Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Meeting Packet for 10-20-22-` �- City Iql1l. v4isco I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGENCE III. ROLL CALL: Declaration of Quorum IV. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Meeting Minutes of September 15, 2022. VI. OLD BUSINESS None VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Code Amendment VIII. WORKSHOP A. Memo B. Memo C. Memo IX. OTHER BUSINESS None X. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2022 6:30 PM Residential Design Standards Phase 1 (CA2022-001) Street Connectivity Amendment Update Text Amendment Requesting for Mixed Use Zoning District Corner Lot Fencing Code Amendment This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.comlasctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance. Please silence your cell phones. Thank you. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES vsSco City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, September IS, 2022 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Cochran led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Jerry Cochran, Jay Hendler, Telephone: Tanya Bowers, Kim Lehrman, Abel Campos and a quorum was declared. Commissioners Absent: Rachel Teel and Paul Mendez Staff Present: Community & Economic Development Director Rick White, and Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez. 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 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 11 September 15, 2022 He asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda. 4* No declarations were made. Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda. ❖ None heard, record shows 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 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 Commissioner Bowers moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 18, 2022. Commissioner Lehrman seconded, and the motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. WORKSHOP A. Code Amendment Residential Design Standards Phase 1 (CA2022-001) Good evening members of the Planning Commission. This is an item that was last brought to your attention back in May of 2022. Staff is working on a significant effort to update the past municipal code to accommodate a variety of residential housing options and typologies. Obviously, the intent is to encourage or increase different housing choices in the City of Pasco, also to promote a variety in sight in building design itself and increasing design standards and simplicity. In May, we went through a lengthy presentation, going through each element of the proposed standard, minimum lot sizes, block standard, site design standards, parking access, etc. For the last several months staff has been looking at that proposal to make sure that it could align both with what council and comprehensive planning goals have intended and also to align with local and market needs, which has been helped with the assistance from the Home Builders Association of the Tri-Cities. They've been able to provide some input and help us throughout this process. We met virtually with representatives from the Home Builders Association on July 13, 2022, to discuss comments on the initial draft recommendations that were shared with the Planning Commission in May, and I just wanted to highlight some of those questions in general. • Clarifying and confirming minimum lot sizes for the R-4 zoning district. • Clarifying minimum density as required in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 11 September 15, 2022 • A request of decreasing the site frontages for our densest zoning districts for residential uses that would be R-2, R-3 and R-4. • Clarifying potential conflicts with reduced setbacks on attached housing. • There were also questions of what is considered in the lot coverage definition. • Parking limitations on whether parking should be allowed in the front, along the frontages of multifamily units. Today that is not currently permitted. • Questions on minimum buffer distances between parking and the access to the site itself. • Clarification on driveway width for attached housing such as townhomes. • ADA circulation confirmations and vehicle and pedestrian circulation within a site, for example, an apartment complex. We went through a lengthy and detailed kind of line -by-line effort with members from the HBA, and the result of that is attached as Exhibit A in the staff report, and not much has changed since we brought this to you in May. There's been some minor refinements on some of the language just to make sure that we weren't either overregulating in the sense of being too prescriptive, or we were missing something that needs to be included. ➢ Minimum Lot Size: This is the proposal, the biggest difference across all our zoning districts is that right now there's a standard lot size for each zoning district and standard lot coverage for each zoning district, etc. What we propose to do is still keep the zoning districts intact, but also include standards for the housing typology itself. This allows for a variety of more housing units to be produced at different densities, which certainly helps us meet our Comprehensive Plan goals. It also allows a little more design flexibility for the builders and the development community for example if they have a townhome that might work in a denser setting like the R-4 district, or maybe one with a little bit more space potentially in the R-1 district. It is also important to keep in mind that our densities are still enforced via the Comprehensive Plan ranges, so