a brief update
from staff recent efforts,and the next steps.The Planning Commission recommended to Council in
October of 2020 a proposal to revise Title 21 regarding lots and blocks layout to address
transportation in the City of Pasco,speci?cally to meet a variety of comprehensive plan goals and
the adoption of council goals in 2020,the completion of a transportation system master plan and
the utilization of its recommendations was to develop policies,regulations,programs and projects
that provide for greater connectivity,strategic investment,mobility,multilevel systems,
accessibility,efficiency and safety.
The proposal recommended from the Planning Commission signi?cantly revised the lots and
Blocks Chapter of Title 21 with regards to creating a maximum block length and block perimeter
with provisions for connection to adjacent lands and non-motorized access ways.There are also
some re?nements made to intersections and the cul-de-sac provisions.Following that
recommendation from the Planning Commission last October,staff shared and presented to the
Pasco City Council on three different occasions March,May,and August of this year.During those
presentations,staff again provided to council all the items,the data,the information,and the public
comment in favor of and that opposed to the proposal recommendation.
At the August 23 meeting,Staff presented two new alternatives for Council to consider.Those
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 12 September 16,2021
Page 91 of 208
alternatives deviate from the original proposal from Planning Commission and even what was
recommended out of the initial Transportation System Master Plan.Staff believe these two new
alternatives,which were included in the staff report,on page two,still met our objective to create a
fully functional transportation system here in the City of Pasco.
However,because the two alternatives were not vetted by the Planning Commission,it was
identi?ed in everyone’s best interest for this item be reevaluated by the Planning Commission,in
addition to furthering collaborative environment with all our stakeholders from the housing and
transportation segments of our community.This was a short update,there is no presentation today.
However,staff did want to come back to the Planning Commission as this was a signi?cant item
that the Planning Commission acted on.
It's been eleven months since it's been at the Commission.Because of that time,we wanted to come
back with some due diligence and its reevaluation.Our recommendation is to continue the public
hearing.However,we are interested in any comments,questions,or concerns that the Planning
Commission may have based on tonight’s staff report or since the time of its recommendation last
October.This will conclude our brief report and presentation this evening.But certainly,welcome
any comments from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Bowers-thank you,Mr.Gonzalez.I know we have had a great deal of discussion
and presentation on this item.These are new additions and alternatives that have been presented.
We want to make sure we give them our fair attention.Commissioners,do we have any questions
or comments for Mr.Gonzalez?
Commissioner Cochran stated the two new alternatives were presented based on feedback,
research,and analysis,between the time we approved in October and got to council.Is that how
this surfaced?It should be brought back so it can be reviewed,is that what happens in a nutshell?
What happened,and what were the drivers behind the new alternatives?Was it feedback from
housing development and community?
Mr.Gonzalez stated,the feedback received was persistent,and we want to acknowledge the
comments and concerns raised to staff.To try to collaborate further,we did develop two new
proposals or alternatives again,which we believe still aligned with the intent of Council goals and
comprehensive plan policies,but it would be important for us to note that they do deviate from
what the standard best practice would allude to and because they were not vetted by the Planning
Commission at the August 23 meeting,staff,along with Pasco City Manager Dave Zabel,
recommended that rather than having an open debate about transportation connectivity standards at
the City Council level,that it would be best accommodated at the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Bowers-any other commissioners?Are you going to discuss or do any sort of
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 12 September 16,2021
Page 92 of 208
presentation on the alternative since it's the ?rst time that we're seeing them?
Mr.Gonzalez responded not tonight.I can certainly describe them if that would be of interest.The
primary intent tonight report was to give an update.It's been about a year,and we have had
numerous meetings with the Home Builders Association of the Tri Cities and on Tuesday of this
week we also met with the Tri-City Association of Realtors.Those meetings are expected to
continue.Staff is working with a few representatives from each group to try to identify some
possible solutions.The Staff intent is to bring back to the Planning Commission and eventually
council with a proposal that best aligns with transportation planning,best practices,and Council
goals.
Commissioner Bowers—that’s helpful.I see the recommendation is to move to continue the public
hearing.
Mr.Gonzalez correct.
Commissioner Cochran-since this is a public hearing,are there any folks here to talk about this at
this time or nobody came for this?
Commissioner Bowers-no one is at the meeting my apologies.I didn't know you couldn't see that.
Good point,Commissioner Cochran.No one is in the room;we will continue until the next
meeting.Our next agenda item is a workshop,and this is regarding our comer lot fencing.And Mr.
Hattori,will you be reading?Will you be sharing about that?
Mr.Hattori-yes.
WORKSHOP
Corner Lot Fencing -Rick White,Director stated Mr.Hattori was here a month ago with this
same issue,the presentation tonight is very similar to last month’s presentation.We're hoping from
the Commission to get a better sense of possible directions and possible code amendments,that
might be affecting how we treat comer lots and fencing.Thank you.
Mr.Hattori-good evening,members of the Planning Commission.I do have the presentation for the
corner lot fencing.It will be very similar to the one from last month,but it would be good to go
over it again given the complexity of some of the issues.We have PMC 25.180.050 (1)(c).This is
the provision for fencing.This code says that the height of fences,walls and hedges shall be limited
to three and a half feet within the front yard area of residential zone lots,retail business and of?ce
zone lots provided when two contiguous comer lots or two comer lots separated only by an alley
right of way form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets.
The height of fences,walls,and hedges shall be limited to 6?in the front yard adjacent to the side
street.Except where the front door of the house faces the side street a fence is greater than three
and a half feet in height must be set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.We
do have some diagrams to show what this means and what that looks like.This here is a two
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 12 September 16,2021
Page 93 of 208
dwelling face and are contiguous and do not share.One does not access the side street.In this
instance,fencing would be allowed to be placed out to the property line in the green area up to 6ft
in height.And this can only be accomplished when the two dwellings form the entire frontage
between the two streets,and one house does not access that side street.Now,if we go to the next
slide,this is what that looks like.
In this slide,we can see that both dwellings face the side streets.Neither of the dwelling accesses
the shared ?anking street.In this case because there is no concern about one of the houses facing
the side street,they are allowed to have that fence set all the way out to the property line,extending
all the way down the sidewalk.Now,the second provision of the code,on the next slide.This is the
instance where one of the dwelling does access the side street.
The way the code is written is such that the fencing greater than three and a half feet would have to
be set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.In this case,the house facing the
street to the left cannot extend their fence out all the way to their property.They would need to
have it set back to the building line of their neighbors’property,the house that accesses the shared
?anking street.
In other cases,the house on the right can be set back further than the house on the le?,which
creates instances where six-foot fencing must be set back to portions of the building,where there
may be doors or windows.And this is where a lot of the complaints have been lodged against staff
regarding overreach about fencing requirements.And due to this,we've done a lot of analysis into
our code and how it affects properties and we've come up with a few options.
We can see a real-life example of what this looks like.The house to the bottom,don't form that
frontage,their house must be set back to the building line of the house behind it.Their fence would
never be allowed to extend to the street to the right.
Commissioner Bowers-the brown part is the lawn?
Mr.Hattori-yes,the ?rst option we have would be to allow six foot fencing out to the property line
regardless of which way the neighboring dwelling faces.This would effectively create instances
where there may be some vision concerns for the neighboring dwelling.We can see those concerns
in the next slide.
This is a real-life example here in Pasco,where one of the houses does access the ?anking side
street.We can see on the left image there's a small gap between that dwelling and the fence.That
doesn't provide a lot of vision when the homeowner backs out.Also,if you look at the image to the
right,this is what someone going down the street would see,it's more of a bene?cial image.You're
seeing it from the traffic heading away from the site.
If you're on the right and you’re a pedestrian or your car driving down the road,you wouldn't see
that car until it's already out in the street.And the homeowner likewise wouldn't see you going
down the street until they're already over the sidewalk into the street.Another option we will look
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 12 September 16,2021
Page 94 of 208
into would be to allow six-foot fencing,at least out to the building line of the dwelling.And this
would take away the dependency on where the neighbor dwelling is placed.
If you look at this diagram,you can see that this fence wouldn't need to be set back to the building
line of the dwelling on the right,which would effectively make it so that fence wouldn't have any
instances where it would be placed in in front of a window or door.
The last option we have would be to not make any code amendments to our current fence
provisions.If we can adhere to lots and block standards.Moving forward,we believe that we can
mitigate a lot of the issues that we're seeing with corner lot fencing.Currently,a lot of the issues
that we're seeing right now were created in the last ten years,and we've made a lot of
improvements to our reviews and our lots and blocks code.So what staff is looking for from this
point is any recommendations or direction for these options or anything that we can investigate
?.1rther.
Commissioner Myhrum stated if staff would illustrate an example of how option three is being used
today and how that might work to prevent these sorts of issues down the road,has the review
process changed and improved.
Mr.Hattori-that is correct,when we're reviewing preliminary plots and proposals for subdivisions,
we're taking a better look at the street layouts and making sure it conforms to all our provisions.
And we're also taking a better consideration for potential fences and driveways as well.A lot of the
lots that we're seeing these issues with are on streets that wind in ways they shouldn't or longer than
they should be,and create these instances where houses are required to face a side street when that
should not have been an option at all.
Commissioner Myhrum-thanks,it sounds like a lot of these things are being headed off already by
staff.Is there any drawback that you see to amending the code that might create complications or
restrictions to any developments?And maybe it's simpler to keep it in staff and any thoughts on
that?
Mr.Hattori-I apologize,I did not catch the last part.
Commissioner Myhrum-do you have any feeling about whether emitting the code would
potentially be restrictive down the road or if this kind of analysis can be done in house with staff
oversight.
Mr.Hattori stated I don't think amending the code would create more restriction on the lot.I think
that if we were to make an amendment,it would be more lenient.But as it currently stands with the
current provisions of the code,we wouldn't make it any more difficult for fencing on any future
lots.
Commissioner Cochran-can you summarize,if you just left the code alone,and then just did better
permitting review process.Is six foot tall in the front and side and three and three and a half in the
front or is it more complex than that?that's my ?rst part of the question.What is the kind of
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 12 September l6,2021
Page 95 of 208
summary of the current standards?
Mr.Hattori—that would be correct.
Commissioner Cochran stated unless it’s in the front,you can have a six foot up to the property
line,but if it’s a front,it can only be three and a half.
Mr.Hattori—that is correct.Fences greater than three and a half feet have to be set back at least to
the building line of the home front yard areas.
Commissioner Cochran-so can a six-foot fence be in the property line side or front yard,or will it
need to be built for.
Mr.Hattori—in the ?anking front yard.The front yard is any area between the property line and the
dwelling from the right way line and dwelling.In this case,you would have effectively two front
yards where most of this issue arises ?om because it is also a side yard.They have two large areas
where they can’t have six-foot fencing.
Commissioner Cochran stated,that's just because there's a road.And does the road currently apply
to public and private drive,like,for example,here in a comer lot.But the corner lot is on one side
is a private drive?Does that not apply because it's a private drive?Or how does that work,or does
it just have to be worked out in the permitting process?
Mr.Hattori—it would be worked out during the permitting process,I haven't had any instances on
private drives,but they will have to conform to the standards.
Commissioner Cochran-last question,does it typically only happen on new construction?Do we
get a lot of permits for existing houses that just want to replace or add a fence?Even if Pasco says
you need a permit,it’s easy to just build a fence without a pennit.There is a lot of contractors that
will do it.
Mr.Hattori stated we do see it mostly on new construction,but there are a lot of properties that say
we're annex into the city that have fences that don't conform to this provision and having those
permits come in,then we would have to have them comply with the code.So,there are lots on
record that do have these issues.
Commissioner Cochran asked what the remediation is like,and what if the code gets missed during
the permit review process?What if a neighbor comes back and says,I can’t see getting out of my
driveway because they built a six—footfence all the way around to the road?
Mr.Hattori—that would be a complain to the Code Enforcement,at that point they would require to
be comply with the code.
Chair Bowers had a question regarding the fifth page in handouts,what was the area with the red
circle?
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 12 September 16,2021
Page 96 of 208
Mr.Hattori-those houses are laid out,so they don't form the entire frontage between two parallel or
nearly parallel streets.The house to the south wouldn't be allowed to have their fence all the way
out to the property line.They would have to set it back to the neighbors building line like it is in
this case.I am trying to show they are not able to extend all the way out due to the lot layout.
Commissioner Bowers-so this is what we are trying to move towards,so you have my sign off on
that.
Commissioner Teel-stated I have a question,what if the house on the left were to put a fence in,on
the left corner lot,where would their fence line be?Would it be their own house or the other
person’s house?
Mr.Hattori-with the current standards it would be the building line of the house behind them.So,
their neighbors house.
Commissioner Bowers-where is the neighbor’s house?Oh,that's the neighbor's house.Okay.It's a
little surreal.I can't tell which part is the house and which is the grass.Does that answer your
question,Commissioner Teel?
Commissioner Teel-yes,thank you.
Commissioner Bowers-does that give you the information that you need,or do you need any more
direction from us?
Mr.Hattori-responded what we are looking for is a recommendation on the options that were
proposed,if there's one that is most suitable to the planning commission.
Director Rick White stated,Madam Chair,if the Commission is of consensus that there is no need
for an amendment that would also be appreciated if there is an option that people favor,we can
advertise for a public process and ?ush this out.
Commissioner Bowers asked commissioners what they feel about the options that are laid out on
page 2 and part of page three?
Commissioner Cochran-Madam Chair,have the same challenge you this is hard to visualize.I
think you guys did the best you could to help us visualize.This is a really hard thing to visualize for
me and becomes a complicated issue.I guess my tendency,based on what I've heard is to try to
make sure we have a rigorous permitting and review process to catch these issues.If there are
safety issues or people complaining there will also need to be a mitigating process.I would say
keep it the same and hopefully mitigate through the permitting process.Is there a sense that the
current process is too restrictive or and if the current process is really restrictive,but we make it
even more complicated,is it going to be seen as more overreach?
Director Rick White stated I’m not so sure that the complaints are driven by the code itself.I think
there have been some lots created,as Mr.Hattori said in the last ten years that present some real
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 12 September 16,202]
Page 97 of 208
problems in terms of not just fencing but also driveways.I can think of a subdivision right now that
has had to accommodate a diagonally placed major gas line easement in it,and it has created a
street system where almost every comer lot is going to be a fencing issue.
Would that have been anticipated better by staff?Perhaps,as described as we demand stricter
conformance with our existing subdivision codes,this is probably a problem that is going away.I
have jotted a note down to explore special conditions relating to fencing on comer lots that may be
applicable either through a special use permit process or variance,preferably special use permit.
That may be an option for the commission to also consider.
Commissioner Cochran-I like that because then you keep the process,try to do a really good job in
the in the review,but then you have an option for special use if you have an extenuating
circumstance or future condition arises.
Commissioner Mendez stated to agree with Commissioner Cochran,about not being sure what the
issue is with the current process.The decisions can be worked out with code enforcement.Years
back,I built a house on Dessert Plato and had the same situation as presented with the red circle.I
had built a six-foot fence in the back,but to not obstruct the neighbors I had to go down to a three
feet fence,and all the way to the property line and around to the corner.This worked well,no
complaints from neighbors and satis?able code enforcement requirements.I think the decisions
should be mitigated and working closely with code enforcement.
Commissioner Bowers-so what I think I just heard you say Mr.White,was that this problem is
going to go away.
Director Rick White that might be an overstatement,but I think it's going to be minimized as time
goes on.
Commissioner Bowers-given that it's going to be minimized,do we need to go with option three,
which maintain the current PMC and standards?
Commissioner Myhmm stated I’m just wondering if there might be a bene?t to having some code
language in there for enforcement purposes down the road.Again,just what bene?t could provide
us that we don't have today.I'm sort of leaning toward option three at this point,but I just wanted to
see if there's any direct support for the other two.
Commissioner Bowers-there is conferring going on amongst staff,you can’t see it.
Mr.Hattori-I certainly think we could investigate that.And I believe maybe next month we can
bring something back to the planning Commission for consideration again.
Director Rick White stated Madam Chair and commissioners we will work on perhaps some
wording that might be applicable through special permit,let's say.And maybe there's something
halfway between some of the options that might also work.And in certain circumstances,I'm not
sure what those might be right now,but it might provide an option.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 12 September 16,2021
Page 98 of 208
Commissioner Bowers—I'm open to that.I just don't want to see more of those driveways that have
the high fences abutting them.So however,you work that out,that sounds good.Any other
thoughts we'd like to share with staff?
Commissioner Cochran stated I like all the things that have been said and it sounds like good next
steps.If we did that and came back,would it be another workshop?because I'm thinking what we
want to do is get feedback from development,community or citizens that have views on this.But I
think if we came back with some new options that maybe expand on this approach and then public
hearing,we might get some good feedback that sway us one way.
Commissioner Bowers—heads are nodding,sounds good.We are moving on to another business,I
believe this is our update on the Downtown Pasco Master Plan.
OTHER BUSINESS
MEMO-DOWNTOWN PASCO MASTER PLAN UPDATE §MF#PLAN2021-001)
Mr.Jacob Gonzalez stated good evening again,members of the Planning Commission.This is a
summary of where we are at with the Downtown Pasco master plan.A few months ago,we
provided an update on three of our major planning efforts,transportation,housing and downtown.
Tonight's focus is just on our master plan effort downtown.We went through the RFP and
consultation selections back in the spring.We selected Framework Consulting.They're based out
of Seattle,Washington,and as indicated in the staff report,they've got a wide variety and diverse
experience working across specific Northwest and nationwide on quite a few topics that really are
going to make be of some value for our downtown area,speci?cally on design standards,zoning,
building code,cultural arts,and historic preservation and arts and heritage planning.
The selection of Framework was competitive and very happy to be working with them,along with
BDS Consulting,who has a speci?c focus on public engagement and Eco Northwest,which has a
specific focus on more of the market analysis and feasibility side of things.We hope to
comprehensively approach our master planning effort.On the next slide,you see a long list of what
the scope of work we’ll intend to move forward with.It's a variety of topics from obviously public
investment through community Visioning and goals,the land use and urban design and urban form,
so that's more of our built environment,transportation,circulation,and parking.
We had a parking study completed about two months ago that will be used for this effort.Covid has
had a significant impact on parking,there will be some revisions and updates made to that.The
state legislature recently allowed jurisdictions to take advantage of tax increment ?nancing,so our
consultant group will look to see how we can take advantage of that downtown.The state also
allows cities to utilize the multifamily tax exemption.As we intend to address housing and housing
in and near our downtown,that might be another approach.
We can also look at corridor incentive,density bonus etc.There's also a market study conducted on
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 12 September 16,202]
Page 99 of 208
what exists downtown along with some comparisons.And then the infrastructure planning will
certainly be a big part of this.In fact,the Lewis Street Corridor project,which ranges from Second
to Fifth Avenue,which is connected to the Lewis Street overpass intersection improvements or
construction.They're all connected obviously have a very signi?cant component with regards to
infrastructure.We have a lot of infrastructure and planning work being done in downtown Pasco
today,as we speak.It expects to wrap up by springtime of 2022.
We've held our kickoff meeting internally with staff and our consulting partners.Currently,we are
reviewing our public engagement plan,once that's completed and ready for distribution,we'll send
that out and then begin implementing that engagement plan.They will soon begin working on the
existing conditions report.That will be followed by a workshop with the public and then a
?nalization of that existing conditions report.And throughout this entire process,Framework and
staff is committed to providing both the Planning Commission council and the public with updates
along this entire process.
You can see that middle section with the draft plan with the open house.And what's very critical is
having eyes on the draft document,comments on that draft document and those comments being
legitimately addressed in the ?nal document to be adopted by Council later next spring.On the next
slide Framework has identi?ed three overarching engagement goals.Engagement should be
meaningful and continuous,engagement should capture the diverse cultures and identities of our
community and a commitment to downtown Pasco stakeholders,and that's both through language
and not just social media and newspaper print,but by walking door to door.
The city staff and our consulting team will certainly be busy for the next year working on engaging
our community downtown.The three phases of that engagement plan focus on building awareness,
planning together,and staying engaged to the entire process,and communicating updates and
gaining feedback.Meaningful feedback to drive the ?nal delivery of this master planning effort.
Framework and their consulting team has developed a tentative outreach schedule,so you can see
right now we're ?nalizing the engagement plan that will be followed.
A speci?c branding material was developed to help not only with the planning effort,but as we
begin to market downtown to both our local community,and anyone interested in downtown.An
online public survey will be developed along with Vision Workshop later this winter and next
spring an open house.You can see the ongoing updates to both Council various sports,including
the DPA and other community groups downtown and the Planning Commission.This is to provide
the Planning Commission with a summary of where these efforts are at.
We are excited to keep going forward.I am happy to answer any questions from The Planning
Commission.Thank you!
Commissioner Bowers stated thank you,Mr.Gonzales.This looks great and I'm excited to get
those updates that are listed on that last slide.Anyone else?Any comments?Feedback?
No comments or feedback
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 1 of 12 September 16,2021
Page 100 of 208
Meeting Adjourned at 7:19 pm.
Respect?xlly submitted,
Maria Fernandez,Administrative Assistant II
Community &Economic Development Department
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 12 September 16,2021
Page 101 of 208
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
DATE: THURSDAY, November 18, 2021
6:30 PM
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I
SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing Code Amendment
Background
Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front
yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street
front yard area on corner lots the following applies:
(1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-
way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges
shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Figure 1.
(2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater
than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Figure 2.
Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in
height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing
restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line.
An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in
height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This
fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the
fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent.
Analysis & Summary
Current fence design standards require setbacks that are determined by a neighboring property’s
dwelling rather than a consistent measurement. This can create situations where a fence on a
corner lot must be set back significantly further than what would be a safe and uniform distance
from a property line. Additionally, properties on a corner lot where the neighboring lot has yet
to develop do not have a basis for what the required fence setback may be resulting in unsafe or
stringent requirements.
Staff proposes two amendments to the code:
Residential Design Standards
Page 102 of 208
2
When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets,
dwellings shall not be allowed to be addressed or accessed on the shared street. This will remove
the possibility of creating unusual lot configurations and accesses.
Fences, Walls and Hedges Design Standards
When the corner lots do not form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel
streets, fences greater than 3.5 feet in height shall be setback a distance equal to the front yard
setback of the underlying zoning district. This will remove the setback dependency on
neighboring dwellings while providing the necessary vision the drivers or pedestrians need on
corners and driveways for safe travel.
Staff has included all proposed changes and revisions in Exhibit #A of the Planning Commission
staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion: I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco City Council the proposed
amendments to the Residential Design Standards and the Fences, Walls and Hedges Design
Standards as contained in the November 18, 2021 Planning Commission staff report.
Page 103 of 208
Page 104 of 208
Page 105 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 1
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO CORNER LOTS AND CORNER LOT
FENCING, AND AMENDING PMC SECTIONS 25.165.100(1) “RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN STANDARDS” AND 25.180.050(1)(C) “DESIGN STANDARDS”
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical
development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has Subdivision regulations that encourage orderly growth
and development; and
WHEREAS, fencing design standards require setbacks determined by neighboring
dwellings; and,
WHEREAS, residential design standards do not provide provisions for maintaining
standard lot accesses; and
WHEREAS, without such ordinance, placement of fences on corner lots is problematic
and ambiguous when lots are not developed simultaneously; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to maintain and protect the welfare of
the community and provided consistent and reasonable expectations for fence and dwelling
placement, it is necessary to amend PMC Section 25.165.100(1) entitled “Design Standards” and
PMC Section 25.180.050(1)(C) entitled “Fences, Walls and Hedges”;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section of PMC 25.165.100(1) entitled “Design Standards” of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.165.100 Residential design standards.
(1) Design Standards. Except for multifamily structures, the following design standards shall
apply to all newly constructed or newly placed dwellings in the RT, R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1,
R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts:
(a) The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the dwelling is addressed;
(b) When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets,
dwellings shall not be addressed or accessed from the shared street.
(c)(b) A minimum of 30 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;
Page 106 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 2
(d)(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral part of the dwelling
architecture;
(e)(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 the ordinance codified in this
chapter 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.
(f)(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches;
(g)(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;
(h)(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted, except fenestrated false or artificial dormers
on roofs with at least a 5/12 pitch;
(i)(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block;
(j)(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must meet seismic and
wind loading standards for Franklin County, Washington;
(k)(j) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls facing a street;
(l)(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;
(m)(l) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation one and one-half to two inches. A
bottom trim board does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to cover the top of the foundation;
(n)(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;
(o)(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;
(p)(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;
(q)(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;
(r)(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 25.200.080.
Section 2. That Section of PMC 25.180.050(1) entitled “Fences, Walls and Hedges” of the
Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.180.050 Design standards.
Page 107 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 3
(1) Fences, Walls and Hedges.
(a) The height of fences, walls and hedges located between a structure and street or alley shall
be measured from the street curb or alley grade except in those cases where topographical
irregularities occur. The height of fences, walls and hedges between a structure and a common
lot line shall be measured from the grade along the common lot line or top of any structural
retaining wall occurring at the common lot line.
(b) Fences and walls in commercial districts shall complement the materials used in any
principal on-site structures.
(c) The height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5 feet within the front yard area
of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots; provided, when two contiguous
corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-way, form the entire frontage
between parallel or nearly parallel streets, the height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited
to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street; except where the front door of a house
faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5 feet in height must be set back to the building line
of the house facing the side street.a distance equal to the front yard setback of the zoning district.
(d) The height of fences, walls and hedges within the side and rear yards of residentially zoned
lots, retail business and office zoned lots shall be limited to six feet. A gate or opening with a
minimum three foot width leading into at least one side yard shall be provided.
(e) Fences shall not be constructed out of tires, pallets, bed springs, multi-colored materials,
tarps, plastic sheets, corrugated sheet metal, except in industrial districts, wheel rims and similar
or like materials not traditionally manufactured or used for fencing purposes. Hog wire, chicken
wire, horseman wire mesh, v-mesh, field fence, woven field fence, welded utility fence, or any
similar or like wire fencing material is not permitted in residential or commercial zones.
Horseman wire mesh and the other wire fencing listed above may be permitted in suburban
residential districts on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. Fences built
with valid permits prior to the effective date of this chapter or fences on properties annexed to
the City after the effective date of this chapter are exempt from this subsection.
(f) Fences constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns of up to five
feet in height may be permitted within front yards in the R-S-20 and R-S-12 districts provided
said fencing is 85 percent transparent.
(g) Barbed and razor wire fencing is prohibited in all residential districts, in the office district
and the central business district. Barbed wire may be permitted in suburban residential districts
on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. In the C-1 retail business
district only one strand of barbed wire is permitted along the top rail or within two inches of the
top rail.
(h) Electrified fences are not permitted in residential districts except as a secondary means of
securing property where the electrified fence is located behind an existing fence or in suburban
districts to contain permitted farm animals.
(i) In all front yards, whether on properties with single, double, or triple frontage, rails, posts
and other structural fence supports shall not be visible from a public street; except that posts and
Page 108 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 4
rails that are an integral part of the fence design and aesthetics and not used solely for structural
support may be visible from a public street.
(j) All fencing in commercial and industrial districts shall be placed on the inward side of any
required perimeter landscaping, with landscape treatments occurring along the street frontage.
(k) No fence, wall or hedge, landscape material or foliage higher than three feet above curb
grade shall be located or planted within an area 20 feet along the property lines from the
intersection of two streets, including the area between such points, or 15 feet from the
intersection of a street and an alley; provided, however, that if an alternative fence material is
used, such as masonry, wrought iron, wood, or combination thereof, then the fence must be 75
percent transparent and may be a maximum six feet in height; or a smaller, 75 percent
transparent fence set upon a maximum three-foot wall or other structure not exceeding a
combined height of six feet may be erected within said area of intersection of street and alley, so
long as the fence is at all times unobstructed by foliage or other matter.
(l) Fences constructed in any zoning district may be permitted at the back of sidewalks in public
right-of-way upon approval of the City Engineer, except as provided in PMC 25.180.050(1)(j).
(m) All residential fencing within the I-182 overlay district, as defined by PMC 25.130.020,
adjacent to the I-182 right-of-way shall be constructed of masonry block. Replacement of pre-
existing Surewood fences within the district shall use masonry block or cedar material prescribed
by the City as prestained, knotless cedar 23/32-inch thick, five and one-half inches wide and six
feet tall.
(n) No fence or wall shall be erected without first obtaining a building permit from the Building
Inspector.
(2) Clearance Distances. Where a fire hydrant is located within a landscape area it shall be
complemented by a minimum clearance radius of three feet; no tree, as measured from its center,
shall be located within 10 feet of a street light standard, or within five feet of a driveway or a fire
hydrant.
(3) Commercial and Industrial Districts.
(a) The first 10 feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting an arterial street and the
first five feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting a local access street shall be
treated with landscaping at the time the property is developed. No less than 65 percent of the
landscaped area must be treated with live vegetation at the time of planting.
(b) In addition to the requirements contained in this chapter and unless specified otherwise in
Chapter 25.130 PMC, commercially and industrially zoned properties adjacent to properties in
less intense zoning districts shall have a 10-foot landscape buffer on the side immediately
adjacent to the less intense zoning district. The landscaped buffer shall meet the following
standards:
(i) Live vegetation within the landscape buffer shall be planted with a mix of evergreen and
deciduous trees and shrubs interspersed throughout the landscape buffer.
(ii) The live vegetation shall consist of 40 percent evergreen trees.
Page 109 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 5
(iii) Trees shall be provided at a minimum rate of one tree for every 20 linear feet of property
line and spaced no more than 30 feet on center spacing along each property line, unless planted
in groupings of three trees, with groupings spaced no more than 50 feet on center along each
property line.
(iv) Shrubs shall be provided at a minimum rate of one per eight linear feet of property line and
spaced no more than 16 feet apart on center.
(v) Parking lots located adjacent to properties in less intense zoning districts require 100 percent
of the landscape buffer to be planted with live vegetation.
(c) The area between property lines and the back edge of street curbs, within right-of-way and
exclusive of sidewalks and driveways for ingress/egress, shall be treated with landscape
materials.
(4) Residential Districts. At least 50 percent of the required front yard area for all residential
property, including right-of-way but excluding driveways, shall be treated with live vegetation.
Planting strips shall be treated as per PMC 12.12.070; and
(5) All areas of a lot or parcel not landscaped or covered with improvements shall be maintained
in such a manner as to control erosion and dust. Gardens within established landscapes are
excluded from this provision in residential districts. Front yard areas not covered by the required
50 percent live vegetation must be covered by mulches or decorative rock.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this ______ day of __________ 2021.
Page 110 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 6
Saul Martinez
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________
Page 111 of 208
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETINGMINUTES&of City Hall-Council Chambers
I 525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,OCTOBER21,2021
6:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Jerry Cochran.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:Jerry Cochran Remotely:Joseph Campos,Paul Mendez,Kim Lehrman,
Abel Campos,Isaac Myhrum,Jay Hendler a quorum was declared.
Commissioners Absent:Tanya Bowers,Rachel Teel.
Staff Present:Community &Economic Development Director Rick White,Andrew Hattori Planner
1,Administrative Assistant II Maria Fernandez.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Jerry Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance.
WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Cochran explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers
appointed by City Council.
He further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendationsto
City Council regarding changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant
Allocations and Zoning Code.The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term
growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community,
livability,economic opportunity,housing affordability,public services,and the environment.
Chair Cochran reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of
Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several times
during the next month.
He stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website,
which is Pasco-wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there.
Chair Cochran stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table.
He then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting.
For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission,please
come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone,and state your name and city of address for
the record.
Chair Cochran reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law
requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair,but also appear to be
fair.In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from participating
in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either bene?ted
or harmed by the Planning Commission’s decision.An objection to any Planning Commission
member hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived.
He asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time
regarding any of the items on the agenda.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of9 October 21,2021
Page 112 of 208
There were no declarations.
Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member
hearing any of the items on the agenda.
There were no declarations.
Chair Cochran stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped
the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendationsto City
Council.Furthermore,in many cases,this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and
opinions placed into the of?cial record and City Council will use to make the Commission’s decision.
He encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
'3'Commissioner Joseph Campos moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting
Minutes of September 16,2021.Commissioner Kim Lehrman seconded,and the motion
carried.
OLD BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Corner Lot Fencing -Mr.Andrew Hattori,Planner stated being there to discuss comer lot fencing
again.Brie?y touch of presentation will be given and current options as well as new options.PMC
25.180.050 (1)(c)states when you have two comer lots and they form the entire frontage between
two parallel and nearly parallel streets,and neither dwelling accesses.The shared street fences are
allowed to extend out into the ?anking front yard at a height not to exceed 6ft.When one of those
two dwellings accesses that side street fences are limited to three and a half feet.The visual
representation shows the situation in which neither house accesses the shared street.Therefor six-
foot fences are allowed in every zone shown here except for the blue area.The next slide will show
what this looks like.In practice,you can tell that neither house accesses the shared street,so the
fences are allowed to extend out to what is presumed to be the property line at a height of 6ft.
The other situation is where one of the houses accesses the side street.In this case that's the house
on the right.In this case,the six-foot fencing is required to be set back to the building line of the
house that accesses the ?anking or shared street.Here's an example.The house on the Comer's
fence is required to be set back to the building line of the dwelling behind it because they don't
form the shared frontage between two parallel streets.
Going back to option one,there will not be restrictions in the ?anking front yards,this would
remove the provision that fences in the ?anking front yard can only be three and a half feet when
one of the houses accesses the shared street.Six-foot fencing will be allowed in all areas but the
blue,no matter the situation.To give an example of what this looks like,this is a property on
Cathedral Drive.Looking at the image on the left,you can tell that that house accesses the shared
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 October 21,2021
Page 113 of 208
street and between the side of that house and the fence is a very small space gap.A car driving
down the street will not be able to see a pedestrian on the sidewalk or a reversing car until they
have crossed the sidewalk.This can be a hazardous situation.Another option will require that six-
foot fencing be set back to the building line of the dwelling when one of the houses accesses the
side street.This would make fencing requirements no longer based on your neighbor’s building line
and gives more independence to a lot.The new option helps resolve the issue like on Cathedral
Drive.The addressing situation would be when dwellings come in for permitting,reviewers would
have the ability to determine that the house must face the non-shared street side like the Cathedral
situation here,the two properties on the corner were plotted under two separate plats.
This means when the Northern house was built,the house to the south was a vacant lot,this would
be allowed to build that six-foot fence out to the property line on the shared street,and then the
house to the south could be built out to the fence.We do not have the ability to say no,you can’t
face the house this was because of the fencing.We can create a situation where that driveway is
going to be close to a fence that blocks visibility,we would have an additional requirement when a
house faces the ?anking side street it would be set back equal to the dwelling required setback.In
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 RS-1 20ft.RS-12 &RS-20 25 ft.
Director Rick White-This would mean during the platting review there would be extra care and
considerationwhen reviewing the shape and con?guration in these situations on comer lots.Then
during the permitting review of homes for those lots,we would probably need to establish a code
provision addressing the direction a home face.It is important to use this option,as it provides a
solution,and it would also need to be noted in our municipal code.
Chair Cochran-In addition to the two previous options we discussed last month,you came up with
two more.One was this one you just talked about,and then the other option,obviously is to do
nothing.It seems like the main reasons are primarily on one hand safety and visibility,and on the
other hand,homeowners that want to have the freedom to build fences without feeling like there's
city overreach.I appreciate you looking at all the different options and going back and continuing
to look for a good balance.
Do commissioners have any questions or comments or feedback?I think what we're looking for
tonight from Commission members primarily is staff looking for feedback or questions on the
different options and what direction the commissioners would like staff to go on this and then we
will continue this in another public hearing and make probably recommendationslater.
Commissioner Campos-I’m glad we are going through this issue,as a Pasco citizen.I noticed this
is an issue,but it is not just fencing.Shrubbery is also a safety issue,but also anything that can
obstruct vision in the pathway.Back to fencing I think establishing a requirement where a driveway
can be located.If there was an extra 2ft between the driveway and the fence,this will give enough
vision to see a pedestrian.Opposed to restricting someone from setting up a fence all the way up to
their property line.
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 October 21,202]
Page 114 of 208
Chair Cochran-Commissioner Campos Mr.White mentioned the Permitting for new houses in the
new plated area would be which way the house will face.This is already built-in option three.
Andrew Hattori—Shrubbery falls within the same classification of this code.
Commissioner Lehrrnan stated recalling a situation on Desert Plateau about 18 years ago,at that
time when we built our house,the builder said we would be able to rotate our house to which street
we wanted to face.It led to a problem with fencing.I would like to see option three.I just think we
should take the steps necessary to avoid a hassle and not keep homeowners on a limbo.Mr.White
was talking about updating code provisions that will avoid homeowners building a fence and then
later having to remove it due to safety issues.We just don’t want citizens in this situation where it
is unsafe for drivers and pedestrians.
Chair Cochran-Thank you Commissioner Lehrman great comments,any more questions or
feedback from the commissioners?
I am hearing none,this is a public hearing,so we will go ahead and open it up for public comments.
So,if you are here to comment on this form item,please come up to the podium.Come forward.
Please state your name and city of address.For the record,thank you for being here.
Maria Teresa Valdez-Pasco resident stated she attended this meeting for this speci?c item.I
understand that option three gets the permitting aspect for the builders and to kind of be checked.I
love that I think that's needed,but we also must keep residents that have been here for years in
mind.Their fence requirements don't add up to the new regulations.So,I think with knowing that
we need to decide also what that's going to entail.When code enforcement goes around says,hey,
that's not supposed to be there,when are those feet’s going to be implemented?
As a community,we need to have that into consideration because it can cause a lot of confusion.I
also would like to say when someone purchases a property and has their house on there,their intent
is to use it as their home.If your neighbor then decides to build a fence 6ft on both sides because
the home was not there originally,what is the city plan on doing to relieve that situation?Will you
make the homeowner who built that fence ten years before the home was built,incur those costs?
My other question is if the fence is 3-ft from your property line,they would still be able to have
that six-foot fence?That is the way I read the code is now,correct Rick White?
Mr.Rick White—fences generally go to the back of the sidewalk.Although the back of the sidewalk
is normally not the property line,it's usually a few feet in,as you've mentioned.And I believe we
do not permit fences in the right of way any longer.
In the last few years,they’ve been set back a bit a couple of feet,perhaps particularly on the
residential lots with 60ft right-of—way.And then your other concern about any fence legally
installed now,no matter what happens in the future with code regulations,is going to be what's
called grandfathered in.If sone legally and meets the code now and then,it will be ?ne.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of9 October 21,2021
Page 115 of 208
Maria Teresa Valdez-I do appreciate that comment because that was my main concern.I have a lot
of houses that have nice center block fences put up.To take down that would cost would be insane.
My only thing is if they are already provisions to set that back 3 to 6ft,why would we have to go
back in and rewrite the code?I guess that's my question,if you're trying to build a fence line,it
can't be on the property line it has to be set back 3 ft.if your homes are not forward facing,why
would this be?
Andrew Hattori-It's when one of the houses accesses that side street,it's not set back 3ft or so it's
set back to the building line of your neighbor's property.That’s going to be 20ft or more.What
we're looking to do is try to explore options on how to either leave it alone or be more considerate
of how that can impact the homeowner.The situation where a fence would be allowed at the
property line,the distance that's about 3ft or so is when neither house has access the side street.
Maria Teresa Valdez-In the situation where one home is facing one direction,and one is facing the
other?Would that provision eliminate what's going on here now?If we implementedthat to the
comer lots if your fence is pushed back 3ft from your property line,plus the sidewalk,plus the
extra space in the road for bikers.Wouldn't that be more than enough space?
Andrew Hattori-No,especially when driveways are that close to those fences.Most people are
going to be reversing out of the driveway and there's a considerableamount of visibility that you
would need to have to make sure that when you're leaving,you're not backing into oncoming traf?c
or somebody running by.
Maria Teresa Valdez-I understand what you're saying,like this house here on the comer lot,this is
his driveway,His fence reaches out here and is forward facing the same side,are you talking about
this?Because I just see it as a homeowner.I want to be able to utilize my property and have
privacy.With homes being built so close to each other,can you imagine the next guy with kids
running around?That 3ft fence,you're looking straight through everybody's windows.And I feel
like that's a concern that most people are going to have.I don't have that.My home is old.It's built
it's grandfathered,and I don't have that issue.But I also want to be considerate of everyone else
when they buy their property.
Commissioner Cochran-It's a difficult issue.It's trying to balance between that visibility and safety
issue and that property rights issue.It seems like with option three,it does provide an option for the
city to take that on a case-by-case basis as they're looking at those new homes.And,of course,the
people with existing fences are grandfathered in.But I think it seems like the existing code does
create in limited situations,potential safety issues.And that's what we're attempting,I think,to
mitigate.Is that accurate characterization?
Andrew Hattori-yes,that is accurate.
Commissioner Cochran-Are there any Commission members that had questions for the applicant?
Sorry you sat down,but if I want to make sure if somebody had a question for you,they could ask.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 October 21,2021
Page 116 of 208
Page 117 of 208
Any questions?No more questions or concerns.This is a continuous issue,so we’ll see this next
month again.Next category is a memo on the Utility extension of the UGA.
WORKSHOP
OTHER BUSINESS
MEMO-Utilig Extension UGA-Director Rick White stated this item is a lot different than the
one you just considered.This involves utility extensions in the urban growth area,and it stems,of
course,on a number well,a whole history of growth in the city of Pasco,but particularlyrelative to
the 2021 comprehensive plan adoption.As the Commissionknows,we expandedthe urban growth
area considerably 3600 acres.Roughly that urban expansion is being appealed right now to the
Washington State Growth Hearing Board.But this issue about the policy for utilities extensions
still needs to be addressed because it's going to be important moving forward.
The major points of the staff report focus on the inef?cient use of public funds,to maintain and
develop inef?cient infrastructure.When unplanned growth occurs it's less expensive,but in the
long run,it costs everybody in terms of direct ?nancial costs and future considerationsfor loss of
land,loss of street connectivity and several inef?cient municipal services.
City Council and the Planning Commission have stressed several issues with the comprehensive
plan process for the last two years.Of course,the goals to encourage urban development in urban
areas where adequate facilities and services can exist or be provided is an important goal.The goal
of reducing the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into low sprawling inef?cient low-
density development was recognized as a critical goal towards that end.In Pasco.Here we're faced
with three unique situations in terms of our urban boundaries.
In the last recently incorporated Riverview area,we have an odd mix of low-density development,
some of it even without city water,but certainly a lot of it with septic systems.It's noted to be
lacking in adequate right of way.Often structures,homes,garages,etc.are directly in line with
what would be consideredlogical road extensions.And it's very dif?cult to retro?t those areas with
urban services,and we're noticing that more and more every single day when people ask to
subdivide their property.The second situation is lands that are generally outside the Riverview
area,but we're not included in the most recent urban boundary expansion that northwest of Burns
and Broadmoor Boulevard.Those are in our old urban boundaries.Many of them use city water.
Those properties are mostly ?lled up with half acre developments and they use septic systems,they
have city water.Because the minimum requirement is one half acre lots.The level of exception is
generally between one and a third and one and a half acre lots.The other situation we have is our
new boundaries,and those are clean slate opportunities.
There are no roads,there are no constraints aside,lack of utilities,and they offer the best chance for
achieving some of the goals that Council and the Commission have focused on in the
comprehensive plan process.What we've proposed in terms of the staff perspective,is separate
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 6 of‘)October 2|,2021
Page 118 of 208
treatment of those three areas.The unincorporatedRiverview area or also including at least the
recently incorporatedRiverview area south of 182,will be providedcity potable water when asked
in conjunction with building permits for single family homes on existing lots.
It's a fair proposition,and prevents any kind of taking,and it allows owners of existing lots to
utilize their property,with the intent to use it as a single-familyhome.Any subdivision,of parcels
in the unincorporatedand incorporatedRiverview area would require extension of city sanitary
sewer in conjunction with extension of city potable water.And then there's a caveat with that that
indicates we would strive to develop a procedurefor exceptions when it simply is impractical,and
we would rely on engineering analysis to come to that conclusion.
Those lands outside Riverview within the old Urban boundariesare recommendedto extend city
potable water with building permits for existing single-familyhomes.There not many properties
left in the old 2008 urban boundariesthat are in this situation.We would require annexationfor
extension of city services.This would result in conformance with city development standards,
impact fees,and any other development regulations that would apply to properties already in the
city limits.
It has a lot of ramifications,staff attempted to address just the essentialsin this memo.We would
certainly welcome Commission discussion,and once some feedback is received,we are currently
working with our legal team to come up with a series of municipal code amendmentsthat would be
needed to be addressedthrough ordinances.With any feedback we hear tonight,we can come back
with something for the Commission in November that narrows this down.
CommissionerCochran-Thank you Mr.White,you want new homes to leverage the investments
the taxpayers have made already,and when they don’t,you want the developers and homeowners
to bear that burden because the city has made those investments and those taxpayers have made
that investment,I think it seems like a reasonableapproach.One question is,when you use the
wording,they require an extension of city sanitary and city water.I assume that means that that's on
the developer or homeowner‘sproperty owner's dime?Or is that on the city’s dime.
Director Rick White-It would be on the owner or the permitting applicant.
Commissioner Cochran-I think that putting the burden on the developers and property owners to
bear the burden when they aren't leveraging the investments the city has already made is a
reasonablerule,but I will open it up to the other Commission members for comments and
feedback.1 think the staff would love your input and guidance,so please feel free to chime in any
comments from other commissioners.
Commissioner Lehrman-In the old UGA there are four neighbors,and one home is not there yet,
does that new homeowner take the full responsibility of connecting the sewer and water?
Director Rick White-There are four lots in a row,three of the lots have homes,the last one does
not.If a building permit is wanted on that existing lot,they would need to extend city water
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of9 October 21,202]
Page 119 of 208
themselves.If they came and approachedstaff with a subdivisionof that last parcel,then they
would be expectedto extend not just the water to serve the new subdivision,but also the sanitary
sewer.
CommissionerCochran-Is it because the lot becomes too small for a septic?
Director Rick White-This goes back to the premiseswithin the urban boundaries,we shouldn’tbe
using septic systems on existing lots.Generally,people have the property right to develop their
home on an existing lot.In those circumstances,there will not be much argument about use of a
septic system and meeting the health department regulations.But,if you subdividethose properties
into additionallots,within the urban area we would be expectedto provide sewer.
CommissionerHendler-When is a project or issue required to come before the Planning
Commission?
Director Rick White-Sure,when we switchedto hearing examiner,items like specialpermits,
preliminary plats,and rezones moved from the Planning Commission’sworkloadto Hearing
Examiner workload.Any major planning efforts like the ComprehensivePlan,Code Amendment
process,the TransportationsSystem Master Plan,the commissionhas received updates,then there
are the administrativeprocesses that do not go to Hearing Examiner or the Planning Commission.
One of those are the short plats because they are handled at the staff level.
CommissionerHendler-Not every project will be seen by the Planning Commissionunless they
fall within the perimeters?
Director Rick White-yes,that’s correct.This item will come back this year to the Planning
Commission,if we can get the ordinances tied up that affect the existing section in the municipal
code,we'll be able to advertise for a public hearing.
CommissionerCochran-So we will see this in a more formal public hearing item in Novemberor
December.Thank you.
CommissionerLehrman-Referring to CommissionerHandler’s question,l’m wondering if there's
an infographic that could be put up to share with both commissionersand the public of the process
that the city uses when deciding to go to the hearing examiner and Planning Commission,to be
able to help with communication.Like I said,these formal meetings that we have here and how
citizens can be involved in and follow along a little easier.
Commissioner Cochran-Something so simple like a ?owchart or diagram can be helpful,thank you
for that input commissioner.Hearing no further questions or comments.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:16 pm.