that will always be intact regardless of the minimum lot sizes, setback flexibility, etc. For example, in the R-2 district, a duplex would require a 5000sq.ft. lot and in the R-3 district would require 4004sq.ft. It's just kind of an easy way to follow what you would need in each zoning district based on the kind of home product you're trying to build. ➢ Minimum Site Frontage & Width: There's some dramatic changes on this one from what we currently have in the code. This is one of those areas where in January Council adopted that large effort we had for House Bill 1923 to allow multiple units on more of our residential zoning districts. But this is an effort to make sure that you can actually construct a duplex in an R-2 lot, so it allows for some more flexibility via reduced frontages based on the home type and the residential zone itself. ➢ Building Setbacks: In the fall of 2020, staff initiated a housing choices survey with our development community. The survey that was intended really for our development partners to get their feedback on barriers, challenges with our zoning code or regulations that they think should be addressed. Setbacks was pretty high up on the priority list, particularly our rear setback. Right now, our rear setback is the distance between your neighbor in the back Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 11 September 15, 2022 and the back of your home is equal to the dwelling height. So, if you have a 35ft home, you will require a 35ft rear setback. And that was also on top of the front setback and the side yard setbacks. So right off the bat, you would lose a considerable amount of your lot size just from setbacks. What we've done here is borrowed what is being done in Kennewick, Richland, and many other communities and just reduce that. Obviously, they can go lengthier than that, but it certainly allows for more flexibility when you've got a rear setback a little bit more appropriate for a City growing as fast as we are. ➢ Building Height & Lot Coverage: We are not changing any building heights, although we are reducing them for the cottage housing. The intent of that is that those aren't typically two or three-story housing products, they're single story, meant to be smaller units on a smaller lot. Beyond that change, all the heights are remaining the same, and we aren't proposing any lot coverage changes outside of the R-2 district. So, everything else remains the same as currently exists in the PMC. Many lot coverages were changed in that effort via House Bill 1923, which Planning Commission adopted last summer. ➢ Parking & Driveways: Some more of the site design standards and regulations for access and circulation for both vehicles and pedestrians. We did have a lengthy discussion both internally and certainly with the development community, so that we could make sure that what we had intended and what the intent is of these provisions makes sense in practicality. There were some slight revisions, in particular the ADA reference, we now directly reference the American with Disabilities Act minimum circulation width, so we can have that within all our multiplex and apartment complexes. A reduction for off street parking requirements for studio and one -bedroom apartments. That's a big one for us, particularly as the more parking required, the less space you have for the actual unit itself. And the building community felt that even that reduction would be significantly beneficial for the construction of more smaller apartment units We do think it is appropriate in some cases and at some extent to allow for parking along the frontage of an apartment complex. We don't think it should be entirely covered with parking. That may prohibit pedestrian uses and might interfere with the aesthetics of a project. But we also want to provide some flexibility depending on what kind of product is proposed in Pasco. We don't really have a lot of variety today to base that from and we don't want to prohibit that in the future either. What we are proposing is a shift for right now, to allow parking, but it shall not exceed 10% of the total off street parking. So, if you have 100 parking spots, it can't be more than 10% of those 100 parking spots or 20% of the entire frontage. If you have 100ft frontage length, it can't be lengthier than 20% of that frontage. So, it still allows the parking to be located closer to the building. This is just an option, doesn't have to be followed, but it is there in case they propose perhaps like a garden style apartment complex where a courtyard is in the middle and some parking may be appropriate in the front. It does allow for that to occur. That's one of the bigger changes that we're proposing. Beyond that, staff is working with our consultant, pending comments from the Planning Commission this evening to prepare the actual ordinance and bring that back to you in October Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 11 September 15, 2022 for a potential recommendation to City Council. Happy to answer any questions. 