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 8 of 9 October 21 2021
Page 120 of 208
Respectfullysubmitted,
§K
MariaFernandez,AdministrativeAssistant 11
Community &EconomicDevelopment Department
October 21,2021
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 9 of 9
Page 121 of 208
alas Ci 0
‘WPciysco PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETINGMINUTES
City Hall -Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,November 18,2021
6:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Tanya Bowers.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:Jerry Cochran Remotely:Joseph Campos,Paul Mendez,Kim Lehrrnan,Isaac
Myhrum,Jay Hendler a quorum was declared.
Commissioners Absent:Abel Campos,Rachel Teel.
Staff Present:Community &Economic Development Director Rick White,Planner Andrew Hattori.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Tanya Bowers led the Pledge of Allegiance.
WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Bowers stated:The Planning Commission is an advisory board of volunteers appointed by City Council
and the purpose of the Commission was to provide recommendations to City Council regarding changes to
the City’s Comprehensive Plan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant Allocations and Zoning Code.The Planning
Commission is tasked with considering the long—termgrowth and development of the community,the impact
of land use decisions on community,livability,economic opportunity,housing affordability,public services,
and the environment.Chair Bowers reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live
on City of Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several
times during the next month.She stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of
Pasco’s website,which is Pasco-wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection
there.Copies of the agenda were available on the back table and asked that everyone silence cell phones to
prevent interruptions during the meeting.Please come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone,and
state your name and city of address for the record.Washington State law requires public meetings to not only
be fair,but also appear to be fair.Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from
participating in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be either
bene?ted or harmed by the Commission’s decision.Any objection to a Commission member hearing any
matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will be waived.Any Commission members who
have a current declaration regarding any of the items on the agenda.There were no declarations.Does anyone
object to any Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda.There were no declarations.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Jay Hendler moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes of October 21,
2021.Commissioner Jerry Cochran seconded,and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
Memo-Utilig Extension UGA
Director Rick White stated:This was brought before the planning commission last month.We do not have
an ordinance to review.The memo summarizes the importance of planned and smart utility extension policies
in the Pasco urban area and identi?es three different scenarios for your consideration.The first is either the
unincorporated or formerly unincorporated areas noted as a Riverview area,the lands within the 2008 Urban
Growth area expansion and then the lands added that are part of the current Urban Growth Area expansion.
Staff suggests the commission to consider three different policies for each area.Each area has unique
attributes,and it doesn’t go well to have a one fits all policy for them.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page I of 6 November 18,2021
Page 122 of 208
V A
l
Chair Bowers stated:Is it possible to see a mapped unincorporated plus the 2008 and the current EGA.
Commissioner Cochran stated:Same comment as last month,but the main driver for my perspective was
making sure that we incentivize and prioritize developers leveraging the infrastructure that the taxpayers
invested in.
Mr.Rick White stated:This was referred to the Home Builders Association some time ago.By December we
can have a formal public hearing and probably an ordinance from our legal team.
Corner Lot Fencing
Mr.Hattori stated:We will discuss a proposal for a code amendment regarding corner lot fencing,the
current code PMC 25.180.050 (1)(c)the height of fences,walls,and hedges shall be limited to 1511within
the front yard area of a residentially zone lots,retail business and of?ce zone lots provided (when two
contiguous comer lots or two comer lots separated only by an alley right of way form the entire frontage
between parallel or nearly parallel streets).
The height of fences,walls and hedges shall be limited to 6ft within the front yard adjacent to the side street,
except where the front door of a house faces the side street.All fences greater than 3.5ft in height must be
set back to the building line of the house facing the side street.You can see that the fence extends to the
sidewalk where the property line is presumed to be.The other scenario is when one of the houses does
access the shared street by current code right now,the requirement for six-foot fencing would have to be set
back to the building line of the neighbor's property.The fence would not be able to extend out to the
property line.
Fencing is entirely based on your neighbor's dwelling.After analyzing the code and possible options,there
are two code amendments we would like to propose.The first would be a modification to the residential
design standards.It would be the addition of verbiage during the planning stage or the permitting stage for
dwellings.If the condition were two contiguous laws formed the entire frontage between two parallel and
nearly parallel streets,the house would have to be addressed and accessed from the non-shared street.There
is a modification I’d like to change in the report.The proposal is written that the shared street would be the
primary access.Our code does allow for secondary accesses on comer lots.The second condition is that
fences greater than three and a half feet in height,must be set back a distance equal to the front yard setback
of the zoning district,and this would be a change to the fences,walls,and hedges design standards,and this
would take away that dependency on your neighbor's dwelling.This also takes into consideration when two
developments or two phases occur bordering each other.This is a real-life version of that plot we were just
looking at.The Southern dwelling accesses,the shared street and the Northern dwelling is slightly behind.I
believe the building line of the Southern lot,and because of that,the fence must be set back two or 3ft from
the building line of the Southern property,and that puts the fence by the dining room window.If the fence
was allowed to extend all the way out to the property line,for example,then that driveway on the Southern
property will border a fence creating a visibility hazard.
Chair Bowers stated:the setback being by the dining room window is problematic.
Mr.Hattori stated:yes,the fence line would put it at the dining room window of the northern dwelling.
With the setback requirement,it would ensure that the furthest that setback is going to be is at the building
line of the dwelling.
Chair Bowers stated:The building line of which property,the Northern property.
Mr.Hattori stated:The building line of the Southern property dictates where the fence will be on the
Northern property.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6 November 18,2021
Page 123 of 208
Commissioner Cochran stated:When you mention the first change and adding a primary access,I think
about my driveway being the primary access,and a secondary access would be where you can park a
motorhome,or another parking space?That is the kind of scenario you envision for the secondary access not
being subject to it,the primary access is.My second question is,where you say it is not allowed to be
addressed or accessed,I would assume a new division phase being added and house is being built and you
can tell the constructor the house needs to be addressed a certain direction.
Mr.Hattori stated:Yes,we hope the modifications to the design standards to existing dwellings will
address this.
Commissioner Cochran stated:You all have done a great job of going back and forth on a balanced and
minimalist approach that addresses the safety issues.
Chair Bowers stated:I'm going to open the public hearing.Any individuals who wish to speak on this item
now is the time to come forward and speak.All you must do is state your name and city of address for the
record.
Maria Sandoval &Ruben Sandoval of 5602 WRubvstated:We are on the comer lot.We wanted to start
out by saying this is not what we had in mind.We are concerned about safety.So here we have our six-foot
fence,and we drop down,and then all the 56 is that three-and-a-half-foot code enforcement.There is already
a six-foot-fence on Court Street,my husband and I are proposing to build our six-foot fence and be aligned
where that fence starts off.
Commissioner Cochran stated:So,what you are asking is to be able to build a 6-foot fence or extend out to
the road?Or both?
Maria Sandoval stated:I want you to allow me to add the extra height to the fence.
Commissioner Cochran stated:It is hard to envision,but the main goal of the three and a half feet is to help
with safety issues when others are backing out or accessing the street.If you build the 6-foot fence are their
driveways you would block from being able to see the street?
Ruben Sandoval stated:They would not mind if we built a 6-foot fence.There is an electrical box right on
the comer of the driveway,it would give them space.
Mr.Hattori stated:As far as extending the fence out to what I would think is the property line there,it
would still require that that'd be three and a half feet.
Director Rick White stated:I want to understand,the six-foot fence is the fence abutting Court Street.The
estate fence,is that correct?
Maria Sandoval stated."We had an architectural committee look at it.We submitted the plan,and nowhere
did it say there was going to have to be a three and a half fence on the busiest side of where our house is.
Commissioner Cochran stated:Based on what you described;you would be creating a safety issue for
yourself.
Maria Sandoval stated:No.This is 56 and our house faces the other way.
Chair Bowers stated:Commissioners any other questions,for the Sandoval’s?Any others who wish to
speak on this matter?
David Atkins o[5613 W Ruby Street stated:I am here for one of our neighbors that could not be here
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of6 November 18,2021
Page 124 of 208
....,N,_._..._.._.,.,
tonight.The following is a letter he wrote to the council.His name is Miguel.‘To whom it may concern,
First off,thank you for your time to hear us about this issue we have regarding the height of our fence facing
the streets,it’s a giant concern to my wife and letting our little one’s age three-and eight-years old play
outside in the comfort of our own home due to the absolutely no privacy and potential safety to whoever
passes by and randomly stops and parks on road 56.I'm not allowed to put up a six-foot fence.We have over
a half-acre lot and with just three and a half foot fencing everywhere it is visible by driving by.I've had
multiple cars stop on my property,park,and sit there for a few minutes and just wait there and must take her
to support this.I have personal items in my backyard that I could replace if they were to get stolen,but I do
not feel safe letting my eight-year-old play in the backyard knowing that it's easier for somebody to literally
step over a three-and-a-half-foot fence and could take them with ease.I hope this will never happened,but
this is one of the biggest concerns I have.Anyone can walk to my house while my kids play in the backyard
while I run upstairs for something or anything,in general.I recently put-up security cameras.But when
somebody with intentions,that camera simply isn’t going to stop them.Recently the neighborhood got
broken into and my house was hit.A few items were taken from one of the vehicles,that can easily be
replaced,but not my children.We have worked very hard for many years to get where we are to be able to
build a home for our children.It breaks my heart that I must tell them,they are not allowed to play in the
backyard unless 100%supervised,due to being a privacy safety issue.I hope you can see our point of view
and please allow us to be able to have Privacy that will give us a peace of mind for the safety of our loved
ones and especially these little.
Commissioner Cochran stated:Where are you wanting to put the fence?
David Atkins stated:Here between where the street is.
Commissioner Cochran stated:You’re wanting to put up a fence here,and you’d rather build it six feet than
three now.Same as the last case?
David Atkins stated:Yes.
Ashley Atkins also of 5913 W Ruby Street [husband is David Atkins}stated:Being at the opposite
comer,at the last meeting in October,there was an inaccurate discussion,provided the pictures that were
shown by Mr.Hattori.I understand he was describing the code in its current place.However,the dispute is
about size,location and it wasn't comparable to our situation.We have no sidewalks.There needs to be
language in the code to interpret important aspects when deciding a fencing permit,including safety,crime,
and conformity.Have you considered writing more than one fence code depending on the size of the
residential property or replacing a phrase in the current code to have more versatility for situations like this
that come up?After speaking with both the city of Richland and the city of Kennewick code enforcement
and building,we would have no problem building a six-foot fence on a quarter lot.We feel the city,as
Pasco,has overstepped its stringent code and it needs to reflect not what the city desires,but with the
taxpayers need.
Chair Bowers stated:Your house currently has a three and a half.’
Ashley Atkins stated."Yes.
How would the new proposals effect the presentations we had tonight?How
our standards compare to the other two cities for fence building?
Mr.Hattori stated:we are the only city of Tri-Cities that currently bases fence setbacks and comer lots on
neighboring properties.Each city does it differently,but we would be unique in that aspect.
I know I've been given some new information tonight.Does the city feel like with
some of this new information,you would like to revise your proposal?
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of6 November 18,2021
Page 125 of 208
.3
1l
il
il,
:1
.5
Director Rick White stated.‘No,we can provide aerial photographs of this city-wide issue.First,show the
existing situations and then possibly show should there be a six-foot fence installed on the ?anking side.
And we can try to show the proposal tonight would accomplish.Reports can be shared with residents and
commissioners.
Chair Bowers stated:I think it will be helpful,it’s wonderful when public comes in to show us other
perspectives.This is how we do community-based decision making.We need to go back,put some more
perspectives in here,and then we can look at this at the next public hearing.
Commissioner Cochran stated:We should get some insight about the changes you're proposing,which are
seemingly a good balance of all the proposals we've talked about,how would that impact,help or hurt these
situations?
Commissioner Myhrum stated:I concur with my colleagues,and I found the public comments compelling,
and I'd be in favor of additional perspective so we can continue to look at this.
Commissioner J.Camgos stated:I agree.It would be nice to go back and gather more information and talk
about it again.
Commissioner Hendler stated:I wanted to bring up the issue about looking at the requirements for fences,
aesthetically and the creation of our neighborhoods as we go forward.I do not care about the height of the
fence if it meets safety standards and provides for the aesthetics of the city.
Chair Bowers stated:We are going to move on,and we will continue this at this public hearing at the next
meeting.
WORKSHOP &OTHER BUSINESS
MEMO-AMENDING NONCONFORMING USES
Senior Planner Mr.Jacob Gongaleg stated:in the past municipal Code nonconforming regulations referred
to uses or structures which were constructed at the time when they were permitted but have since become
noncompliant due to changes in legislation such as rezones land uses,etcetera.Our intent is to update the
nonconforming chapter to be more ?exible for our community members.We are looking for comments,this
is just an introduction more so to get an approval from planning commission to move forward with this
effort.After a few months,we’ll come back with updates.
Commissioner Myhrum stated:It appears that there is quite a bit of ?exibility,the non-conforming code
section essentially allows a non-conforming use to exist so long as it's not added to or expanded upon.Do
you foresee adding additional sections to this?Can you maybe give some examples of added ?exibility that
isn't currently being addressed‘?
M .Jacob Gonzalezstated:One example is a multi-family house located in a residential zone that could be
rebuilt in case of a fire.If it was in a commercial zone,it could not.We have a few residential units
specifically in central Pasco along 10"‘avenue,Sylvester,and Court Street.There we have multifamily or
residential units that were constructed at the time lawfully.However,a new zoning has been applied,so
depending on the extent of the construction or repair,they may not be allowed to be repaired or rebuilt per
our current code.We would like to look at some of those to make sure we don't have any inconsistencies.
There is an application cycle for our comprehensive plan land use opening in the next few weeks.We do
think that both refinements and nonconforming regulations,along with the land use amendments,may clear
up any of those kinds of inconsistencies.There's also some language and terms that are in the
nonconforming regulations,which we do not have defined.We would like to deviate subjective responses
and be very specific and clear as we can be with working with members of the community.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of6 November 18,2021
Page 126 of 208
Chair Bowers stated:This will help get the past in line with the present.
Director Rick White stated:The downtown master plan is continuing.December 15 is a workshop,and it
will be held downtown.We are also in the middle of the initiation process for a housing capacity plan.Mr.
Gonzalez has done a great job getting the city represented in a Housing Solution Workshop,a national effort
we really bene?ted from in terms of getting data for our housing capacity plan that we otherwise would have
had to have paid for a separate consulting team to prepare.1 want to make sure that I also mentioned the
Broadmoor master plan,which is continuing that's much like our comprehensive plan.Not only is it a master
planning effort for that roughly 1500-acre area,but it's also an environmental impact statement.The brief
from Future Wise was received two weeks ago.It is our issue to take care of,however it is a three-part effort
with the city's attorney team,the counties,and the Port of Pasco.The briefs in response to Future Wise's
complaint are due next Friday.We expect it will go to the Growth Management Hearing board by the
beginning of the year.There are huge projects riding on this decision like the Reimann Center Annexation
that will house the Dairy Gold project.There are several large-scale residential developments occurring in
North Pasco.We're working on forming sewer,local improvements to provide the backbone utility
infrastructure in that area as well.
Commissioner Cochran stated:Is there also a workshop happening?The workshop for Broadmoor traf?c
design.Is that in public works?
Director Rick White stated:Yes,it was last night.There will another event on interchange,West eastbound
on I-182 on how they go north and south on Broadmoor Boulevard.
Chair Bowers stated:I imagine we will be invited to the Visioning workshop on the 15th?
Mr.Jacob Gongaleg stated:You are,yes.
Commissioner J.Camgos stated:I have looked at the Transportation System Master Plan Jacob put
together,and it looks awesome.Mr.White is the Lewis Street overpass back up and running?
Director Rick White stated:Yes,some of it is back up,the supports are being poured already.Mr.Gonzalez
would probably like to say a few words about the Transportation System Master Plan.
Mr.Jacob Gongale;stated:Yes,quick summary.That effort has been going on from mid-2018 to late 2019.
DKS has been working hard to identify existing conditions and the future demands that will be placed on the
city's entire transportation network.It’s a lot more than just our vehicle traffic,it includes non-motorized
users,bicycles,those on foot and our emergency service responses.We expect that to come back to Council
in early 2022 for ?nal adoption.
Chair Bowers stated:Will we be seeing it before council?
Mr.Jacob Gongaleg stated:Yes,we can provide a summary to the planning Commission.Probably in
January’s planning commission meeting.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:37 pm
Iykespectfullysubmitted,
Kristin Webb,CDBG Administrator
Community &Economic Development Department
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of6 November 18,2021
Page 127 of 208
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
DATE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2022
6:30 PM
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I
SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing Code Amendment
Background
Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front
yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street
front yard area on corner lots the following applies:
(1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-
way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges
shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Exhibit A.
(2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater
than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Exhibit B.
Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in
height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing
restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line.
An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in
height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This
fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the
fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent.
The public considered three options at the December 16th Planning Commission Meeting:
Option 1: On lots that are not contiguous and form the entire frontage between two parallel or
nearly parallel streets: Fences greater than 6’ in height within flanking front yard areas
shall be setback a distance equal to the front yard setback of the underlying zone, with
a modification to the residential design standards to prohibit access to the shared
street.
Option 2: On lots that are not contiguous and form the entire frontage between two parallel or
nearly parallel streets: Fences greater than 6’ in height within flanking front yard areas
shall be setback a minimum distance of 15’ from the property line.
Option 3: On all lots: Fences greater than 6’ in height must be setback 15’ from all property lines
adjacent to street right-of-way.
Page 128 of 208
2
Analysis & Summary
Current fence design standards require setbacks that are determined by a neighboring property’s
dwelling rather than a consistent measurement. This can create situations where a fence on a
corner lot must be set back significantly further than what would be a safe and uniform distance
from a property line. Additionally, properties on a corner lot where the neighboring lot has yet
to develop do not have a basis for what the required fence setback may be resulting in unsafe or
stringent requirements.
Residential Design Standards
When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets,
dwellings shall not be allowed to be addressed or accessed on the shared street. This will remove
the possibility of creating unusual lot configurations and accesses.
Fences, Walls and Hedges Design Standards
When the corner lots do not form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel
streets, fences greater than 3.5 feet in height shall be setback 15 feet from the property line
adjacent to the side street.
Staff has included all proposed changes and revisions in Exhibit C of the Planning Commission
staff report.
Recommendation
Motion: I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco City Council the proposed
amendments to the Residential Design Standards and the Fences, Walls and Hedges Design
Standards as contained in the January 20, 2022 Planning Commission staff report.
Page 129 of 208
Page 130 of 208
Page 131 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 1
EXHIBIT C
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO CORNER LOTS AND CORNER LOT
FENCING, AND AMENDING PMC SECTIONS 25.165.100(1) “RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN STANDARDS” AND 25.180.050(1)(C) “DESIGN STANDARDS”
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical
development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has Subdivision regulations that encourage orderly growth
and development; and
WHEREAS, fencing design standards require setbacks determined by neighboring
dwellings; and,
WHEREAS, residential design standards do not provide provisions for maintaining
standard lot accesses; and
WHEREAS, without such ordinance, placement of fences on corner lots is problematic
and ambiguous when lots are not developed simultaneously; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to maintain and protect the welfare of
the community and provided consistent and reasonable expectations for fence and dwelling
placement, it is necessary to amend PMC Section 25.165.100(1) entitled “Design Standards” and
PMC Section 25.180.050(1)(C) entitled “Fences, Walls and Hedges”;
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That Section of PMC 25.165.100(1) entitled “Design Standards” of the Pasco
Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.165.100 Residential design standards.
(1)Design Standards. Except for multifamily structures, the following design standards shall
apply to all newly constructed or newly placed dwellings in the RT, R-S-20, R-S-12, R-S-1, R-1,
R-2, R-3 and R-4 districts:
(a)The main entry doors of all dwellings must face the street on which the dwelling is addressed;
(b)When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets,
dwellings shall not be addressed or accessed from the shared street.
(c)(b) A minimum of 30 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;
Page 132 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 2
(d)(c) All entry porches/landing areas must be constructed as an integral part of the dwelling
architecture;
(e)(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 the ordinance codified in this
chapter 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.
(f)(e) Eave overhangs are required and shall be a minimum of 12 inches;
(g)(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;
(h)(g) No false or artificial dormers are permitted, except fenestrated false or artificial dormers
on roofs with at least a 5/12 pitch;
(i)(h) All foundation walls must be poured concrete or masonry block;
(j)(i) All dwellings must be permanently connected to foundations, and must meet seismic and
wind loading standards for Franklin County, Washington;
(k)(j) No more than 12 inches of foundation wall can be exposed on the walls facing a street;
(l)(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;
(m)(l) All siding must extend below the top of the foundation one and one-half to two inches. A
bottom trim board does not qualify as siding and cannot be used to cover the top of the foundation;
(n)(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;
(o)(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;
(p)(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;
(q)(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;
(r)(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 25.200.080.
Section 2. That Section of PMC 25.180.050(1) entitled “Fences, Walls and Hedges” of the
Pasco Municipal Code shall be and hereby is amended and shall read as follows:
25.180.050 Design standards.
Page 133 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 3
(1) Fences, Walls and Hedges.
(a) The height of fences, walls and hedges located between a structure and street or alley shall
be measured from the street curb or alley grade except in those cases where topographical
irregularities occur. The height of fences, walls and hedges between a structure and a common
lot line shall be measured from the grade along the common lot line or top of any structural
retaining wall occurring at the common lot line.
(b) Fences and walls in commercial districts shall complement the materials used in any
principal on-site structures.
(c) The height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to 3.5 feet within the front yard area
of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots; provided, when two contiguous
corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-way, form the entire frontage
between parallel or nearly parallel streets, the height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited
to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street; except where the front door of a house
faces the side street all fences greater than 3.5 feet in height must be set back to the building line
of the house facing the side street.15 feet from the property line adjacent to the side street.
(d) The height of fences, walls and hedges within the side and rear yards of residentially zoned
lots, retail business and office zoned lots shall be limited to six feet. A gate or opening with a
minimum three foot width leading into at least one side yard shall be provided.
(e) Fences shall not be constructed out of tires, pallets, bed springs, multi-colored materials,
tarps, plastic sheets, corrugated sheet metal, except in industrial districts, wheel rims and similar
or like materials not traditionally manufactured or used for fencing purposes. Hog wire, chicken
wire, horseman wire mesh, v-mesh, field fence, woven field fence, welded utility fence, or any
similar or like wire fencing material is not permitted in residential or commercial zones.
Horseman wire mesh and the other wire fencing listed above may be permitted in suburban
residential districts on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. Fences built
with valid permits prior to the effective date of this chapter or fences on properties annexed to
the City after the effective date of this chapter are exempt from this subsection.
(f) Fences constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns of up to five
feet in height may be permitted within front yards in the R-S-20 and R-S-12 districts provided
said fencing is 85 percent transparent.
(g) Barbed and razor wire fencing is prohibited in all residential districts, in the office district
and the central business district. Barbed wire may be permitted in suburban residential districts
on tracts larger than one acre that are used for animal husbandry. In the C-1 retail business
district only one strand of barbed wire is permitted along the top rail or within two inches of the
top rail.
(h) Electrified fences are not permitted in residential districts except as a secondary means of
securing property where the electrified fence is located behind an existing fence or in suburban
districts to contain permitted farm animals.
(i) In all front yards, whether on properties with single, double, or triple frontage, rails, posts
and other structural fence supports shall not be visible from a public street; except that posts and
Page 134 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 4
rails that are an integral part of the fence design and aesthetics and not used solely for structural
support may be visible from a public street.
(j) All fencing in commercial and industrial districts shall be placed on the inward side of any
required perimeter landscaping, with landscape treatments occurring along the street frontage.
(k) No fence, wall or hedge, landscape material or foliage higher than three feet above curb
grade shall be located or planted within an area 20 feet along the property lines from the
intersection of two streets, including the area between such points, or 15 feet from the
intersection of a street and an alley; provided, however, that if an alternative fence material is
used, such as masonry, wrought iron, wood, or combination thereof, then the fence must be 75
percent transparent and may be a maximum six feet in height; or a smaller, 75 percent
transparent fence set upon a maximum three-foot wall or other structure not exceeding a
combined height of six feet may be erected within said area of intersection of street and alley, so
long as the fence is at all times unobstructed by foliage or other matter.
(l) Fences constructed in any zoning district may be permitted at the back of sidewalks in public
right-of-way upon approval of the City Engineer, except as provided in PMC 25.180.050(1)(j).
(m) All residential fencing within the I-182 overlay district, as defined by PMC 25.130.020,
adjacent to the I-182 right-of-way shall be constructed of masonry block. Replacement of pre-
existing Surewood fences within the district shall use masonry block or cedar material prescribed
by the City as prestained, knotless cedar 23/32-inch thick, five and one-half inches wide and six
feet tall.
(n) No fence or wall shall be erected without first obtaining a building permit from the Building
Inspector.
(2) Clearance Distances. Where a fire hydrant is located within a landscape area it shall be
complemented by a minimum clearance radius of three feet; no tree, as measured from its center,
shall be located within 10 feet of a street light standard, or within five feet of a driveway or a fire
hydrant.
(3) Commercial and Industrial Districts.
(a) The first 10 feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting an arterial street and the
first five feet of all commercial and industrial property abutting a local access street shall be
treated with landscaping at the time the property is developed. No less than 65 percent of the
landscaped area must be treated with live vegetation at the time of planting.
(b) In addition to the requirements contained in this chapter and unless specified otherwise in
Chapter 25.130 PMC, commercially and industrially zoned properties adjacent to properties in
less intense zoning districts shall have a 10-foot landscape buffer on the side immediately
adjacent to the less intense zoning district. The landscaped buffer shall meet the following
standards:
(i) Live vegetation within the landscape buffer shall be planted with a mix of evergreen and
deciduous trees and shrubs interspersed throughout the landscape buffer.
(ii) The live vegetation shall consist of 40 percent evergreen trees.
Page 135 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 5
(iii) Trees shall be provided at a minimum rate of one tree for every 20 linear feet of property
line and spaced no more than 30 feet on center spacing along each property line, unless planted
in groupings of three trees, with groupings spaced no more than 50 feet on center along each
property line.
(iv) Shrubs shall be provided at a minimum rate of one per eight linear feet of property line and
spaced no more than 16 feet apart on center.
(v) Parking lots located adjacent to properties in less intense zoning districts require 100 percent
of the landscape buffer to be planted with live vegetation.
(c) The area between property lines and the back edge of street curbs, within right-of-way and
exclusive of sidewalks and driveways for ingress/egress, shall be treated with landscape
materials.
(4) Residential Districts. At least 50 percent of the required front yard area for all residential
property, including right-of-way but excluding driveways, shall be treated with live vegetation.
Planting strips shall be treated as per PMC 12.12.070; and
(5) All areas of a lot or parcel not landscaped or covered with improvements shall be maintained
in such a manner as to control erosion and dust. Gardens within established landscapes are
excluded from this provision in residential districts. Front yard areas not covered by the required
50 percent live vegetation must be covered by mulches or decorative rock.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this day of 2022.
Page 136 of 208
Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot
Fencing and Design Standards - 6
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorney
Published:
Page 137 of 208
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONMEETINGMINUTES
&Cltyoj City Hall-CouncilChambers
525 North Third AvenueI.Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,DECEMBER16,2021
6:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
City of Pasco Planning Commissionmeeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Tanya
Bowers.
ROLL CALL _
CommissionersPresent:Tanya Bowers,Jerry Cochran,Telephone:Rachel Teel,Kim Lehman,
and Joe Campos a quorum was declared.
CommissionersAbsent:J.Hendler,Isaac Myhrum,Paul Mendez,Abel Campos
Staff Present:Community &EconomicDevelopment Director Rick White,Senior Planner Jacob
Gonzalez,AdministrativeAssistant 11Carmen Patrick,and Planner I Andrew Hattori.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CommissionerTanya Bowers led the Pledge of Allegiance.
WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Bowers explainedthe Planning Commissionis an advisory board made up of volunteers
appointedby City Council.
She further explainedthe purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendationsto
City Councilregarding changes to the City’s ComprehensivePlan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant
Allocationsand Zoning Code.The Planning Commissionis tasked with considering the long—term
growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community,
livability,economicopportunity,housing affordability,public services and the environment.
Chair Bowers remindedthe audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of
Pasco’s Facebookpage and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcastseveral
times during the next month.
She stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website,
which is Pasco-wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMANDlink and make your selectionthere.
Chair Bowers stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table.
She then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting.
For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission,
please come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and city of
address for the record.
Chair Bowers remindedthe audience and the Planning Commissionthat Washington State law
requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair,but also appear to be
fair.In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commissionmembers from
participatingin discussionsor decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be
either bene?ted or harmed by the Planning Commission’sdecision.An objection to any Planning
Commissionmember hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will
be waived.
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 1 of 16 December 16,2021
Page 138 of 208
She asked if there were any Planning Commissionmemberswho have a declarationat this time
regarding any of the items on the agenda.
There were no declarations.
Chair Bowers asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commissionmember
hearing any of the items on the agenda.
There were no declarations.
Chair Bowers stated the Planning Commissionneededand valued public input explaining it helped
the Commissionunderstandthe issues more clearly and allowedfor better recommendationstoCity
Council.Furthermore,in many cases,this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and
opinions placed into the official recordand City Councilwill use to make the Commission’s
decision.She encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
'3'CommissionerJ.Campos moved to approve the Planning Commissionmeeting Minutes
of November 16,2021.CommissionerCochran seconded,and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.Code Amendment—CornerLot Fencing
Andrew Hattori stated members of the Planning Commission.I'm here tonight to discuss comer lot
fencing again.We will start off with just going over today's current design standards.Currently,
maximum height of fencing in front yard areas is limited to three and a half feet.In ?anking front
yard areas there are two situationspossibleif they are continuous comer lots between two parallel
streets.The maximum height is 6ft.Under any other circumstances,it's three and a half feet up
until the point it reaches the building line of the neighboring property.From that point on,it can be
6ft.Furthermore,maximum height of fencing in rear side yards is 6ft.
To give an example of the situationwhere you have two comer lots that are continuous and form
that entire frontage between two parallel streets,you'll notice on this diagram that both houses are
addressed,not onto the shared ?anking street.In this situation,6ft.fencing can extend out into the
green ?anking front yard area.
The next slide shows a real world example.On the left,you'll notice that the fence extends out to
the edge of the sidewalk.It's a little hard to see on the overview on the right,but that's where the
property line is located.You'll also notice that both of those houses have their primary accesses
locatednot on the shared ?anking street.So this is the situation in which you'd be allowed to
extend your fence all the way out to the property line.
The next slide.This is an example of when you don't meet that circumstance,the house on the right
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 December 16,2021
Page 139 of 208
has their primary access and is addressedoff of the shared ?anking street.In this situation,6ft.
fencing has to be set back to the building line of the house on the right for the property on the left.
A real world example can be seen on the next slide.On the street view image on the left,you'll
notice that fence does not extendall the way out to roughly where that sidewalkis.It's set back to
the greenhouse or the house behindits building line.And that can be seen in the overview on the
right as well.
So,we have some new options tonight.Kind of went back to the drawing board and thought about
how far could we extend fences out before we bring in the real question of safety?What's that line?
Option one is the option that was proposedat the last meeting.When two corner lots form the
entire frontage between two streets,neither property shall access the sharedstreet,so we will try
our best to avoid those situations.And fences greater than three and a half feet height must be set
back a distance equal to the underlying zone.
So,in the RS-1 one and higher densities,that's going to be a 20ft.setback in the RS-l2 and RS-20
zoning districts,that's going to be a 25ft.setback.And on the next slide,this is the real world
overview of that plot we were just looking at you'll notice that house on the northwest comer I
believe in that intersection,their driveway abuts that property line.So having fencing that extends
out all the way to the sidewalkwould create a severe visibility concernwhen you're backing out of
there,especially when there's two four—way intersections.
On the next slide,we'll go over option two.Under this option,fences greater than three and a half
feet in height must be set back 15ft.from the property line adjacent to the shared flanking street.
You'll notice this l5ft.brought up a lot.After discussionamong the planning staff,building staff,
engineering staff,and kind of ?nding out what's that line,where do fences start to become real
visibility concerns,15ft.was the measurementthat was determined.It's in line with our clear view
standardin the past design and constructionstandards.
So,under this situation,it doesn't matter what your underlying zoning is.As long as the fence that's
greater than three and a half feet is set back 15ft.from that property line,it would be pennittable.
So on the next slide.You'll notice that the fence is nonconforming in this instance,it actually
extendsbeyond the property line into the right of way and abuts the driveway of the Brown house.
Under current fencing design standards,the white vinyl fence would actually have to be set back
about 15ft.into the start of the building line,which would effectively put,for example,that fence at
your living room window.
That doesn t really make a whole lot of sense.Under option two,you would have a 15-foot setback
that effectively puts it at the building line of the dwelling and also provides enough clear view
space for the dwelling behind it,the Brown dwelling to safely exit there without having to worry
about oncoming traffic or any pedestrianswho might be walking down the road.
And option three,our ?nal option,fences greater than three and a half feet in height must be set
back l5ft.from all property lines.This creates a standarddistance along all right of way lines.So
what that would mean is that we essentially get rid of the concept of the difference of a front yard
and a ?anking front yard.If you have a property line that's adjacent to a street or any public right of
way,then it would just need to be set back 15ft.from that property line.
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 December 16,2021
Page 140 of 208
So,moving forwardat last month's meeting,there was a lot of discussionabout a specific
development in this case that's the Haven Court Meadowsdevelopment off of West Court Street.
So,I thought it would be a good idea to take some of the lots that have these comer lot fencing
concerns,draw out what each option would mean for these lots and kind of do an analysis of that.
But before we break into the analysis,I just wanted to bring up a few things about not only the
subdivision,but fencing in general,a lot of fencing problems are specific to a subdivisionor the
area.This area in particularis in the Riverview area.It's next to what used to be a County doughnut
hole.
And in these areas is where we ?nd a lot of these issues.You'll notice none of this area has
sidewalks.There's no city sewer here,so there's septic tanks,which causes issues even on the
fencing materialdesign.I also wanted to bring up that we're not talking about whether or not these
lots are fenceable.We're strictly talking about where you can have fences greater than three and a
half feet.All of these lots are fenceable.I know a concern that was brought up last meeting was the
wall that is adjacent to West Court Street.
That's an estate wall.It's entirely different than a residentialfence.In a way,it is a standardthat
was required at preliminary plat approvaland is required of the subdivisionplans.So typically
these fences go in way before any homes are built and before the land is actually even plottedinto
individuallots,those are required against any collector or arterial roads West Court Street falls into
that category,and it's why the fence doesn't continue up Road 56 and Road 60.
So,the ?rst lot we're going to look at is lot D.You'll notice that there's an access easement behind
this lot and that's the sole access point for at least one dwelling to get to Road 60.And this is an
example of when we really have to be conservativevisibility because while it's not your traditional
driveway,it's a lot that only can use this and they have to have a safe distance,which would be that
15ft.But you'll notice two lines.The blue interior line is where fences greater than three and a half
feet would have to be set back under today's design standardsand option one.The red line,which
is closer to the property,would be where fences can be under option two and three,and there's a
total of 10ft.closer,so that would increase the fenceable area with fences greater than three and a
half feet by roughly 10ft.of width.
The next lot we're going to look at is E.You'll see it on 58 Court and West Ruby Street.So,this is
a lot on the corner of 50th Court and West Ruby Street,similar to the last lot.The blue line shows
where under today's standardsin option one,fence is greater than three and a half feet can be in the
red line,which is closer to that property line is option two and three again with a gain of 10ft.in
width.Now the third lot is the northwest lot on the corner of West Ruby Street and Road 56.And
this kind of shows how our current fence design standardscan really vary depending on your
neighbor's lot layout.
So,the blue line in this instance is where fences would be under option one only,the red line,
which is 10ft.closer to Road 56,is actually today's standardoption two and option three,because
that lot behind it is actually closer than typically would be to Road 56.
The last one we're going to look at is on the southwest comer of that intersectionand similar to the
first two.Yeah,G and under this or the blue line,in this case,similar to the ?rst two,is where
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 December l6,2021
Page 141 of 208
current fence design standardsand option one would place the fence and options two and three
would be 10ft.closer to Route 56.
So,to summarizethis essentially,option One,the one from the last meeting,would not bene?t
these lots per se,just by the way,that the lots are laid out where neighbor's property or their layouts
are where options two and three are going to give an extra 10ft.of total space.And at this 15ft.,that
is the clear view triangle for driveways and alleyways.An additionalconsiderationthat I would
mention is that these are large lots.So typically,you're going to see structures like shops and
garages,and we do permit secondary accessesunder all of these options one,two,three current
design standards.
Having a secondary access there,even for the property owners themselves,would still provide
clear distance,reversing or entering or exiting that property.And so,we spent some time looking at
these larger lots in the Riverview area.This is a property on the transitionbetween Three Rivers
Drive and I believe,Road 56.I apologize.This is north of the highway,and something that I would
note here again is that the property to the north was plotted and built-in city jurisdiction,whereas
the property to the south is actually in the Northern County doughnut hole.So,it's one of those
larger lots.The house is setback pretty far and maybe subdividedsomeday.This is an extreme
example of how confusing our current fence design standardsare.So,fencing on that corner lot
would have to be set back to that building line,which effectively puts that fence at your back door
at the middle of the house.
So to give a good example of how each option would individually impact this kind of situation,the
diagram on the right shows a red line at the middle of the house.That's current standards.The blue
line is set back 20 ft.,which is the underlying zoning district's front yard setback,which puts it at
the building line.Options two and three the dash line is where it would be in the ?anking front
yard,and you'll notice the solid line continues around the front of the house.The line to the right of
that,it's the kind of dashed green line.That's where options two and three would place that fence
with option three actually continuing up and aroundthe property.
So to summarize,give kind of the breakdownof each option on the next slide.Kind of put it in a
table view.Option One the one from last month's meeting,maintains fencing outside of
neighboring propertiesfront yards.It provides the largest clear area view,and it clari?es fencing
code and design standardsand makes it make sense.Option two would allow for extensionsof
fencing,it says greater than 6ft.I apologize that should be three and a half feet in height and two
neighboringpropertiesfront yards,but it still provides a large area of clear view for traffic on the
primary accesses.It's less restrictivethan option one and the current fence design standardsand
would provide at a minimum between five and 10?.of yard area for fences that are greater than.
Again,I apologize three and a half feet in height.Option three would allow 6ft.fences to be located
anywhere outside of a space 15ft.wide adjacent to street right of way.It provides the minimum
sufficient view for traffic adjacent to an on-site and is the least restrictive option.And so with that,
I think we concludethe presentation.
CommissionerCochran added,I think just comments.This is kind of I think the third or fourth time
we talked through this and I appreciate all the work you guys have done because it's really complex
issue to meet kind of balance everything.But it seems like to me just from a comment.I don't think
I have any more questions,but I think we have to arrive at what option we prefer if we're going to
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 December 16,2021
Page 142 of 208
recommendto Council.And so,for me,I think options two or three are what I kind of feel good
about,because I think they strike a good balance between the safety issue and also allowing
homeowners to maximizetheir yard.I think I would be personallybe supportive of either option
two or three.I also think that there's a safety issue,but people that are driving cars also have a
personalresponsibilityto look before they back out.So you just can't put it all on the homeowners
that,hey,my neighbor's stupid and doesn't look when they back out.And so I have to build a
different fence.So,there's a shared personalresponsibilitythere.And so that's why I like options
two and three,that it feels like a good balance between what the homeowners are asking for.That's
why I personallyfavor two or three.I'll just leave it at that.
This is CommissionerLehrman,please.Looking at option two and three.I like that it lends to one
that safety's address,but also,secondthat the homeowner has more use for their land for their
property.And so I think that would be attractiveto many homeowners.I also like how well option
three is neatly laid out.The wording on it.I think that would decrease the amount of confusion as
property owners are trying to decide out their fencing and how to utilize their land.
This is J.Campos.I don't want to knock option one is it looks like it seems to resembleour current
requirements fairly closely,and that seems to have maybe not worked for the general public,but at
least gotten us by for however long we've had it.And I'm really interestedto see what the public
has to weigh in before we as a Commissionhave a third discussionon it.But I like Commissioner
Cochran's comments.I think you're right very much as a sharedresponsibility for motorists
shouldn'tbe the sole burden of a homeowner to ensure safety.Great comment.
CommissionerBowers commented,so I have a question,Andrew.We don't have any pictures of
option two or option three because they're not permittedas yet?
Andrew Hattori answeredthat's correct.Yes.Just the diagrams that are right.
CommissionerBowers asked,and option one is still close to what's currently permitted,but it still
gives us a little bit more leeway from that.
Andrew Hattori answeredRight.So it's close.It bene?ts lots where say your neighbor has extreme
setbacks on their property.It's not going to prohibit you from having a logical fence,for example.
CommissionerBowers so with that,if we have no other questions or comments,I'm going to open
up the public hearing.So any individualswho wish to speak on this particularitem now is the time
to come forward and speak.Please state your name and the city of address for the record.
Hello.My name is Ashley Atkins,and I don't know if you could pull up the lot again with the D.
CommissionerCochran asked before you switch over,can you tell us which lot you are?
Ms.Adkins stated so I am lot D here,over in this corner is our back access that Mr.Hattori talks
about.We have ten—footeasement till about right there and it goes to 15 and almost 20 in this back
part because of the road coming in.Because of the road kind of it's narrower in here than it is back
here.So they do have their access back here.It is over a half an acre lot.Our fence right now is at
the three and a half foot as it sets.This gives a little bit better angle that the stop sign is almost
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 December 16,2()2l
Page 143 of 208
nearly parallelto where our fence is.So,we have the setbackalready but if we move it back 15ft.
and what you suggested,then we would have to rip out all of our fence from here to this point,
even though this is set back 15 ft.already.
Rick White stated well,Madam Chair,may I interrupt for just a moment,please?This is not a
retroactivekind of code amendment.The things that have been permittedare going to be allowed
to remain.
Andrew HattoricommentedI'd like to add to that that's the three-and—a-half-footportion,so that
portion is permittedanywhere on the lot.So,we're strictly talking the 6ft.
Ms.Adkins continuedcorrect.We want to add and have more Privacy for our kids and our dog,
because right now the kids can just hop over this.I mean,it's as big as you couldjust literally hop
over it,so it doesn't benefit us in any way the same thing with this lot.It is not on your list of letters
on your exhibit see there,but actually,it's the ?rst built house on Ruby Street closest to ours.Yes
so this is that house,and this is their three and a half foot fence.And obviously the stop sign is way
up here.So there's visibility in both our lots,actually,in all of our lots for visibility,the only garage
accessesis all on Ruby Street.So the other garage accessesare on the opposite side of the street for
safety reasons.
CommissionerBowers asked so you would like to increase the height of the all of our
development?
Ms.Adkins statedwe want to increase our fences to 6ft.right now.They're at three and a half feet
unless they are in any of the middle lots.Any of the comer lots in our entire development cannot
have 6ft.fence regardless of where they're at.
CommissionerBowers asked so,Andrew,which would be option one,two,three for them to be
able to go?
Andrew Hattori stated so I think what you're concernedis increasing the height of the fence that
currently exists,the three-and—a-half-footfencethat's along the property line.So in this instance,
under all of these options,it would have to be moved back 15ft.from its current location if it's on
the property line.And so,the comment would be that this is a unique subdivision.We do have to
considerthis code for the entirety of Pasco.The code does not prohibityou from having 6?.fence.
It just standardizesthe location that it can be located at.
Ms.Adkins stated in regards to both cities,Kennewickand Richland,they do not have the dwelling
behind it to give access to where your fence shouldbe.Is there a reason why the city of Pasco has
that in their code?Andrew Hattori answeredI'm not sure of the origin of that portion of the code.I
am not exactly sure when that code was last amended,but it is in line with the way that Franklin
County does their fencing,and we want to step away from that.That's why all of these options
would get rid of that provision so that we can not worry about where your neighbor's house is for
your fence.Ms.Adkins continuednow just coming here we were talking about the access on Court
Street.And you said that has to be put in when the development started.The block fence on Court
Street down at the bottom.Andrew Hattori answeredtypically,yes,it's part of the subdivision
requirements.Ms.Adkins asked if Andrew knew the easement for that?Andrew Hattori stated
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 December lo,2021
Page 144 of 208
there is no easement for that fence.It's generallyplaced at the property lines of those propertiesthat
above West Court Street.Ms.Adkins stated okay,because that actually has less visibility.We have
less visibility pulling out than we would on our own lots.Andrew Hattoriansweredright.Those
are bound by the City of Pasco designing constructionstandardsand is typically reviewedby
engineering staff in regards to visibility.
Ms.Adkins asked since both cities do not have that in their code and the City Pasco does,is there
reason why we have that in there?What brought it on?That the dwelling behind our houses
decides where our fence shouldbe.
Rick White stated well,again,Madam Chair,we don't know exactly how this happened.We tried
to ?nd how it happenedand probably address some circumstance at some point in time,much like
we're doing right now with somebody that had probably an unusual or unique circumstance or
situation.As Andrew mentioned,it does re?ect consistency with Franklin County.Many years ago,
Franklin County and the City of Pasco coordinatedan effort to try to standardizedevelopment
regulations.And for the most part,those have been in here,too,through the last few decades,at
least through the growth management years from the 90s and beyond.But again,we recognize that
that isn't a very good fix.So,as Andrew again mentioned,all three of the options want to eliminate
that quali?er and establishone,two,or three as current standards.
CommissionerCochran stated but am I correct in assuming that I think the choice this particular
homeowner is given is if we were to go with option two or three,for example,it would give them
the ability to build that 6?.fence,but it would require them to rebuild and repermit,not add to their
existing is what I'm assuming is the case,right.So,it would really be a trade off,then,for the
homeworkbetween the Privacy I want,but then I have to do that in this code I have to lose a little
bit in my yard to gain that Privacy.Is that really the essence of what we're talking?Rick White
commentedyes,it is.
CommissionerBowers asked under option one,what would this homeowner have to do?Andrew
Hattori answeredso under option one,the fence that's greater than three and a half feet would have
to be 25ft.from the property line.That's essentially what would be required under today's standard.
I believe that house that is locatedbehind your property is about 25ft.away.Options two and three
would increase how close you can be to the street by 10ft.
Ms.Adkins added I just have a few more things.Going up and down Road 68.So,McGill is down
here with the Fire Department on Road 68.This house just put a nice new block fence in.And this
house right here is basically opposite direction.Obviously,there's an easement here for the canal,
but it's the same situation they were allowedto put in their fence.They’re 6ft.block fence.Andrew
Hattori stated to comment on that is that Valley View Drive,that's county property,and they don't
require permits for that one.So,I'm not sure if they're in compliance with their code or if they I
don't believe they permit for those.Ms.Adkins asked so off Road 68 here,this is all county?
Andrew Hattori statedjust that Valley View West side area.Ms.Adkins asked okay,so everything
on this side is city,correct?Mr.Hattori stated yes.
Ms.Adkins continuedokay.And what about having a 6ft.fence behind a school without sidewalks,
no sidewalks,but it backs onto the school so their backyard would be facing the school area.For
example,this one's on Bayberry Drive right behind it is Ruth Livingston.They also have a 6ft.
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 December 16,2021
Page 145 of 208
block fence and the same thing with this house off Bayberry as well.These are new neighborhoods.
They also have a 6ft.there with an ease going behind their house to a house,just like in our
situation.Andrew Hattori stated right,do you have an overview photo by chance?Ms.Adkins
said the overview photo is just like our,because it’s new.Andrew Hattori continuedI believe,and
maybe Rick,I know there was a variance for a fence,and I think it was the comer lot on Bayberry,
where in the instance,that because the school is there and because of the way the schoolis
permitted,they're allowedto have a 6ft.fence if they wanted to out to that distance,they were able
to obtain through the hearing examinervariance.I'd have to check our recordsjust to verify.But
under that variance standard,typically,dwellings that back up onto the school are allowedto
extend their fence out to that property line.
Rick White stated and that is exactly what happened.The hearing examinerfound that there were
special,unique circumstances not sharedby other propertiesin this vicinity and did in fact,issue a
variance for that fence.Ms.Adkins asked now,is it just for one or both because they're both on
comer lots?Rick White stated I just rememberone property.
Ms.Adkins stated,and I don't know this might be county as well,because this is right down the
street from McGill’s.So,this is on Road 68.This is a 6ft.block fence,and then they're facing the
opposite direction again.Andrew Hattori stated I apologize.Without the overlay and showing the
city and county bounds,it's hard for me to comment on that.CommissionerBowers asked that's on
the east side of the street?Ms.Adkins the street is where the ?'uit stand would be a little further
down in the summertimeoff Road 68.Rick White stated I'm still a little puzzled,but if I'm not
mistaken,I think that is still in FranklinCounty.I really can't put a finger on the location right from
that slide anyway.CommissionerCochran added but it's also set pretty far back,even though it's a
6ft.fence,it's pretty far back from the road.Ms.Adkins stated it's about ten.So,our option for
going back to lockdown is switching going because we have a 15ft.set back in the back of our lot.
We would have to change the front part of our lot to have it jig back into our property line.An
extra 5ft.to have a 6ft.fence.Is that what one of the options would be for us.
Andrew Hattori commentedyes if I'm understanding correctly.Yes,you would have the ability to
just move the fence back at 15ft,and then you could go up to greater than three and a half feet.
Essentially,1just want to make sure I'm answering correctly.Is that the question?Ms.Adkins
stated well,I'm trying to ?nd out what our options would be.Could we apply for a variance for that
extra 5ft?Since we have the 15ft.in the back?What are our options at this point?Andrew Hattori
stated you can apply for a variance.And if you'd like,I can get you that application,and it kind of
goes over the exact points that need to be met to obtain a variance.Ultimately,that decision will be
made by the hearing examiner.So,I can't say whether or not the variance would be approvedor
denied.Ms.Adkins commentedokay because we didn't have that option.They said that we
couldn't apply for a variance before,so we do have that option to apply.Andrew Hattori answered
yes.You always have the option to apply for the variance.We just can't guarantee it meets the
requirements to obtain it.Ms.Adkins stated okay.All right.Thank you.
CommissionerBowers stated thank you Ms.Adkins.All right,are there any other speakers?
My name is Maria Sandoval,and we are lot G.I'm not very good with math,right?I would just
recap everything that my neighbor here,Ashley said we're pretty much in the same situation.We
have this three-and—a-half-footfence on the side of road 56.So that's a lot there.I did not print off
my pictures.This is our three-and—a-half-footfence.As we shared last time.It's not obstructing,
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 December 16,2021
Page 146 of 208
necessarily.I know there was talk about maybe having a drone out there,look at different views of
it and see if it would really obstruct.I heard somebody say something about a simulationif it were
actually the 6ft.So we're not asking to push our fence further onto the property line.What we were
just asking is the same thing as our neighbor,Ashley,is to extendit to the 6ft.And so,everything
she said,pretty muchwe share the same sentiment.That's what we've been requesting.
CommissionerBowers stated,and just to ask Ms.Sandoval,the top part of the picture,what street
is that down here?Ms.Sandovalstated yes.There we go,now it looks like the diagram.And so,
this is our site and then our neighbor in the front who couldn'tbe here.F.
CommissionerCochran statedit seems like you have the same option as your neighbor.If we were
to go with something like option two or three,it actually gives you a choice that you don't have
now,which is to move the fence back and then get 6ft.The tradeoff1S you have to lose a little bit of
your property,right.But that is a tradeoff.If the Privacy is the important piece,the thing we're
proposingin option two or three in particulardoes give you more ?exibility than you would have
without it.Ms.Sandovalstated the only other piece with it is that by doing that,it would go
through our septic.I stated earlier that is a unique development.It's not necessarily all the other
good stuff.It has septic system by moving it,and even it would go right through it.So if we're also
allowedto do the variance,we would state that in there,that would be the why of not wanting to
move any further over if safety is still doable with how it is now.Thank you.
CommissionerBowers statedgreat,thank you Ms.Sandoval.So,Andrew,there is no option that
currently would allow her to get them to go up to 6ft.Andrew Hattori stated not at the current
location of the three and a half foot fencing on all the lots that we've discussedD,E,F and G,they
would all have to be brought back under option two and three 5ft.before they can extendto that
height.CommissionerBowers stated okay.I just think that's important to clarify,because as we're
thinking about these three options,realizing this situation,even though it sounds like it's pretty
horrendousfor these homeowners it wouldn't impact these three choices that we're thinking about
right now.Andrew Hattori stated correct.These options they standardizethe locations,but option
two and three would be certainly the most bene?cialoption for all of these lots.It's going to give
that extra 10ft.of space as option one would essentially mirror the current code's applicabilityto
these lots.
Ms.Adkins added I'm sorry,I just wanted to add one more thing.On all of our lots all of our
sceptics are located on the roadside,so the 15-foot going in,it would go off all of our lines so we
wouldn't be allowedto put in the fence.Andrew Hattori answeredthat's correct.Specificallyfor
block fencing.Rick White commentedyeah,I'm not so sure that that's true.I would caution that
we would de?nitely need to check with the health districtbecause a block fence most certainly
would not be permittedon top of the drain field.A wood fence I'm not so sure about.Andrew
Hattori commentedyeah,I checkedwith our building Department as well,and they said that it's
likely they would also have to check with the health Department.But wood and vinyl are typically
possibilities.That's where the question of material comes in.Additionally,this isn't so much a
Privacy fence,but on these larger lots,we do have an allowance that at these locations,the fences
currently are at 3 ft.If you wanted to increase the height to 5ft,you could make it out of block and
Rod iron and have it be 85%transparent.Again,that's not necessarily a Privacy fence,but is an
option for larger lots.
CommissionerBowers stated thank you for that.Okay.I opened the public hearing.I'm calling for
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 December 16,2021
Page 147 of 208
public comments going,going,gone.Okay,let's see what our options are now.So ultimately,
Andrew,do you want us to vote on one option?Andrew Hattori answeredso in the staff report,I
left language on two possibilities.One,if you wanted to have us bring back more information,we
would be asking for just a directionthat you would like us to go into in case there was the
determinationthat there's a suitable option.I le?some verbiage in there that would ?t that,of
course,because there's three options I don't have a draft ordinance,and if you'd like to see that,I
can also come back to next month's meeting with the draft ordinance.CommissionerBowers
stated okay,so commissioners,do we need to have any more discussion?
CommissionerJ.Campos stated I would like to deliberate a little bit between us before we go for
sure.Reiterate cause of the conversationwe had in the public hearing it de?nitely sounds like the
homeowners have the option to essentially A,do nothing leave their fence as is or B,apply for a
specialpermit request to maybe leave their fence where it is or comply with whatever we choose to
do.And this kind of goes in with what Mr.Hattori said is that this is a really speci?c development,
and I think it's important to considerwhat the public has said,but we're making decisionbased on
the entirety of Pasco,not just this development alone.That is my initial comment.
CommissionerBowers stated thanks,J.Campos.I have to say I think they're all good options.I
actually like two better,because I feel like that's a good balance between one and three.
CommissionerCochran stated maybe the question is,do the commissionerspresent feel con?dent
in going with one option,or do we want to see the code amendmentsor more deliberation?I guess
that's really the core question,because if all the commissionersfeel con?dent that they like one of
the options,then we could move forward with a recommendationto Council.But if they don't.
Then we should deliberate more.
Rick White stated or we can come back with an ordinance.And my guess is that wins out options
two and three,unless I hear differently.But it doesn't sound like option one is getting much favor.
CommissionerBowers stated yes,unless there are any commissionerswho feel differently,why
don't we put this on hold and you will come back to us with that language for options two and
three.Great.And I would just ask if it's at all possible to show us not just the overheadview,but
even if it's a picture of what two and three would look like from forward facing or side facing,I
would appreciate that.Andrew Hattori stated yeah absolutely.
CommissionerJ.Campos if the public is interestedin providing more comments.I'd actually ask
them to try to submit them to the city prior to so we can get all of their stuff put into the package.
It's a lot easier for us to review,as opposedto looking at it on the overhead.
WORKSHOP
A.CODE AMMENDMENT-PLANNEDUNITDEVELOPMENTSMF#CA2021-011
Jacob Gonzalez stated good evening Members of the Planning Commission.You may recall that
staff presenteda proposalto revise the recently revised Plan Unit Development Regulations.You
may recall actually a lot on this Planning Commission.Most of 201 9 we moved forward with an
amendmentto the Plan Unit Development regulations.PUDs in general,are intendedto provide
opportunitiesfor innovative and creative with quite a bit of ?exibility in land development,to
encourage the use of new techniques,resulting in more creative approachto developing lands here
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page I l of 16 December 16,2021
Page 148 of 208
in the City of Pasco.And in that 2019 effort,the primary focus was on reducingthe minimum site
area.The prior minimum site,I believe,was 20 acres.We've reducedthat signi?cantlyto allow for
more in?ll opportunities.
You'll see that in the third bullet point reducedopen space requirements and also again,the
opportunityfor more in?ll and increaseddensities.And so our effort this time is based on two,
actually,they're in the applicationreview period,but in this period we've receivedsome feedback
from both homebuildersand also discussionswith staff on some additionalre?nements to make.
So,with that,the proposalrevisions in this effort are to streamlinethe applicationsubmittaland
review process at clarity for the development standardsand added ?exibility for the development
itself.And so,we've identi?eda few and this looks a lot smaller than I hope for.But I'll read
through these.So,staff has created a few preliminaryproposedrevisions that we would like to
garner some initial feedbackfrom the Planning Commissionon.And I'll just go through these one
by one.And the ?rst is relatively simple.It's with regards to permitteduses.Currently,the PMC
only restricts the combinationof residentialand industriallands.This proposalwould do that.
However,we want to add additionalcriteria for the combinationof both residentialand commercial
lands and also combinationsof residentialand open space or nationalareas.And you'll see that
later on in the proposalrevisions how that may ?t in.So,this technically not changing how it
applies,but does add some clarity for those applicants.On the minimum site area.The only
change would be that the site be continuous and identi?edwithin the phasing.
So again,a lot of the theme from this effort is re?nement and clarity and on the relationship to
adjacent areas currently in that subsectionof the code.There's a lot of language with regards to
connectivity access,multimodalconnectivity,etc.We would like to keep that language,but de?ne,
I'm sorry,create a new subsectionfor transportation and circulationthat addresses all travel modes
speci?cally with regards to non motorizedand emergency access.On the next slide with regards to
density,our comprehensiveplan was adopted not too long ago,and so the current PUD regulations
do not align with our new comprehensiveplan.So we intend on ?xing that.And then along with
that,making sure that the densities are compliant with our comprehensiveplan.
We would also like to use this as an opportunityto sort of pilot some additional?exibility on the
density bonus.So currently the PMC allows for a 20%added density for PUDs that meet the spirit
of the code.However,we don't de?ne the spirit of the code,and so we would like to use this again
as an opportunity to de?ne speci?cally what that could be.And so after some research across
multiple jurisdictions on what they would perceive as not only spirit of the PUD but what they use
generally for density bonuses,a few examples could be dedicatedaffordablehousing.Now that
would be de?ned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development,so it's based on the area
median income.Green or lead certi?ed building so that's more of the sustainabledevelopment
types.And one that we've been trying to work on throughout most of our subdivision code and you
may recall this from the lot size averaging amendment,which is proximity to transit,schools,
parks,the general public land uses that folks in general would need access to.
So,the idea is to allow for that 20%or a different thresholdif deemed appropriateby the planning
commissionto be appliedfor those subdivisions,I'm sorry,these proposedPUDs.If they fall
within these categories or others if the planning commissionhas any suggestions again,that is just
a density bonus.It's not a requirement or does have a maximum,but it's certainly not a requirement
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 December 16,2021
Page 149 of 208
and up to the proposedapplicant to take advantage or not that opportunity.Again,on lot coverage
the PUDs already allow most ?exibility to all of our zoning geometry standardswith regards to a
lot.The PUD regulations they require the establishmentof what the lot coverages are.But we don't
de?ne what the minimum and maximums are.So similar to what we've done with other codes we'd
like to add that clarity,but also use what was done in the Waterfront Development District,which
was have the lock coverage determinedby the parking and setbacks.
On the next slide off street parking.The proposalfor this would be to add criteria for off street
parking requirements for reductionsof off-street parking requirements.Excessiveparking can
sometimesor adds to the cost of the housing itself.It also begins to help with our comprehensive
plan implementationby aligning our parking standardswith neighborhoodcharacteristicsand
surrounding uses.And so similar to the density bonus,we're certainly interestedin hearing from the
Planning Commissionabout reducing,and again,this is only an option for those developments that
are senior housing,mixed use projects and or projects that have close proximityto transit and or
public land uses.And again,the idea is to begin to dedicate more land to housing versus maybe
excessive parking.Again,it is again,an option,not a requirement.
And also on the guest parking this one is relatively simple.It would be to remove the maximum
guest parking requirement.Our initial intent was to not overburdena particularapplicationwith too
much requirements for max,I'm sorry for guest parking,but we've gotten feedbackfrom those that
are trying to use the PUD,and this actually has been a little bit challenging for them.So our idea is
to simply eliminate the max parking requirement,guest parking requirement,and then add criteria
for guest parking on the minimum side when it's not providedwith the use of a private street
because our private streets in the PUD code don't require off street parking,so it kind of balances
that out.
So in the next slide,we go into private streets.And again,additionalclarity with regards to the
cross sections right now in the regulations.It's a lengthy paragraph,we would like to simplify that.
And then we would also like to again utilize street connecting,you may recall this in the street
connectivity effort,which is still ongoing,a maximum length without a brake.So I think in the
staff report there's an example of 600ft.and that could be broken by either additionalpark space,
obviously a dwelling unit or a parking space,but some kind of break because with the setbacksand
heights being allowedto either increase or decrease,but we certainly want to avoid narrow kind of
canyon like developments.And so the idea of these brakes is not only increase the circulation
access,but certainly will add or decrease the feeling of being in a canyon,if that makes sense.
And this is a pretty big one on the amenitiesand open space.We would like to add some basic
standardsand de?nitions on the criteria for qualifying open space areas to pull the purpose of the
PUD itself.So this we would like to create a new subsectionand create standardson the size and
location.An example I saw in one municipality was that 50%of the open space must be contiguous
with no portion less than 75ft.wide.And what that does is it ensures that we don't have little pocket
green areas that technically are green or open space,but not necessarily usable.And with all of the
reduced requirements and added ?exibility,we don't want to have the PUD turn out to be a sort of
a,I guess,deviating too much from the spirit of not only the PUD code,but certainly our general
subdivisionguidelines.So it's to add some basic standardson that.
You'll also see something that we're interestedin hearing from the Planning Commission,which is
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 December 16,2021
Page 150 of 208
in a PUD,technically,most of the open spaces dedicatedand maintainedby the tenants or the
owners of the project.We are interestedin hearing some feedbackwhere if there is a dedicationto
the public of that green and open space,that there may be an opportunityfor either reducedor
mitigation of park impact fees,which would reduce the cost of each permit as well.So very
preliminary,but certainly interestedin hearing your comments on that.
And then the last one and one that we're certainly interestedin from a staff side is just streamlining
the review and approval process.Right now the rate the code is written,and this wasn't touchedin
2019,is rather lengthy and a lot of duplicate language in this portion of the code,and we would
like to streamlinethat process simply so it would take a lot of text and essentially bullet pointedso
that the applicant knows exactly what they have to apply with.For example,TIA and kind of the
traf?c impact analysis knowledge your upfront informationwhen you apply for a PUD,but also
what the review process is like internally for staff and also in the public hearing process for PUD.
And on the next slide,just kind of as an example of a variety of actually,these are from a PUD that
I actually visited recently in Atlanta,Georgia,so long ways from here,but really innovative designs
out there.It's a 40 or 60 acre site,and they've got both.This is a mixed use PUD,which is what we
would like to also emphasize as well.But you have a variety of detachedattachedhousing,
homeowner housing,rental housing,condo,town home,cottage style,kind of the whole gauntlet,
really,but some really great public open space,in fact,that's the part of an amphitheaterin the
bottom left,a lot of green space,circulationpatterns and pathways.And I think we would be able to
achieve that,at least in theory,in the code,by adding some clear standardsfor what that would
mean.
On the next slide just some next steps for staff and also from the Planning Commission,which is our
intent today is to gather some feedbackfrom the Planning Commission.And then for the January
Planning Commissionmeeting,we would prepare a notice for a public hearing.We would distribute
our proposedrevisions to the public and to stakeholdersand begin preparing the preparationof the
State EnvironmentalPolicy Act Checklist the SEPA,and then again,following feedbackat that
public hearing,come back to the February Planning Commissionmeeting,either with a public
hearing and recommendationor simply just a public hearing to be continued.So,with that this
concludesthis presentationand certainly happy to answer any questions from ?nding Commission.
CommissionerBowers stated so commissioners,any comments,feedbackwe'd like to provide?So
just a couple of questions.So,you were saying part of this is we're trying to cut the acreage so that
we can have more opportunitiesfor these sort of PUDs with in?ll?Jacob Gonzalez stated that
actually was already completed.
CommissionerCochran stated I just had a more educationalquestion for me.I saw the language you
were talking about in the density portion,clarifying minimum maximum densities are de?ned by
gross density.1 don't know what you mean by gross density and how that's calculated.Jacob
Gonzalez answeredthe gross density would refer to the total area.So,it's a little bit simpler in terms
of calculating when you look at the net density,it's the right of way,potentiallypark or space that's
not usable by the development itself.CommissionerCochran continuedthe net is when you
subtract all the things they can't do.That makes sense.And then the other comment I love is the
amenitiesand open space.1 love the idea of providing an incentive that will reduce your permit fee
if you dedicate open space to public.My feedback is that's a great thing to always create public
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page l4 of I6 December 16,2021
Page 151 of 208
developer incentives for public bene?t.
CommissionerBowers stated Commissioners?Well,I can also say I love the idea of reducing the
canyons.And I noticedthe part about the private streets.1just know how problematicthose private
streets have endedup being when it comes to snow and maintenance and turning aroundin there.
So,I think whatever we can if we have to have them,whatever we can do to try and make sure they
can navigate is really important.
Jacob Gonzalezstated yes,and right now,private streets are only permittedin PUDs,and that's
because the only place they have standardsare in the PUD regulations.Those were added in the
2019 effort.Now,I do know that staff,in general,through the effort on the transportationsystem
master plan,has been looking at potentiallydifferent cross sections for local access roads.And I
have seen some PUD regulations not too far from here,actually,in the Whatcom County area with
much smaller footprint for the cross sections that are public streets but are smallerin terms of the
right of way it takes.And one of the bene?ts right now that I think some of the applicants view in
the private streets is that it's less space dedicatedfor right away or street and more for the actual
development.So,staff can certainly maybe take a stab at looking at coming up with appropriate
smaller cross sections for public streets.Currently,private streets are only permittedwhen you
cannot achieve the minimum density of a PUD.And although it is expressedin the code,but maybe
not as clear as it shouldbe,PUDs cannot prohibitthe extensionof any public roadway.
So,if the street is already to your east or ready to the north,that street shall be expectedto continue
in that direction.And if you can meet the minimum density with your public streets,and that shall
be the expectation.So that's again,more on the refinement and clarity side.But we can also look at
different cross sections for public street,but we'll check obviously with our engineering staff to
make sure that that would be appropriateand also our Fire Department.
CommissionerBowers stated right.And with the required off street parking,I guess it'll be off street
parking rather than guest parking,but I just would want to make sure we avoid what we're finding in
centralPasco where we don't necessarily have enough parking depending on what the density is
within a house.Commissioners,any other comments?
CommissionerLehrman stated to add on to what you're talking about,chair Bowers.Also,
communitieschange of who lives in the plannedhouses of the past.At one point in time,maybe a
large group is using the transit system,and so the parking is not such an issue.Then maybe later on,
we have changes in our transit system or just new people move in.And it's not desired for them to
use the transit system.And now in a situation where it's not enough parking.So I kind of hesitate
about moving to one guest parking for every six homeowners situation.
Jacob Gonzalez stated yeah,on that comment Commissioner,that was the one for six with regards
to guest parking,not the requiredoff street parking.So on that one,it's removing the maximum
guest parking.What happenedwas we had a proposedapplicationthat exceededthat.Now we've
allowedit.But we want to remove that constrainton a proposedapplicationbecause the applicant
and the developer will know more about their intended use,then we might try to portray in the
code's ideas to increase ?exibility for the applicant and the development itself rather than us
prescribingperhaps arbitrary number around it.
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 December 16,2021
Page 152 of 208
B.MEMO-ANNUALCOMPREHENSIVEPLAN AMMENDMENTS
Jacob Gonzalez stated good evening again,membersof the Planning Commission.This is just a
memorandumto the Planning Commissionannouncing that the city did open up our applications
for ComprehensivePlan Amendmentsfor 2022.That we are permittedonce per year by the State
GrowthManagement Act to change the comprehensiveplan and the city has an established
process that allows for that to occur.There are two components,and this was a recent adoption by
the Planning CommissionCouncilin 2021.The two components are number one is the
establishmentof the applications.So applicationsare due in May.And then we take these
applicationsto the Planning Commissionto recommendestablishedof these are the applications
for amendments.It goes to Council,and then it goes back to component number two,which is the
actual evaluation.And so there will be a staff review.And then they'll come back for a public
hearing at the Planning Commission,a recommendationon each applicationitself.Keep in mind
that these are to happen concurrently,so what happens across the street will impact you,what
happens across the neighborhoodmay impact you,that will come into play.Then a ?nal decision
by the Pasco City Council.
So the next slide,just a timeline of what this looks like.So we opened up the applicationperiod on
December 1.Applicationis due in May and then May and throughout the spring.We take these to
the Planning Commissionand Council for the establishmentof the docket.And then the
evaluationof the applicationshappens in the summer and fall of 2022.And so we just wanted to
providethis to the Planning Commission.We do expect a lot of applicationsto come in,not only
from both the private side,but certainly from the city as we look to sponsor a few applications
ourselves with regards to the Housing Action Plan that is underway,the Downtown Pasco Master
Plan,the Broadmoor Master Plan and EnvironmentalImpact Statement.And we're also looking at
re?ning some nuances within our zoning and land use that exist in central Pasco and in some of
our other corridorsas well to fix.So we're looking at this opportunityto announcethat this is
occurring and that will likely have a fairly active amendmentapplicationprocess within the next
coming months.
OTHER BUSINESS
Meeting adjournedat 7:50 pm.
Ca en Patrick,AdministrativeAssistant 11
Community &EconomicDevelopment Department
Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 December 16,2021
Page 153 of 208
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
City Hall -Council Chambers
D 525 North Third Avenue
Pasco,Washington
THURSDAY,JANUARY 20,2021
6:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.,by Chair Jerry
Cochran.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:Jerry Cochran,Jay Hendler,Telephone:Rachel Teel,Kim Lehrman,Isaac
Myhrum,Paul Mendez,Abel Campos and a quorum was declared.
Commissioners Absent:Tanya Bowers
Staff Present:Community &Economic Development Director Rick White,Senior Planner Jacob
Gonzalez,Administrative Assistant II Carmen Patrick,and Planner I Andrew Hattori.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Jerry Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance.
WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Cochran explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers
appointed by City Council.
He further explained the purpose of the Planning Commission was to provide recommendations to
City Council regarding changes to the City’s Comprehensive Plan,Land Use Updates,Block Grant
Allocations and Zoning Code.The Planning Commission is tasked with considering the long-term
growth and development of the community,the impact of land use decisions on community,
livability,economic opportunity,housing affordability,public services and the environment.
Chair Cochran reminded the audience tonight’s proceedings were being broadcast live on City of
Pasco’s Facebook page and on Charter Cable PSC Channel 191 and will be rebroadcast several
times during the next month.
He stated the meeting was also being recorded and could be watched on City of Pasco’s website,
which is Pasco—wa.gov.Click on the VIDEO ON DEMAND link and make your selection there.
Chair Cochran stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table.
He then asked that everyone silence cell phones to prevent interruptions during the meeting.
For those present this evening,when you are given the opportunity to address the Commission,
please come to the podium,speak clearly into the microphone and state your name and city of
address for the record.
Chair Cochran reminded the audience and the Planning Commission that Washington State law
requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only be fair,but also appear to be
fair.In addition,Washington State Law prohibits Planning Commission members from
participating in discussions or decisions in which the member may have a direct interest or may be
either bene?ted or harmed by the Planning Commission’s decision.An objection to any Planning
Commission member hearing any matter on tonight’s agenda needs to be aired at this time or it will
be waived.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 154 of 208
He asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time
regarding any of the items on the agenda.
Commissioner Mendez stated he has a declaration regarding item six on the agenda,and that he
owns property in the unincorporated island within the City of Pasco.
Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member
hearing any of the items on the agenda.Hearing none,let the record show there were no
declarations on this side.
Chair Cochran stated the Planning Commission needed and valued public input explaining it helped
the Commission understand the issues more clearly and allowed for better recommendations to City
Council.Furthermore,in many cases,this could be the only forum for the public to get facts and
opinions placed into the official record and City Council will use to make the Commission’s
decision.He encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
°3°Commissioner Isaac Myhrum moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting
Minutes ofDecember 16,2021.Commissioner Hendler seconded,and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
A.Memo-Utilities in UGA
Rick White stated this item has been before the Commission before,and it asks the Commission for
their input on a policy relating to providing City utilities within our urban growth area (UGA).I
think the Commission recognizes the perspective provided in the last two or three meetings that
you've had.Essentially,the Pasco UGA has three very different scenarios in terms of development
and existing development and potential development.
The ?rst would be the Riverview area,which is generally located south of Interstate 182.That's
mainly been developed in the county,and it contains a number of challenges related to providing
utility services,connectivity with City streets,and a whole host of urban considerations.The
second scenario involves the 2008 UGA,which I provided a map that you can tell the difference
within terms of colors.There's not much undeveloped land in the old 2008 UGA,with the
exception of the Hoorigan Farm property,which is located south of Burns Road and almost to the
Columbia River.You can see that on the map as well.And then the third scenario is the recently
adopted UGA,which is basically completely void of development considerations.It's almost all
farmland right now.
Staff has prepared three different scenarios for dealing with the three different situations for the
Pasco urban area,the area south of 182 and the Riverview area.Mr.Chair,in this area staff would
propose that city water be provided in conjunction with building permits on existing single family
lots.It's the light green area on the map.There are a number of existing lots in that area.Candidly,
this green area is probably going to be underutilizedin terms of development for many years.But
the intent is not to deprive people that own existing lots.The ability to get City water,assuming
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 155 of 208
they can,in fact,get City water.Actually,a number of homes in this area use groundwater wells,
but we don't want to preclude a building permit holder to utilize City water,assuming that they can
get it.
However,if there is a subdivision of property within the Riverview area,then staff recommends a
policy of extending City sanitary sewer with any extension of City potable water.Then as an
ancillary consideration,staff would recommend that obviously,we're going to have to develop a
procedure,because in all cases that's not going to be practical,but it's going to be up to a
professional to tell us why,and we would develop an administrative procedure for that to occur.
The lands within the 2008 UGA,which are represented by the yellowish orange,you can see the
Hoorigan Farm area at the very left or west of the map.The area north of that is all developed with
roughly half acre or larger lots.Sanderson Estates.I can't remember the names of the subdivisions
now,but that's basically built out.And then there are some properties further east that are not
likely,again to consider development proposals in any fashion anytime soon.
Staff would recommend that properties within these areas be provided,potable water in
conjunction with building permits for single family homes on existing lots.However,subdivisions
of parcels within this area will require,again,extension of sewer in conjunction with City water.
And as a condition of that extension,we would require that City standard streets and sidewalks be
achieved in conjunction with the utility extension agreements.Then the easiest one to consider is
the new UGA,in the pink.Again,that's a clean slate.We just recommend that annexation,the
condition of extension of utilities and that solves the question.Originally,I provided the
Commission with the concept that our legal team would be developing a series of code
amendments that would make this happen however due to delays,we decided it would be best to
develop the policy first and then come back with the code amendments,because they're going to be
varied depending on what City Council ultimately chooses again based on the Planning
Commission's recommendation.I provided a motion if the Planning Commission is comfortable
with that.If not,any discussion of additional information or questions would be certainly well
received at this time.
Commissioner Cochran asked if there has been a public hearing on this old business,or would that
be future?
Rick White stated that we have had a public hearing.For a couple of months now,I've proposed
this exact same staff report to the Home Builders Association,and I finally discussed it with their
director recently.I think the Tri-City Home Builders Association is neutral on this,they recognize
the need for a policy because it provides predictability,and they don't really see this adversely
impacting their association.
Commission Cochran asked so the process now is we would agree or move to the policy things,
and then you'd come back with code amendments,and those code amendments would also have a
public hearing?Rick White stated that they would.Commissioner Cochran asked the
commissioners if there were question or feedback for the staff on this.Then stated,not hearing
any,I have a clarification.When you say some of these policy statements,like “City potable water
in conjunction with building permits for single family homes”,does that imply that the cost and the
burden are on the city,or is it the developer and the homeowner when they ?le a permit to do
those?Because all of these have that activity and I just want to know what the assumption is that
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 156 of 208
we're assuming that that's part of the developer expense when they're doing it?
Rick White answered,no,that's correct.And stated that's why,if you are familiar with the green
Riverview Islands,it's very apparent that whatever water system those properties are using at this
time will be there for some while the cost for extending water would be a responsibility of the
owner or builder,and the requirements for extension would also be.It may include over sizing but
there are some serious development issues in the Riverview area that are going to be very
challenging for any future density considerations.
Commissioner Cochran stated I'm in the Riverview area,I am not in the Donut,but I have a well.
And if my well ever failed,I would expect it would be on me to cover that 500-foot extension,not
the City.I think it's also in spirit that the City's invested in this infrastructure and taxpayers have
paid for it,so you need to utilize it and cover the cost to get there.So that seems consistent.
Rick White went on to say Mr.Chairman,pardon me again,I wanted to also explain that in your
situation that there is a tool that the City has in its municipal code that is called the Latecomer
Agreement.So,the ability for a water extension or sewer extension to happen on your costs could
be contingent upon future property owners connecting to that line that you've extended and for a
period of time,then reimburse you for the appropriate and proportional cost that you incurred when
you did that extension.And that's a tool that's used by developers all over the place,normally not
for just one lot,of course,but for subdivisions in particular.That is for water and sewer and
roadways.
Commissioner Cochran stated the other thing I noticed is when you do that water sewer extension,
in some cases,it also then puts a requirement for proper roads and sidewalks.Is that the case as
well,just for the subdivisions,not for the individual?Rick White said it wouldn't be appropriate to
piecemeal that for individual lots.That's assuming that the waterline is in the road.So,you would,
of course,patch the road to whatever standard is appropriate or applicable.But you would not
create a new road segment.
Commissioner Myhrum said he had no direct comments to make and stated,I think these
guidelines are quite practical,quite responsible,considering the substantial investment that goes
into public infrastructure.So,I'm comfortable with these guidelines,and I think they'd be good
starting point looking at code sections.
Commissioner Teel had a question regarding the potable water lines.How does it work with the
irrigation lines and those requirements?Is that looped into the potable water or is that completely
separate based on subdivision?
Rick White answered yes Commissioner Teel,it is completely separate only in rare circumstances
in Riverview is City irrigation even provided.It's mainly wells or the Franklin County Irrigation
District and this wouldn't be a consideration for them.
Commissioner Teel asked that if someone had a well and it goes bad and they want to hook to the
city,they wouldn't have irrigation?Rick White stated in theory they could if the well went bad.
There are a number of wells that are only for irrigation.So in theory,if it went bad for potable,it
doesn't necessarily mean it's bad for irrigation.So that could happen.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 157 of 208
Commissioner Campos stated I agree with Commissioner Myhrum.I'm looking at all three.I think
the guidance are great.I think they're really speci?c for each three areas.And so I do want to make
the motion.1 move the Planning Commission recommend that the Utility Extension policies for the
Pasco UGA be contained in the January 12,2022,memoranda to the Planning Commission be
adopted by City Council.Commissioner Mendez seconded,the motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.Code Amendment-Corner Lot Fencing
Andrew Hattori stated good evening members of the Planning Commission I am here tonight to
discuss comer lot fencing and to formally propose Option 2 from the December 16,2021 Planning
Commission meeting and the amendment to the residential design standards from the November
Planning Commission meeting.Before going into detail on those,I'll give a quick background on
the current corner lot fencing design standards.As it currently stands,the maximum height of
fencing in all front yard areas is three and a half feet.The maximum height of fencing and ?anking
front yard area varies between the lot design.So,if you have two comer lots that form the entire
frontage between two parallel or nearly parallel streets and neither home accesses the shared street,
fences can be 6ft tall out to the property line.If there's any other condition,or if one of the
properties accesses that shared street,then fences taller than three and a half feet must be set back
to the building line of the neighboring property.The maximum high defensing in rear or side yards
is 6ft as well.
To give some details and diagrams on this,this is a condition where both houses form the entire
frontage between two streets and neither house accesses that shared street.So,6ft fencing would
be allowed all the way out to the property line or anywhere within that green area shown at the top
of the diagram.And this is a real-world example of that.You'll notice in the left image that that
fence extends out to the sidewalk where the property line is located,and that neither house accesses
the shared street and that they form the entire frontage between two streets as well.The other
condition in this diagram you'll see that the house on the right accesses the shared street.So,
fencing for the house on the left actually has to be set back a distance equal to the building line of
the house on the right if the fence is to be greater than three and a half feet.And to give a real-
world example of that,you'll notice that on the image on the left,that fence does not extend out to
the property line and is set back to the building line of the neighbor behind them.
So,I'll start off with a refresher on the proposed amendment to the residential design standards.It
was a large point on how we mitigate or prevent situations where we create dangerous access
points.So,in this case,the development to the north was plotted and built out first,so that house
accesses,not the shared street.And if that house was built and a fence was proposed before the
house to the south of it was built,they would be allowed to have that fence all the way out to the
property line adjacent the side street.And then when the house to the south came in for building
permit,there's nothing that would restrict them from having their driveway all the way up against
that fence.That's how we end up with driveways that have not safe visibility.
So,the proposal for the proposed amendment to the residential design standards would be that if
you have two lots,two corner lots that form the entire frontage between two parallel and nearly
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 158 of 208
parallel streets,neither dwelling will have primary access or be addressed off of the shared street.
And this would prevent going forward any instance where we could potentially have dangerous
access points.
This is Option 2 from the December Planning Commission meeting.It's the fence is greater than
three and a half feet,must be set back a distance of 15ft from the property line adjacent to the
shared ?anking street,so this gets rid of the dependency on your neighbor's building line.It makes
it easier to understand and more logical.To give a real-world example,this is an example that I
was able to ?nd showing a fence that is set back 15ft right now under current standards is
considered nonconforming,but the proposed amendment would have it be conforming.You can
kind of see the fence there on the comer of Ruby and Agate.A note that I would say here is that
under current fence design standards,that fence must be set back to the building line of the
property just to the north.So that fence would essentially need to be set back behind the house.
And that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.And the proposed amendment would not only
allow that fence to be in a sensible location but would also provide an additional amount of 6ft tall
fencing backyard area.So,if we go to the next slide this kind of shows that that fence does extend
beyond the building line of the current fence location,and it is a sensible distance away from the
street right of way as well,and we can see a better image of that on the next slide.
Looking down the shared street,anybody backing out of that gravel driveway is going to have a
good amount of clear view to be able to safely back out of their driveway,not have to worry about
oncoming traf?c or pedestrians.And it provides the corner of property a fair amount of backyard
space.
And with that,those are the two amendments that I'm proposing tonight,the standard 15ft setback
and the amendment to the residential design.
Commissioner Myhrum stated I just wanted to thank staff for their work on this.There's been a lot
of public meetings on this.We have heard from the community about wanting to maintain
?exibility for homeowners that do want taller fences,taller than three and a half feet.I think this
provides that ?exibility while putting a premium or I should say,an emphasis on safety.So,thanks
for all the work,and I'm supportive of option two as presented.
Commissioner Cochran asked any others?Hearing no more questions or comments from the
commissioners,this is a public hearing item.If there's anyone here that wishes to speak on this item
on the agenda,now is the time we'd ask you to step forward to the microphone and clearly state
your name and city of address or anyone on the phone.All right,seeing no public members
wishing to provide comment or feedback on this item,I'll open up one last time for Commissioners
or any other questions or feedback.And I would also entertain a motion for staff recommendations
that's described in your documentation for tonight.
This is Commissioner Lehrrnan,I’d like to make a motion.1 moved the Planning Commission
recommendto the Pasco City Council the proposed amendments to the residential design standards
and the fences,walls and hedges design standards as contained in the January 20,2022,Planning
Commission staff report.
Commissioner Hendler,I’ll second.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 159 of 208
Commissioner Cochran said thank you both.That was moved by Commissioner Lehrman and
seconded by Commissioner Hendler.Let the record show that the motion passed unanimously.I
know staff is relieved to be able to move forward on this has been a long slog.As other
commissioners express,thanks for all your work and your willingness to listen to the community,
and I think we found a good happy medium that does the best we can.
WORKSHOP
A.Memo-Update Broadmoor Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
Jacob Gonzalez stated good evening,members of the Planning Commission.The presentation this
evening will focus on the Broadmoor Master Plan and staff and our consulting efforts to move
forward with developing a rather significant and important piece for the City of Pasco and the
region.And you can see the outline of the Broadmoor area and context of Pasco and on the bottom
right,you can see the context of the Broadmoor area relative to the Tri-Cities area.
Here is a high overview of the Master Plan and EIS objectives.Some of this will be very similar to
the Urban Growth Area Comprehensive Plan EIS in terms of the components of it,but in general,
in evaluation and analysis,considering the infrastructure and transportation planning necessary to
support the signi?cant growth in the Broadmoor area,the land uses to accommodate the projected
growth,the city's ability to invest in the infrastructure utilizing grants and capital funding and
predictability on the environmental review and mitigation process.There's some signi?cant critical
area within the Broadmoor area.Reduced permitting time for individuals is a benefit as a result of
the EIS and also the plan to growth with potential higher property values as expected as an
outcome,and in general,the plan growth to align with the comprehensive plan that was recently
adopted by the Planning Commission and Council not too long ago.
An overview on the comprehensive planning goals for Broadmoor.Accommodate future growth at
higher densities with mixed use strategies,infrastructure capacity support future growth including
housing,retail,employment and recreational opportunities,and strategic alignment of public
investments both current and planned to support economic development in the Broadmoor area and
their region.Below,a snippet from the Comprehensive Plan speci?c land use goals to
accommodate a broad range of residential land uses and to provide and put the community in
position to support economic development.
This is a summary of our process to date.In the early summer of 2021,staff reissued a SEPA
determination,environmental determination of signi?cance for the Broadmoor Master Plan and
EIS.The component of that was the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.There was a pause in the
development of the Broadmoor effort to allow the Comprehensive Plan to move forward,and
throughout the couple of years,development in the Broadmoor area actually moved forward prior
to the development of this plan.So,a new scoping of the EIS was conducted so that we could
develop alternative land uses to address both the Comprehensive Plan and mitigate the existing
growth that has occurred in and near the Broadmoor area.
This past fall,the city held numerous meetings with property owners,builders,stakeholders,and
agencies that would be affected by the Broadmoor area.This included all property ‘owners,
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 160 of 208
including agencies such as Ben Franklin Transit,the Pasco School District,United States Bureau of
Reclamation,South Columbia Basin Irrigation District,US Army Corps of Engineers who own
signi?cant land along the shoreline,the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and
Fish and Wildlife and Transportation,and along with our own Public Facilities District,Public
Works and Parks and Recreation staff.Over the past couple of months,staff has been working with
our consulting team to develop an alternative land use that could address the comments and input
received from all the affected agencies and the property owners within the Broadmoor area.And
we're now working on ?nalizing those land uses which will show on the next screen here and
moving forward with the plan and the EIS itself.
Next you'll see two separate land uses,the alternative one which is no change,this is what was
adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.And on the right is Alternative 2,which is a Comprehensive
Plan Growth Target and the signi?cance of both is on the left is what was adopted.Unfortunately,
growth moved forward before the plan could be completed.There is some nonconformance and
underdeveloped densities on the left where there's signi?cant low density development that no
longer achieves the densities of the Broadmoor plan or division that has been stated by Council and
the public.On the right is our effort to address and mitigate that,on the right,on the next slide,
you'll see the breakdown of the land use categories.On the left is Alternative 1,from the
Comprehensive Plan,and on the right is the proposed Alternative 2 and you'll see that it's a little bit
shorter.We've simpli?ed and removed some of the land uses we thought that would work best to
accommodate the property owners,the brokers,developers,etc.Next is how the land uses would
be implemented utilizing our existing zoning districts and you'll see a few asterisks for Mixed Use
Waterfront,Open Space Zoning District and the Open Space Reserve,those will be zoning districts
that need to be created and those will be created within the Master Plan and it's our intent to adopt
those when the Master Plan comes to the Planning Commission and eventually to Council for
adoption as well.So,the Master Plan will require the creation of new zoning districts.
Some of the bene?ts of the proposed Alternative 2 land use is that it simpli?es the land uses.It
incorporates the existing and approved residential development.It includes the evaluation of open
space and critical areas and addresses and integrates input and feedback from property owners and
stakeholders.It also implements the comprehensive growth targets and supports stated Council and
Community Division for the Broadmoor area.
A few examples ?om our consultant that our consultant has put together a generalized version of
the design the development standards that will be included with the Master Plan including
pedestrian ?lling outdoor spaces,you can see the relationship to the street so walker friendly,non-
motorized friendly and various examples here of sidewalks,extended sidewalks along store fronts,
etc.
You'll notice that in the Alternative 2 land use that there are a few areas where there's mixed use.
The land use is attributed to the Broadmoor area,and it is our intent to have the mixed use have
speci?c standards which exhibit activity centers,areas we expect to see a lot of businesses and
residential opportunities but certainly with mixes of public spaces to facilitate the quality-of-life
environment.So,building placements will be important,identi?cation of central gathering spaces
and the necessary requirements to accommodateboth vehicles,sidewalks,the places that general
people would want to be at in the Broadmoor area.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of I8 January 20,2022
Page 161 of 208
On the Center,Nodes,and Corridor’s concept this is where this will require changes to our
development standards within the zoning code and you'll see buildings placed closer to the comer
brought closer to the street to enhance the walkability and the public realm environment within the
Broadmoor area.One of the components and visions for the Broadmoor area has been a mix of uses
to accommodate the facilitation of housing,retail,commercial,shopping opportunities,recreation,
etc.And that can be accomplished both with horizontal mixed use,vertical mixed use within the
site,on the site,and this is an example of what that could look like in the Broadmoor area.So
variant densities heights will have to be addressed and revised within the speci?c zoning codes
applicable to here and just general an opportunity for builders to come in with a lot of creativity or
developers that come in with some creativity in a mixed use area propose and construct sites that
leave themselves to the bene?t of the Broadmoor area.
A few notes about accessibility speci?cally on parking.In the mixed use areas it is the intent to
place parking behind the building and that's the prior slide is you have the sidewalk,the street,the
sidewalk and then the building,the storefronts versus what you have on the bottom left comer
which is an exhibit here in west Cord Street where you've got an arterial with small sidewalk and
then a signi?cant distance both in travel and also kind of eyesight to get to the actual storefront.It's
our intent to use the Broadmoor area to begin to bring some of these storefronts and these buildings
closer to the street again to enhance the built enviromnent aspect within this part of the city.
And then lastly,a quick overview of where at in the remaining part of the process.So now through
early spring staff will work with our consultant to complete and draft the Environmental Impact
Statement.There will be a review conducted internally before a draft EIS is issued in early May,
and that will include a public comment period if we do plan on being in front of the Planning
Commission numerous times over the remaining part of the winter and spring on the Broadmoor
plan.This will include a review of comments received both from agencies,Commission,members
of the public and in the summer,address those comments with the ?nal preparation of a Master
Plan,which includes the vision,the guidelines,the associated development changes,code
amendments,the completion and issuance of the ?nal Environmental Impact Statement,and
presentations to both the Planning Commission and City Council this May,June and July.
So that concludes a brief update on the Broadmoor Master Plan.We do anticipate our consultant
being present for a presentation likely in February,certainly by March,to give a little bit more of a
detailed update about the speci?cs of the Master Plan in the EIS process.
I do want to note that the City is working diligently speci?cally with regards to both transportation
and critical area mitigation.We've had signi?cant conversations and coordination with both the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and also the Washington State Department of
Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration with regards to addressing the
transportation impacts that are likely to be the result of the development in the Broadmoor area.
Most of these were addressed in some form or manner in the Comprehensive Plan,the
Transportation System Master Plan that the City is developing and nearing completion is a re?ned
version of the Comprehensive Plan Analysis for transportation.
The city has entered into an agreement with a consultant to develop a feasibility and analysis on
182 between both 68 and speci?cally on the Broadmoor Boulevard area to again accommodate the
growth here.There's a lot of work,a lot of analysis ongoing right now,and that will all be apart and
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of l8 January 20,2022
Page 162 of 208
addressed in some form or manner within the Master Plan and certainly the EIS.So with that in this
presentation,I'm happy to answer any questions on the Commission.Thank you.
Commissioner Hendler stated yes,I have a question.Jacob and Rick,I'm a little confused,so we
are still working on developing the Master Plan?The reason I ask is because I hang out a lot daily
out at the John L.Scott of?ce,and a couple of the brokers came up to me and said,Jay,what's
going on with the Adams property and the Broadmoor Master Plan,and why are we being escorted
around the Adams property with brokers from Seattle telling us they're going to start construction
by the end of this year?And I didn't have an answer for that.I simply said,hey,they're still
working on a Master Plan.I think that's right.I said,I don't understand how they could be selling
anything,so I was a little confused by that.And anyway,can you shed a little light on that for me?
Is that,in fact,the case?Are they're selling land out there now?
Rick White stated,well I don't know that anything is closed,but a portion of the Broadmoor Master
Plan area,about 160 acres,is in the city already zoned with C1 zoning,which is the prime retail
zoning that's applicable.So there's 160 acres in this area right that's already zoned commercial,and
there are utilities available,so there are a number of moving parts,and there's about a dozen balls
in the air with all sorts of stuff.There's a proposed wholesaler retailer that you've heard about.
There's another developer interested in some kind of food/retail,bigger box kind of operation,
along with some satellite retail on the outskirts,which is pretty typical,but those are all pending all
of the utility and transportation improvements that Jacob has just described.There's roughly $8
million worth of transportation improvements alone.They're necessary to just accommodatejust
the commercialgrowth that we think we know about.
Commissioner Hendler stated currently that zoning,and that's probably where all this is taking
place,but just curious,wouldn't they be well advised to say,hey,put on the brakes a little bit until
this Master Plan is done,so they comply a little bit with what is right on the gateway to the rest?
I'm just throwing out some concerns about the process.Having been through this kind of thing
before,but maybe saying wait a minute,we got a Master Plan going on,you guys.We're not going
to be able to answer any questions until that thing is ?irther developed.Just a thought.Anyway,
thank you for the input.
Commissioner Myhrum stated sort of along the lines of all the activity that's being consideredin
the area.By the time we get to July of this year,through this process,the staff anticipate maybe a
need for additional updates or as we move forward,have things become more and more refined and
you feel like we've really got our hands around where the plan will be when it's ready to be
?nalized.
Jacob Gonzalez stated I think the best way to answer that is there will likely always be room for
re?nements to the adopted plan.I would say that the development Alternative 2,part of the reason
for some of the significant changes is due to the input and feedback we received directly from the
property owners,some of the developers,the realtors,and the brokers.And so that mixed use that
you can see that in the light pink,purple color for mixed use is intended to address both a
combination of residential and commercial uses,both vertical and horizontal.So,it's a pretty
flexible in terms of use.But the development and design standards will be critical.That's what we'll
get into the form,the facades,more the built environment,the treatment of the streetscapes,the
cross sections,etc.And that are the results and included within the Master Plan.Those I wouldn't
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 163 of 208
believe would need additional updates or else they would deviate from the intended vision that's
been presented about the Broadmoor areas of both the public and the Commission and Council.
Commissioner Mendez stated it sounds to me like the City,we have been given another
opportunity to tweak the Broadmoor Master Plan,and we're coming up with Alternative 2,which
will allow us to do that.One of the things that caught my attention was where it says here that it
will maximize the growth and density potential of the area.And I guess what I'm asking,does that
mean that it will increase residential density and lead to maybe more affordable residential lots?
Jacob Gonzalez answered not sure about the affordability or the price point,but one of the intents
of Alternative 2 that you see on the screen was that it addresses the existing development that
occurred both north of Burns Road and within the Broadmoor area.In the existing and current
comprehensive plan future land use map right in the middle you can see maybe 200 or so acres of
low density development.In the existing Comprehensive Plan,most of that is a designated of
medium density,which is typically 12 or 19 or so unit an acre,but certainly more than two to ?ve,
which is what we currently have in place there.So,we've developed the Alternative 2 to
incorporate what's going on there and increasing the development potential of their surrounding
land uses to again make up for the fact that in a big portion of the Broadmoor area,we will have
low density development.So,it likely would yield to additional lots but within the comprehensive
time constraints of roughly 7,300 to 8,000 units within a full build out.You're looking at 2040 for
the horizon year,but yes,likely the intent is to address and at least make it an option for increased
housing options in the Broadmoor area.
Commissioner Mendez stated I just wanted to say I think that's a de?nite plus.Affordability is a
great concern.I think it's nice to be able to afford a half-acre lot or eight one-acre lot in north for
West Pasco.But many of our residents may not be able to afford that.So,whatever we can do to
address that would be welcome.Thank you.
Commissioner Campos stated I just want to say thank you so much,Mr.Gonzalez and staff for that
presentation.I do love Alternative 2,I think the fact that it does accommodate for that denser retail,
commercial and residential development is key,and it gives us an option that gives us audible to
really change that density for the residential I really love.But I also love the fact that with the street
pattern,it's going to give us more ability to have that kind of that well connected portion of it.I
think that's going to be very key.I know for being in the 68 area,we are not so much well
connected.There's not a lot of outlets,so they have that over there.It's going to be amazing.I really
do support Alternative 2 and I really appreciate it.
Commissioner Lehrman stated piggybacking on to what Commissioner Campos said about all the
designs and positives about it,I really appreciate what the City has put together for us,for sharing
out the community and the effort that they're put into trying to make sure to keep the public
informed and this very exciting time that we have to plan out the vision of what Pasco looks like.
And a lot of the residents are having questions.Thank you for your effort of trying to be able to
help answer those questions and being as transparent as possible.I do have a question over there on
open spaces along Columbia River right along the bend there.Is that the Army Corps of Engineer
land,the wildlife refuge,or is that other kind of park like land use?
Jacob Gonzalez answered that is predominantly owned and operated or maintained by the US
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page I l of 18 January 20,2022
Page 164 of 208
Army Corps of Engineers.Probably the first 200 to 300ft or so along the western side of Shoreline
Road between Shoreline and the Columbia River.So,there might not be much we can do there in
terms of actual physical structures but is our intent to at least preserve the open space component of
it.
Commissioner Lehrman asked what is that little section going into all that pink?Rick White
answered that's also Army Corps of Engineer land.
Commissioner Cochran stated for me I'm with the others.I like our Alternative 2,I think it's
simpler and I think it allows more options.I didn't like that Option 1 had no low density,and I
think there's a good balance of different types.I think like probably everyone else in Pasco,they're
just all bracing for this not being Road 68 part two.I think it's interesting to me,does all the things
that are going on with transportation planning,are they staying in sync with this or are they
evolving separately?Because Jacob,you said something in December around the transportation
plan survey,and I was looking at that and they've already got like the stop lights and improvements
for the transportation on Broadmoor planned out.And it seems like that's evolving in a vacuum
from this or is there a way to make sure?Because that's my big fear.This is all great,but is it just
going to be another Road 68?And I think a lot of citizens are worried about same well.
Jacob Gonzalez stated in terms of the transportation development in the Broadmoor area,
fortunately,we're working with the same consultant group who is wrapping up our Transportation
Master Plan,so they know exactly what it is in terms of the context of we're working with in the
Broadmoor area.In fact,yesterday we had a discussion with both our consultants,the Federal
Highway Administration,the Washington State Department of Transportation,to talk about further
detailed analysis that Council had agreed to back this fall with addressing the specific mitigation
necessary with the Broadmoor development.
So,the Comprehensive Plan is extremely comprehensive citywide,the Transportation Master Plan,
a re?ned version of that.The feasibility analysis that we're working on with our consultant is as
probably refined as you can get beyond the project level permitting of a specific project.And that
is,again,the geographic scope is at Broadmoor Boulevard area or the Broadmoor Boulevard
corridor.And then the EIS will have a lengthy transportation evaluation component of it to address
the impacts of both Alternative land Alternative 2,and the necessary mitigation to address that.
The Master Plan itself will be the document or the plan that's got all the photos and the concepts,
the goals and policies,the division that's been expressed up with Council and the community.
But the implementation component of that is where we do our best to ensure that the development
patterns and the form that takes place in the Broadmoor area is what we've been sharing with the
public.So more walkable,the closer proximity of businesses to residences,the higher densities,the
open space,the gathering places,both public and private,more of the public realm.The things that
we've been sharing with the public we've designed and hope for kind of brought more to be the
development standards and the implementationof those codes will come back to you with those
code amendments.That is sort of the black and white portion of it that is often overlooked in some
of these bigger plans.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 165 of 208
B.Memo-Update Downtown Pasco Master Plan
Good evening,members of the Planning Commission.Similar to the last one,this is an update on
our efforts with our consulting team Framework to develop a plan for downtown Pasco.There's
been a lot of work so far to date on the master planning effort,and we'll summarize that progress in
this presentation.
I wanted to share the approach that our consulting team of the city has taken for the Master Plan.
The intent is to do meaningful and equitable public engagement,highlight the local assets,
visualize the potential for positive change in downtown Pasco,support for local businesses,
integrating arts and culture and testing new ideas and concepts.I think a big one certainly is a plan
that is speci?c to Pasco,not a general plan and blanket approach.
You will see two maps that illustrate the scoping context of our downtown.On the left you see a
zoomed in version of the predominantly the central business district.You can see that outlined in
the boundary,and on the right,you can see a broader context of how the downtown ?ts within the
general eastern portion of central Pasco.
Next there's a bigger context shown here.This is a quick illustration of the downtown within
roughly half mile to a mile radius of it.I think this helps us see exactly how downtown integrates
with the rest of the community.You can see it shaded in that blue,but those pink areas represent
developments,ongoing or planned surroundings.On the south,across the river in Kennewick,the
significant investments they're making with their waterfront and Clover Island,the Cable Bridge,a
monument for both the Tri-Cities and certainly here in Pasco and on 20"‘and A Street you can see,
actually they already used new apartment multifamily.It's been constructed on 20th and A,on the
right,further east by Osprey Point,is the Port of Pasco's Waterfront Development District.In
Orange are the existing bicycle and planned bicycle routes.And I think this helps provide a bigger
context for what downtown Pasco its role within the community.But it would also be important to
share that within a half mile or so of the downtown area,there's roughly 9500 residents and almost
8000 jobs employees within half mile or so,the downtown area Pasco.So there's a lot of activity
that takes place.
Here is the current status of where we're at.We meet weekly with our consulting team.We met
with them this morning.We received a presentation from our consulting team today about existing
conditions and the market analysis for downtown Pasco that will be prepared,and a draft will be
distributed for us tomorrow.There's been some signi?cant public engagement efforts so far.On
the bottom of bullet points,there's a rather successful downtown community survey that had over
100 responses and then in mid-December city staff held a downtown Visioning workshop at Salon
Santa Cruz.And that'll be the focus of the rest of this presentation,that Visioning workshop.
So,we have an evening workshop roughly 4 hours or so at Salon Santa Cruz.We had
approximately 20 to 25 community members in attendance,four current and past Council members
and 15 or so city staff.A significant presence by city staff from both Planning Division,Code
Enforcement,Building Enforcement,and from our executive and Public Works staff,and Parks and
Recreations as well.It was exciting because the event because the beginning portion was broadcast
live on local AM radio,and many of our local businesses and community members and city staff
were interviewed on live AM radio to share about the planning effort going on downtown Pasco.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 166 of 208
There were some common themes that came out of the workshop.Some of these may be
surprising,some may not so much.In general,the comments included more things to do
downtown,the activation of the downtown itself with public art,murals,outdoor dining,cultural
events,streetscape improvements,both addressing lighting,potential parklets,addressing building
facades,parking,homelessness,updates to the City zoning code,support for small businesses,
mobility and connectivity,or access,celebration of Pasco's history and heritage,and creating a safe
and vibrant downtown.
Our consulting team conducted live polling during the event for the public both in person and
virtual.This was streamed online through the city's Facebook page.Those who weren't able to
attend in person participated virtually.The question here was please list up to three words that
describe your vision for downtown Pasco.Vibrant,diverse,culture,historic,entertainment,and
active rose to the top.The next question was list three words of what you see as the biggest
challenges in downtown Pasco,which were parking and homelessness were at the top,same with
art,lighting,garbage,and a few others.These are all being aggregated,and it will be addressed in
the Master Plan process.
A few photos from the event.There was a lot of activities,boards for community members to post
their ideas,share their ideas.Take a look at some of the preliminary maps and analysis that were
ready at the time.And on the next slide,a few more,you can see some of the community members
who are participating in a successful public engagement event for the city and then the downtown.
As far as the timeline,we're roughly a third through the process,that arrows pointing at the ?nal
existing conditions report,which we expect to receive tomorrow.The next portion will be the
development of the draft downtown plan.Another open house will be held,and then the ?nal
downtown plan will be released late this spring.Throughout this will be numerous more updates
with both the Planning Commission and Council and then obviously,adoption.This Master Plan
and similar to the Broadmoor Plan will likely result in comprehensive plan amendments so that city
staff can take the results of these plans and conduct city initiated amendments to the Planning
Commissioning Council to change the conference timeline uses.
That summarizes the update on the Pasco Downtown Master Plan.Our consulting team will be
presenting to City Council on February 14"‘,and any new information that we received between
now and then we intend to provide another update to the Planning Commission of February and
again in March as well to keep everyone up to date on a pretty signi?cant effort downtown because
of the engagement and the input received so far,staff is working with our consultant to identify
ways to expand our initial scope.To address in some manner some of the common things that
were reoccurring throughout the master plan engagement process.So that ends this presentation.
And again,happy to answer or address any questions.Thank you.
Commissioner Cochran asked so we're at the blue?You're saying at some point you'll come back
to us with another update and even a draft and then ?nally we'll have a public hearing on it.That's
kind of the process,good.
Jacob Gonzalez answered correct.And certainly,we'll share the existing conditions component of
the Master Plan.It's quite valuable to learn about the various components about the downtown.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 167 of 208
With regards to vacancy rate maybe not being as high as it's perceived,we intend to look at the
renewal rate of business licenses and a few other components as well with regards to the
demographics and population employment types in and around downtown.One of the themes and
components of this Master Plan is rethinking what that boundary of our downtown is.We got a few
variations of it.There's the C2 zone and the Central Business District,there's also the Downtown
Paci?c Development Authority Boundary as well.And our consultant team is working and
listening to members of the public and staff with regards to what they believe is what is downtown
to them.Where does it begin?What is sort of that gray blending of boundaries of sorts.And we did
hear a potential concept this morning with regards to expanding the boundary,which allows for
more ?exibility and development in terms of zoning.
It also provides an opportunity to have three potential neighborhoods within the downtown,
including kind of the Civic area,which we're at today,the Central Business District,which exists
where it does today and also a big component is connecting our downtown to the Columbia River
and the Sacajawea Heritage Trail,which will connect to all three points.So that's where the
corridor in that context begins to be really important for us.
Commissioner Hendler added I'm a big proponent of housing,and I know you guys put a lot of
working on this Master Plan.Congratulations.Fine job.But a constructive criticism I'd like to input
here is I still don't see enough emphasis on downtown housing and all the downtown plans I
worked on over the years,the most successful ones,the ones that stood the test of time,are the
ones that incorporated a large component of housing so the downtown area doesn't die at 6:00.I
just strongly encourage the team to think about incorporating housing in any way they can,
renovate old buildings,whatever it is,because when you got people living downtown,they're going
to take care of it.So,I just want to encourage a strong look at incorporating a housing component
in the Master Plan.
This is Commissioner Campos,I just really appreciate getting the City involved in the
engagements.I really appreciate that.That and part of the presentation.I do remember just a
question.There was also a survey that was sent out.I think the social media different stuff.Do we
also hear from that?
Jacob Gonzalez stated yes that survey was closed,I think last Monday.I think there was 110
responses,and that'll be shared.The results of that will be ready,likely by the February Planning
Commission meeting.
This is Commissioner Lehrman stated thank you very much for all the community engagement.It
looks like you guys put in a lot of work,and it's quite extensive.So thanks for inviting in our past
for residents to share out their voices and help in?uence our future.The question I have is what
different languages were offered out to our residents of Pasco,at these community engagement
opportunities?
Jacob Gonzalez stated we did have interpretation services at the public engagement event.The
survey was offered in both English and Spanish,and we've been making sure that all of our
materials are translated as they should to ensure that members of the community have a fair
opportunity to at least be aware of what we're working on downtown.The notices were all
distributed during our normal distribution partners such as the Herald and the Business Journal,but
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 168 of 208
also some of the local Spanish language newspapers as well.
Commissioner Lehrman said I guess I know there are other populations that don't speak English or
Spanish,and so I was wondering if there are translation services.I'm not sure if translators were
prepared for those other populations,but also when surveys go out,how do we invite in those other
diverse voices of our community to be able to positively in?uence our decision making.
C.Code Amendment -Residential Design Standards Phase I (MF#CA2022-001)
Good evening,members of the Planning Commission,this is an introduction to a staff proposal to
update our residential design and development standards in a two-phase process.The purpose of
this is,along with some of our previous amendments,is to update our zoning and development
standards to increase housing density and ?exibility.This proposal follows the likely completion of
our House 1923 amendments,which will be before the City Council on Monday,January 24,for
adoption,and it aligns with the Housing Action Plan and coordination with housing stakeholders.
In fact,we did receive a proposal from the Home Builders Associated of the Tri-Cities in support
and with ideas for this proposal as well.
Some of the objectives of Phase 1 is to address essential or critical modi?cations necessary to
increase ?exibility in housing design and options.There will be a signi?cant emphasis on
multifamily development and design standards.Currently,the past few municipal code does not
sufficiently address or accommodate multifamily development standards.Most of our design
standards are on single family,so there will be a heavy focus and big update to that portion or the
creation of that code.Density with designed so not big boxes everywhere,but certainly wants to
make sure things are compatible with what we expect to see here in Pasco.Predictability for
developers and those in the application process.So that includes an evaluation of our development
review process.
Phase 2,we expect to move forward during or soon after the adoption of the Housing Action Plan,
which will itself include signi?cant recommendationsto address housing in Pasco with regards to
incentives or other options that we can do,including increasing housing options downtown.So
some of the preliminary revisions that staff has addressed so far,with both our consultant
developing the Housing Action Plan and also with the help of the Home Builders Association,
include zoning changes to minimum law sizes,setbacks and frontages,and on the multifamily side,
a focus on building forms and placement,facades,circulation both internal and outside of the site
for both non-motorizedusers and emergency responders,lighting and signage,open space and
common area design and parking.
We do have a rather aggressive timeline proposed for these changes because we have the help and
support of both our consultant with the action plan and the home builders.Some of these changes
may be a little bit easier than prior code changes.For the next month or so,we plan on coming
back to Planning Commission with a public hearing with initial code amendmentproposal and then
later in the April time frame,public hearings within recommendationif deemed appropriate by the
Planning Commission,and then April and perhaps May,public hearings before the City Council
with adoption.So,with that,that ends this brief presentation.But again,happy to answer or address
any comments or questions from the Planning Commission.Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 16 of I 8 January 20,2022
Page 169 of 208
Commissioner Hendler stated I have a question,Jacob.Is housing allowed in the C2 zoning?Is it
allowed?Jacob Gonzalez answered it is if it's on the second ?oor of a retail.Commissioner
Hendler continued,well,that's something that might be considered there in terms of rede?ning the
allowable housing component,C2 zoning,I think that would make a big difference.I know it's not
part of the deal,but it's something to consider.
Commissioner Cochran stated so the next steps,and we can expect maybe some proposed code
amendmentsor language or alternatives in the February meeting and then feedback on those and
then maybe coming back with the public hearings in April or March and April.
OTHER BUSINESS
A.Elections-Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Commissioner Cochran stated I think we have seven of nine.We have one open position.
Commissioner Bowers is not here,and we must replace as the term for chair and vice chair is
ending.Commissioner Bowers is the chair,and the vice chair is Joe Campos,who's now a City
Council member,so he is no longer a vice chair.And so,we as a Planning Commission body or
need to elect our chair and vice chair.
One thing we could do is we could defer this to next month when Commissioner Bowers is here or
being that we have seven of our eight ?lled positions here,we could vote for it tonight.The
problem,if we defer another month,we might be missing somebody other than Commissioner
Bowers,so we might potentially always leave someone out.So,I'd love the commissioner’s
feedback on how would they like to proceed if there is a strong preference for waiting a month to
have Commissioner Bowers present,we can do that,or we can also proceed tonight with elections.
The election process is very simple.You can either nominate your peers or yourself and then we
vote on it.It's not a complicated procedure.So that's the process we took last time.So,I want to
open up for feedback from the commissioners on how you would like to proceed with this
This is Commissioner Myhrum,one other idea that's been used in the past successfully is
suggesting a slate.So,a chair and vice chair combo,if you think there's a special chemistry
between two members of the Commission,feel free to suggest that.
Excellent idea,Commissioner Cochran stated,and that sometimes helps expedite things as well.
Anybody else have any guidance on how they'd like to proceed.I guess the question I'd ask,is
there any objection to proceeding tonight or on the other side of that,isn't everybody speci?cally
wants us to wait?
I guess I am hearing nothing either way.I guess I would suggest we probably proceed,since I
guess my experience,seven of nine is a pretty good turnout for voting.And I think even when we
did this last time,when we elected Joe Campos and Commissioner Bowers,we didn't have this
many,and so we had to vote with even less numbers.I like the idea that we have seven tonight,
even though we will unfortunately be missing Commissioner Bowers.So,with that,I think I would
like to go ahead and open up for folks for nominations.Remember,you can nominate yourself or
you can nominate one of your peers.And your peers can also decide they don't want to run if you
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page l7 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 170 of 208
nominate them.
Two slates were suggested.Slate l was Commissioner Cochran and Commissioner Mendez.Slate
2 was Commissioner Myhrum and Commissioner Campos.
Slate 1 carried the vote by one.
Commissioner Cochran stated thank you everybody.I think you made a very easy process that can
get complicated,so we'll proceed on that.Unfortunately,we would love to have Commissioner
Bowers,but I think this is probably expedient to move forward.
This is Commissioner Myhrum also.I just want to congratulate the incoming chair and vice chair.
They're going to do a great job and I do look forward to also congratulating chair Bowers who
served during much of the pandemic during some very trying times.Virtually and I just want to
just congratulate the entire Commission on how well we've stuck together even despite the
dif?culties and looking forward to working together.Thanks.
Commissioner Cochran stated great comments Commissioner Myhrum and I also want to thank
CommissionerBowers for her service and perseverance during the pandemic and look forward for
the entire Commission to work with everybody.Any other comments before we adjourn or any
other questions or feedback for staff before we adjourn?
Hearing none,I say we are adjourned for the evening.Thank you,everybody,for your attendance
and see you next month.
Meeting adjourned at 8:02 pm.
Carmen Patrick,Administrative Assistant II
Community &Economic Development Department
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18 January 20,2022
Page 171 of 208
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2021
6:30 PM
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Andrew Hattori, Planner I
SUBJECT: Corner Lot Fencing Code Amendment
Background
Pasco Municipal Code regarding fence location and height stipulates that fencing within front
yard areas may not exceed 6’ in height. When the fencing is proposed within the flanking street
front yard area on corner lots the following applies:
(1) When two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-
way, form the entire frontage between parallel or nearly parallel streets, walls and hedges
shall be limited to six feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street. See Exhibit A.
(2) When then the front door of the adjacent home faces the side street all fences greater
than 3.5’ in height must be set back to the building line of the dwelling. See Exhibit B.
Only when the specific requirements of situation (1) are met may fences greater than 3.5’ in
height be permitted. Currently, lots exist that fall under the requirements of situation 2, causing
restriction to how far the 6’ fencing may extend towards the frontage property line.
An additional provision is included within the PMC that allows for fencing to be increased in
height to 5’ in front yard areas within the R-S-20 and R-S-12 Residential Suburban Districts. This
fencing must be constructed of wrought iron with interspersed brick or block columns and the
fencing must be, at a minimum, 85% transparent.
Analysis & Summary
Current fence design standards require setbacks that are determined by a neighboring property’s
dwelling rather than a consistent measurement. This can create situations where a fence on a
corner lot must be set back significantly further than what would be a safe and uniform distance
from a property line. Additionally, properties on a corner lot where the neighboring lot has yet
to develop do not have a basis for what the required fence setback may be resulting in unsafe or
stringent requirements.
At the Planning Commission Meeting on 11/18/2021 the Staff proposed the following two
amendments to the code:
Page 172 of 208
2
Residential Design Standards
When two corner lots form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel streets,
dwellings shall not be allowed to be addressed or accessed on the shared street. This will remove
the possibility of creating unusual lot configurations and accesses.
Fences, Walls and Hedges Design Standards
When the corner lots do not form the entire frontage between two parallel, or nearly parallel
streets, fences greater than 3.5 feet in height shall be setback a distance equal to the front yard
setback of the underlying zoning district. This will remove the setback dependency on
neighboring dwellings while providing the necessary vision the drivers or pedestrians need on
corners and driveways for safe travel.
Following discussion of the proposals made by staff it was concluded that further drawings
showing how the proposed changes may impact corner lots that do meet the criteria for having
fences greater than 3.5’ in height within the flanking front yard. The following Exhibits detail what
fencing may look like on the indicated sites:
Exhibit C Neighborhood Vicinity Map
Exhibit D 5913 W Ruby Street
Exhibit E 1517 58th Court
Exhibit F 5601 W Ruby Street
Exhibit G 5602 W Ruby Street
An analysis of the vision impacts for each exhibit was completed as follows:
Exhibit D: An access easement for 5809 W Agate Street extends the length of the rear of the
property, this easement is the sole access point for the Agate properties. Vision must be
considered at this entrance.
Exhibit E: The driveway of the property to the east, 5614 W Ruby Street, is situated in the middle
of the frontage. A fence extending into the flanking yard would not cause a visual impairment to
the neighboring property. However, 5614 W Ruby Street was not developed at the time the
fencing was proposed on Exhibit E’s site. It was therefore impossible to tell at the time of fence
permitting if a visual impact would occur.
Exhibit F: The property to the north, 1704 Road 56, has their driveway access situated to the
north. A fence in the flanking front yard would not cause a visual impairment to the neighboring
property.
Exhibit G: The property to the south, 1502 Road 56, has their driveway access located on the
northern portion of their frontage. Their driveway includes an extension that connects to the
shared boundary line between Exhibit F. Vision must be considered at this entrance.
Previous proposals for a possible code amendment were attempted to align in wording and
design to the current regulations, with an increase in tall fencing area. In an effort to create an
easy to understand universal code that is not dependent on neighboring properties or home
orientation staff analyzed new options. Additionally, visibility is a major consideration when
Page 173 of 208
3
looking at fencing height restrictions and locations. The fence code will need to be considered in
such a way that under its provisions there is not the possibility of creating unsafe or hazardous
conditions.
Staff is proposing new options in addition to the proposal from the November 18, 2021 Planning
Commission Meeting:
Option 1: On lots that are not contiguous and form the entire frontage between two parallel or
nearly parallel streets: Fences greater than 6’ in height within flanking front yard areas
shall be setback a distance equal to the front yard setback of the underlying zone, with
a modification to the residential design standards to prohibit access to the shared
street. Exhibit H
Option 2: On lots that are not contiguous and form the entire frontage between two parallel or
nearly parallel streets: Fences greater than 6’ in height within flanking front yard areas
shall be setback a minimum distance of 15’ from the property line. Exhibit I
Option 3: On all lots: Fences greater than 6’ in height must be setback 15’ from all property lines
adjacent to street right-of-way. Exhibit J
An analysis of each option is as follows:
Option 1:
• Maintains fencing outside of neighboring properties front yards.
• Provides the largest area of view for any vehicular or pedestrian traffic adjacent to or on
the site.
• While typically less restrictive than the current fence design standards, the most
restrictive of the three options.
Option 2:
• Would allow for extensions of fencing greater than 6’ in height into neighboring
properties front yard areas.
• Provides large areas of clear view for traffic on primary accesses, and sufficient view from
side/front yard areas.
• Less restrictive than Option 1 and current fence design standards. Would benefit lots with
a minimum additional space of between 5’ and 10’ of yard area that may have fences
greater than 6’ in height.
Option 3:
• Would allow for 6’ fences to be located anywhere outside of a space 15’ wide adjacent to
street right-of-way.
• Provides sufficient view for traffic adjacent to and on site.
• Least restrictive option.
• Would create an extreme number of nonconforming fences throughout the Pasco
residential areas.
Page 174 of 208
4
Next Steps and Recommendation
Staff is seeking comments and feedback on the proposed options. Should an option be
determined as suitable for recommendation, staff seeks a motion for recommendation to Pasco
City Council with the following format:
Motion: I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco City Council the
proposed amendments to the Design Standards under Option _#_ as contained in the
December 16, 2021 Planning Commission Report.
Page 175 of 208
Page 176 of 208
Page 177 of 208
0 0.04 0.070.02 Miles
EXHIBIT C
Page 178 of 208
Page 179 of 208
1517 58TH CT B20-0052 SFDU 1/10/2020 Page 180 of 208
5601 W RUBY ST B21-0117
SFDU 1/15/2021
Rev 1
Page 181 of 208
Page 182 of 208
EXHIBIT H
Page 183 of 208
EXHIBIT I
Page 184 of 208
EXHIBIT J
Page 185 of 208
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 15, 2022
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 4/18/22
FROM: Zach Ratkai, Director
Administrative & Community Services
SUBJECT: *Resolution - Supporting Pasco Public Facilities District ballot proposition.
PROPOSITION 1 PASCO PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT SALES AND
USE TAX FOR AQUATICS FACILITY AND COMPETITION POOL. The
Pasco Public Facilities District Board of Directors adopted Resolution No.
2022-02 concerning construction and operation of an Aquatics Facility
and Competition Pool. This proposition would authorize the District to
impose a sales and use tax increase of 2/10ths of 1% in accordance with
RCW 82.14.048, for the purpose of paying the costs associated with
financing, equipping, construction, design, refinancing, acquisition,
operating, maintaining, remodeling, repairing, and reequipping of an
indoor/outdoor aquatic center and competition pool. SHOULD THIS
PROPOSITION BE APPROVED? Yes ________ No ________
I. REFERENCE(S):
Resolution
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _____, in support of passage of
Ballot Proposition No. 1 imposing a 2/10ths of 1% sa les and use tax for the
purpose of funding an aquatic center to be constructed, operated and maintained
by the Pasco Public Facilities District.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The Pasco Public Facilities District (PPFD) was initially formed on July 15, 2002,
by City Council through Ordinance No. 3558 and was granted all powers
provided by the Washington State law pursuant to RCW 35.57.010.
Page 186 of 208
The PPFD Board of Directors is authorized pursuant to RCW 35.57.020 and
RCW 82.14.048 to submit to the voters of the PPFD a proposition for the
increase of the sales and use tax for the purpose of providing funds for the costs
associated with the financing, refinancing, design, acquisition, construction,
equipping, operating, maintaining, remodeling, repairing, and reequipping of its
public facilities.
After due consideration and significant research, the PPFD Board determined
that it is in the best interest of the PPFD to submit an author izing proposition to
the voters to determine if an additional 2/10ths of 1% sales and use tax to design,
construct, and operate an indoor/outdoor aquatic facility including a competition
pool should be imposed.
The PPFD Board placed the issue of whether t here should be an additional
2/10ths of 1% sales and use tax imposed before the PPFD voters through
Franklin County Auditor as a proposition (Proposition 1) on the April 26, 2022
special elections ballot.
V. DISCUSSION:
This resoltuion was prepared at the request of three (3) members of the City
Council. This PPFD project is consistent with the City Council's goals and the
resolution reflects the Council’s collective support for the PPFD's Proposition No.
1, currently before the PPFD voters for vote on April 26, 2022.
Page 187 of 208
Resolution in Support of Ballot Proposition No. 1 - 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO
IN SUPPORT OF PASSAGE OF BALLOT PROPOSITION NO. 1 IMPOSING A
2/10ths OF 1% SALES AND USE TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING AN
AQUATIC CENTER TO BE CONSTRUCTED, OPERATED AND
MAINTAINED BY THE PASCO PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the Pasco Public Facilities District (PPFD) was duly formed pursuant to
Chapter 35.57 of the Revised Code of Washington on July 15, 2002, by the adoption of City of
Pasco Ordinance No. 3558, and granted all powers provided by law pursuant to RCW 35.57.010;
and
WHEREAS, the PPFD is authorized pursuant to RCW 35.57.020 and RCW 82.14.048 to
submit to the voters of the District a proposition for the increase of the sales and use tax for the
purpose of providing funds for the costs associated with the financing, refinancing, design,
acquisition, construction, equipping, operating, maintaining, remodeling, repairing, and
reequipping of its public facilities; and
WHEREAS, the PPFD Board of Directors on February 15, 2022 passed Resolution No.
2022-02 authorizing PPFD Ballot Proposition No. 1 to be placed on the ballot for the upcoming
special election on April 26, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Pasco in accordance with RCW 42.17A.555,
may take action at an open public meeting, to express a collective decisi on, or to actually vote
upon a motion, proposal, or resolution in support of, or opposition to, a ballot proposition so long
as any required notice of the meeting includes the title and number of the ballot proposition and
members of the legislative body, members of the board, council, or commission of the jurisdiction,
or members of the public are afforded an approximately equal opportunity for the expression of an
opposing view; and
WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has noticed this issue on its Agenda including its title and
ballot number and has offered an equal opportunity for those opposing the PPFD Ballot
Proposition No. 1 to express their view; and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the impact of the increase tax burden and the
benefit the aquatics facility will provide the public, the Council has resolved to formally support
the passage of PPFD Ballot Proposition No. 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO as follows:
That the City Council of the City of Pasco collectively voices its support for the passage
of upcoming PPFD Ballot Proposition No. 1 authorizing the PPFD to impose a 2/10ths of 1% sales
Page 188 of 208
Resolution in Support of Ballot Proposition No. 1 - 2
and use tax for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining an Aquatics Facility and
Competition Pool within the District.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, Washington, this 18th day of April
2022.
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorney
Page 189 of 208
AGENDA REPORT
FOR: City Council April 8, 2022
TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager City Council Regular
Meeting: 4/18/22
FROM: Steve Worley, Director
Public Works
SUBJECT: *Resolution - Project Acceptance for the Road 36 Lift Station Project
I. REFERENCE(S):
Resolution
PowerPoint Presentation
II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: I move to approve Resolution No. _______, accepting work performed
by POW Contracting under contract for the Road 36 Lift Station project.
III. FISCAL IMPACT:
See below.
IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF:
The project bid was awarded to POW Contracting out of Pasco, WA on
November 16, 2020, in the amount of $593,684.81 by Council action. The project
is complete and constructed per specifications. Final construction costs were
$597,810.04, which included change orders totaling $6,705.56.
Formal acceptance of public works projects are required by State law and start
the 45-day period within which an outside vendor, supplier or laborer would have
an opportunity to file a claim against this project pursuant to RCW 60.28.011 (2).
Upon completion of the 45 day lien filing period, retainage being held by the City
may be released upon receipts of the following:
• An affidavit of no liens
• A release from the Department of Revenue that all taxes have been paid
• A release from any claims from the Department of Labor and Industries,
pursuant to RCW 60.28.051
Page 190 of 208
V. DISCUSSION:
Staff recommends the City Council's acceptance of the project's as constructed
by the above listed contractor.
Page 191 of 208
Resolution – Road 36 Lift Station Project Closeout - 1
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON,
ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED BY POW CONTRACTING , UNDER
CONTRACT FOR PROJECT NO. 16006, ROAD 36 LIFT STATION PROJECT.
WHEREAS, the work performed by POW Contracting, under contract for the Road 36
Lift Station project , has been examined by City of Pasco staff and has been found to be in apparent
compliance with the applicable project specifications and drawings ; and
WHEREAS, it is the City Staff’s recommendation that the City of Pasco formally accept
the contractor's work and the project as complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PASCO, WASHINGTON :
That the City Council concurs with the Staff’s recommendation and thereby accepts the
work performed by POW Contracting, under contract for the Road 36 Lift Station project , as being
completed in apparent compliance with the project specifications and drawings; and
Be It Further Resolved, that the City Clerk is hereby directed to notify the Washington
State Department of Revenue of this acceptance; and
Be It Further R esolved, that the final payment of retainage being withheld pursuant to
applicable laws, regulations and administrative determination shall be released upon satisfaction
of same and verification thereof by the Public Works Director and Finance Director.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco , Washington this ___ day of
_______________, 2022.
Blanche Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ___________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorneys
Page 192 of 208
Pasco City Council Regular
Meeting
April 18, 2022Page 193 of 208
Road 36 Lift Station
Before
Vicinity MapPage 194 of 208
Road 36 Lift Station
Before
Page 195 of 208
Road 36 Lift Station
In Progress
Page 196 of 208
Road 36 Lift Station
In Progress
Page 197 of 208
Road 36 Lift Station
In Progress
Page 198 of 208
Road 36 Lift Station
In Progress
Page 199 of 208
Road 36 Lift Station
Completed Page 200 of 208
Road 36 Lift Station
Change Order Details
Awarded CN Contract: $ 593,684.81
Total CN Contract: $ 597,810.04
Change Order #1: ($7,500.00)
•Field changes for install of 8” forcemain, resulting in a credit to the contract amount.
Change Order #2: $2,168.90
•Additional trenching, conduit and wire.
Change Order #3: $3262.55
•Utility feeders not supplied by PUD, approx. 440’ of 30/0 AWG copper wire
Change Order #4: $1,274.11
•Changing out 6” wet well discharge pipe.
Total CO cost added to construction: $6,705.56 (incl. tax)Page 201 of 208
Questions?Page 202 of 208
QUALITY OF LIFE
Promote a high-quality of life through quality programs, services and appropriate investment and re-
investment in community infrastructure by:
• Using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and other public and private capital to
revitalize older neighborhoods and safe routes to essential services.
• Continuing efforts toward designing, siting, programming needs, and site selection for a
community center and pursuing acquisition of land for future community park.
• Developing Phase I of the A Street Sporting Complex and continue efforts to provide additional
soccer and sports fields.
• Coordinating with the Pasco Public Facilities District to develop a public education campaign,
financial analysis and prepare a ballot measure concerning the development of a regional aquatic
facility for consideration by the people.
• Completing construction of a new animal control facility.
• Ongoing efforts to improve efficiency and effectiveness of public resources in the delivery of
municipal services, programs, and long-term maintenance and viability of public facilities.
• Collaborating with the Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Commission and community leaders to
enhance engagement efforts and organizational cultural competency.
• Updating design standards for the development of new neighborhoods and re-development to
promote greater neighborhood cohesion through design elements, e.g.: walkability, aesthetics,
sustainability, and community gathering spaces.
• Updating Parks and Facilities Comprehensive Plan to include: public facilities inventory, needs
assessment, level of service, and centers evaluation.
• Teaming with local and regional partners to develop a Housing Action Plan with a focus on strategies
that emphasize affordable housing.
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Enhance the long-term financial viability, value, and service levels of services and programs, including:
• Regular evaluation of services and programs to confirm importance to community, adequacy, and
cost-benefit.
• Continuation of cost of service and recovery targets in evaluating City services.
• Ongoing evaluation of costs, processes and performance associated with delivery of City services
including customer feedback and satisfaction, staffing, facilities, and partnership opportunities.
• Instilling and promoting an organizational culture of customer service across all business lines.
• Updating policies relating to urbanization of the unincorporated islands to assure consistency with
long-range planning, community safety, and fiscal sustainability.
City Council Goals 2020-2021
Page 203 of 208
COMMUNITY SAFETY
Preserve past improvements and promote future gains by:
• Developing a Comprehensive Police Strategic Master Plan through a transparent process to evaluate
future service levels of the department to assure sustainability, public safety, and crime control over
the next 5-10 years.
• Collaborating with regional and community partners to evaluate and implement strategies to
reduce the incidence of homelessness.
• Leveraging and expanding partnerships to maintain and enhance behavioral health services to
community members in crisis being assisted by police and fire.
• Continuing efforts to improve police and community relations.
• Working to achieve and maintain target fire response times through operational improvements and
long-range strategic planning of facilities and staffing.
• Focusing on the long-term goal of sustaining a Washington State Rating Bureau Class 3 community
rating.
• Leveraging infrastructure database of sidewalks, streetlights and pavement conditions along with
evaluating policies and methods to address needs and inequities.
COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
Promote a highly-functional multi-modal transportation network through:
• Commencement and completion of construction of the Lewis Street Overpass project.
• Continued emphasis on improvements in Road 68/I-182/Burden Blvd. corridor to improve operation
and safety.
• Data-driven pro-active neighborhood traffic calming efforts.
• Continued collaboration with Ben Franklin Transit to enhance mobility and access.
• Completion of a Transportation System Master Plan and utilization of its recommendations to
develop policies, regulations, programs, and projects that provide for greater connectivity, strategic
investment, mobility, multi-modal systems, accessibility, efficiency and safety.
ECONOMIC VITALITY
Promote and encourage economic vitality by supporting:
• Downtown revitalization efforts of Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA), post-COVID
restart, and City initiatives such as Downtown Master Plan process and sign code modifications.
• The construction of Peanuts Park and Farmers Market and continued efforts to pursue streetscape
and gateway upgrades.
• The completion of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update and Broadmoor Master Plan efforts,
adoption of Urban Growth Area expansion alternative, implementation of adopted long-range
planning efforts with appropriate analysis and adoption of planning actions including: zoning code
changes, phased sign code update, and development regulations and standards.
• Increased efforts to promote the community as a desirable place for commercial and industrial
development by promoting small business outreach and assistance, predictability in project review,
and excellent customer service.
• Partnerships and encouragement of Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to facilitate
development of the remaining state-owned properties at Road 68/I-182.
Page 204 of 208
• Continued coordination with the Port of Pasco to complete and implement a waterfront-zoning
plan and provide for public infrastructure.
• Active partnerships in the planning and development of strategies to promote tourism and
deployment of assets to spur economic activity.
• In concert with community partners, development of a comprehensive economic development
plan.
COMMUNITY IDENTITY
Identify opportunities to enhance community identity, cohesion and image through:
• Continued efforts of community surveying through traditional methods and the application of new
technologies.
• Providing opportunities for community engagement through boards, commissions, volunteer
opportunities, social media, forums, and other outlets.
• Enhanced inter-agency and constituent coordination developed during the pandemic.
• Continued efforts of the community identity/image enhancement campaign to include promotion
of community and organizational successes.
• Enhanced participation and support of cultural events occurring within the community.
• Support of the Arts and Culture Commission in promoting unity and the celebration of diversity
through art and culture programs.
For more information, visit www.pasco-wa.gov/councilgoals
Page 205 of 208
CALIDAD DE VIDA
Promover una vida de buena calidad a través de programas de calidad, servicios e inversiones y
reinversiones adecuadas en la infraestructura de la comunidad al:
• Utilizar una Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) (Concesión de Ayuda Federal para el
Desarrollo Comunitario) y otro capital público y privado para renovar las vecindades antiguas y las
rutas seguras a los servicios esenciales.
• Continuar los esfuerzos hacia el diseño, las obras de construcción, las necesidades programáticas, y
la elección de dichas obras de construcción, para un centro comunitario y comprar el terreno para
un futuro parque comunitario.
• Desarrollar la 1era Fase del Sporting Complex (Complejo Deportivo) de la Calle A y continuar los
esfuerzos de proporcionar más campos de fútbol y de otros deportes.
• Coordinar con el Pasco Public Facilities District (Distrito de las Instalaciones Públicas de Pasco) para
desarrollar una campaña de educación pública, un análisis financiero, y preparar una propuesta
sobre el desarrollo de una instalación acuática regional para que sea considerada por el público.
• Terminar la construcción de una nueva instalación para el control de animales.
• Continuar los esfuerzos para mejorar la eficiencia y la eficacia de los recursos públicos en la entrega
de servicios municipales, programas, y el mantenimiento y la viabilidad a largo plazo de
instalaciones públicas.
• Colaborar con la Inclusion, Diversity and Equity Commission (Comisión de Inclusión, Diversidad, y
Equidad) y con los líderes comunitarios para mejorar los esfuerzos de participación y la capacidad
cultural organizacional.
• Actualizar los estándares de diseño para el desarrollo de nuevas vecindades y el redesarrollo para
promover más cohesión de las vecindades a través de elementos de diseño, p. ej.: viabilidad peatonal,
evaluación de las necesidades, sustentabilidad, y lugares donde se puedan reunir los miembros de
la comunidad.
• Actualizar el Parks and Facilities Comprehensive Plan (Plan Comprehensivo de los Parques y las
Instalaciones) para que incluya: un inventario de instalaciones públicas, una evaluación de las
necesidades, el nivel de servicio, y la evaluación del centro.
• Trabajar en equipo con colaboradores regionales para desarrollar un Housing Action Plan (Plan de
Acción para Viviendas) con un enfoque en las estrategias que enfatizan viviendas económicas.
SUSTENTABILIDAD FINANCIERA
Mejorar la sustentabilidad financiera a largo plazo, el valor, y los niveles de servicios y programas,
incluyendo:
• La evaluación regular de los servicios y de los programas para confirmar la importancia de la
comunidad, la capitalización adecuada, y el costo-beneficio.
Metas del Concilio de la
Ciudad del 2020-2021
Page 206 of 208
• La continuación del costo por el servicio y de las metas de recuperación al evaluar los servicios de la
Ciudad.
• La evaluación continua de los costos, los procesos y el desempeño relacionado con la entrega de los
servicios de la Ciudad incluyendo la retroalimentación y la satisfacción del cliente, el personal, las
instalaciones, y las oportunidades colaborativas.
• Inculcar y promover una cultura organizacional de servicio al cliente a lo largo de todas las líneas de
negocio.
• Actualizar las políticas relacionadas con la urbanización de las islas no incorporadas para asegurar
consistencia con la planificación a largo plazo, la seguridad comunitaria, y la sustentabilidad fiscal.
SEGURIDAD COMUNITARIA
Preservar las mejorías anteriores y promover las ganancias futuras al:
• Desarrollar un Comprehensive Police Strategic Master Plan (Plan Maestro Estratégico
Comprehensivo Policial) a través de un proceso transparente para evaluar los niveles futuros de
servicio del departamento para asegurar sustentabilidad, seguridad pública, y control de crímenes
durante los siguientes 5-10 años.
• Trabajar con colaboradores regionales y comunitarios para evaluar e implementar estrategias para
reducir los casos de personas sin techo.
• Hacer uso y ampliar las colaboraciones para mantener y mejorar los servicios de salud conductual a
los miembros de la comunidad que se encuentran en medio de una crisis, ayudados por la policía y
por los bomberos.
• Continuar los esfuerzos para mejorar la relación con la policía y con la comunidad.
• Trabajar para lograr y mantener el tiempo de reacción de los bomberos a través de mejorías
operacionales y la planificación estratégica de instalaciones y personal a largo plazo.
• Enfocarse en la meta a largo plazo de mantener una clasificación de la comunidad Clase 3 del
Washington State Rating Bureau (Departamento de Clasificación del Estado de Washington).
• Utilizar la base de datos de la infraestructura de las banquetas, los faroles, y las condiciones del
pavimento, como también evaluar las políticas y los métodos para tratar las necesidades y las
injusticias.
RED DE TRANSPORTE COMUNITARIO
Promover una red de transporte extremadamente funcional y multimodal a través de:
• El comienzo y el término de la construcción del proyecto Lewis Street Overpass.
• El énfasis continuo en las mejorías de la ruta Road 68/I-182/Burden Blvd. para mejorar la operación y
la seguridad.
• Los esfuerzos proactivos basados en datos para calmar el tráfico en las vecindades.
• La colaboración continua con Ben Franklin Transit para mejorar la movilidad y el acceso.
• El término del Transportation System Master Plan (Plan Maestro del Sistema de Transporte) y la
utilización de sus recomendaciones para desarrollar políticas, reglas, programas, y proyectos que
proporcionan más conectividad, inversiones estratégicas, movilidad, sistemas multimodales,
accesibilidad, eficiencia, y seguridad.
Page 207 of 208
VITALIDAD ECONOMICA
Promover y motivar la vitalidad económica al apoyar:
• Los esfuerzos de renovación de la Downtown Pasco Development Authority (DPDA) (Autoridad de
Desarrollo del Centro de Pasco), el reinicio después de COVID, y las iniciativas de la Ciudad como el
proceso del Downtown Master Plan (Plan Maestro del Centro) y las modificaciones de los códigos de
anuncios.
• La construcción del Peanuts Park and Farmers Market (Parque Peanuts y el Mercado) y los esfuerzos
continuos para discutir paisajes urbanos y actualizaciones de entradas.
• El término de los esfuerzos de la Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update (Actualización
Comprehensiva del Uso de Terrenos) y los esfuerzos del Broadmoor Master Plan (Plan Maestro de
Broadmoor), la adopción de la alternativa de la expansión de Urban Growth Area (Área del
Crecimiento Urbano), la implementación de los esfuerzos de planificación a largo plazo con los
análisis adecuados y la adopción de acciones de planificación incluyendo: los cambios a los códigos
de zonas, la actualización de los códigos de los anuncios de las fases, y el desarrollo de las reglas y los
estándares.
• Más esfuerzos para promover a la comunidad como un lugar atractivo para el desarrollo comercial
e industrial al fomentar el alcance y la ayuda a los negocios pequeños, la predictibilidad en la
revisión de proyectos, y un excelente servicio al cliente.
• Las colaboraciones y la motivación del Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (Departamento de
Recursos Naturales) para facilitar el desarrollo de las propiedades restantes del estado en Road 68/I-
182.
• La coordinación continua con el Port of Pasco (Puerto de Pasco) para terminar e implementar un
plan de zonas costeras y proporcionar una infraestructura pública.
• Las colaboraciones activas en la planificación y el desarrollo de estrategias para promover el turismo
y la utilización de recursos para estimular actividad económica.
• Junto con los colaboradores de la comunidad, crear un plan comprehensivo de desarrollo
económico.
IDENTIDAD COMUNITARIA
Identificar oportunidades para mejorar la identidad comunitaria, la cohesión, y la imagen a través de:
• Los esfuerzos continuos para evaluar a la comunidad a través de los métodos tradicionales y la
aplicación de nuevas tecnologías.
• Proporcionar oportunidades para la involucración comunitaria a través de mesas directivas,
comisiones, oportunidades para voluntarios, medios sociales, foros, y otros medios.
• Una mejor coordinación entre las agencias y los constituyentes desarrollada durante la pandémica.
• Los esfuerzos continuos de campañas para la mejoría de la identidad/imagen comunitaria que
promuevan a la comunidad y a los éxitos organizacionales.
• Una mejor participación y apoyo de los eventos culturales llevados a cabo dentro de la comunidad.
• El apoyo de la Arts and Culture Commission (Comisión de Artes y Cultura) al promover la unidad y
celebrar la diversidad a través de programas de arte y cultura.
Para más información, visite www.pasco-wa.gov/councilgoals
Page 208 of 208