4• Comments/Questions by Commissioners: This is Commissioner Campos, I want to give my approval for this plan. Thank you to the City staff for working on this. I think it's much needed. I do agree with some of the things highlighted. Obviously, the setbacks, the rear setbacks are a big thing that we looked at. I totally agree that that's something that we should do. I know that parking was also a big thing that we had discussed, and especially with the frontage of the apartments. However, I think the way that you presented it tonight, it does make sense, and I approve. I think we should go ahead and do that as well. Thank you. Chair Cochran included I think that you guys did a lot of great work with home builders and the other feedback we have gotten. The question I had was around building heights, we're not making any change except for cottage. How do our residential building heights compare? Are we similar to our surrounding communities? I know there's always a concern about allowing buildings to go too high, and maybe it's more of a commercial concern than it is residential, but do we compare well? Jacob Gonzalez answered we do. I think it was in mid-2018 that we brought to the Planning Commission some changes to the heights in the residential zoning districts to align a little bit more closely to what our neighboring communities do. While we have a 45ft height limit, for instance, in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts, we do have a provision via a special permit, so you can exceed that. We do have a few, both commercial and residential, but if there was a potential for a 52ft building, there is a process for an applicant to go through that via the Pasco Hearing Examiner to get that resolved. B. Memo Downtown Pasco Master Plan We are very excited to release to the public and to the Planning Commission the very first draft of the Downtown Pasco Master Plan. We've been working on this effort with our consultants Framework for about a year now, and you may recall that they have presented in the earlier spring. We're excited because we think this plan represents not only the spirit of what we had hoped we would get for the Downtown master planning effort, but certainly, I think the interest, passion, and excitement from our community members, business owners, stakeholders, staff, Planning Commission members and council members about what our downtown could be in the future. What we've done this evening is take excerpts from the presentation that was provided to City Council on Monday, and we would like to share that with you this evening. So, again, I think one of the benefits of this plan is that it's allowed us to sort of take a step back and really think about what our downtown could be in the future. There's a significant emphasis on action and as you'll see in this presentation, that's exactly what this plan is about. The action of this plan is focused on identifying the vision, guided by our goals, achieved the strategies, but realize through again, these actions. So, there's a significant emphasis on implementation that we can use to move the vision of Pasco citizens forward, at least for our downtown. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 11 September 15, 2022 The vision for downtown as established and as identified so far via public comment, was that we would have a downtown that is lively and authentic, that showcases our history, a downtown that is connected to the Columbia River and a place for all ages to live and enjoy. I think in general, those are all statements that any downtown would love to achieve, and certainly are those that I think meet what's been expressed by our community members. We've had a lot of public engagement, both in person, virtual, email communication, one on one phone calls. We've met several times with businesses and business owners and property owners online and over the phone over the last year or so to just capture their thoughts and their interests and what they'd like to see downtown, or just to answer their questions and even sometimes just to hear them talk. It's been helpful for staff to hear that directly from the folks that are vested in our downtown community and certainly for our consultant group, because, again, the intent was just to make a plan that is relevant for us in Pasco. We have held two major workshops back in December and one in February, both focusing on separate aspects. One is the general downtown public vision. A separate one on Lewis Street itself because there's a potential for some significant capital investments and public investment on Lewis Street with the near completion of the Lewis Street Overpass and what that corridor will look like not only between 2nd and 5th, but even extended all the way through l Oth in the future. Next you can see what our community members came up with. This was a workshop that was very well attended downtown, and there's a lot, this is a fairly busy map, but I think what it indicates is that we have a lot of creative ideas from our community members that we would like to use as action steps via our implementation plan of the Downtown master planning effort. There are all sorts of ideas here, it's pointing out the vacant buildings, where potential garden and parklets might be best, parking lot locations, where there's potential options for non - motorized transportation, like a bike lane, issues with freight, for instance, maybe where to reroute truck traffic, potentials for gateway. There's a significant interest in wayfinding so that downtown can easily be found not only by people from Pasco, but certainly as they come across from our neighboring communities where they can find events and festivals, gathering spaces and public spaces. So, it really was a lively event that attracted really diverse stakeholder group interested in our downtown. And this was one way that our consulting group was able to capture that and place it all on kind of one visual for all of us. This is a potential concept for Lewis Street, it includes a mid -block pedestrian connection with art being used right in the middle to increase that in our downtown community. Bulb outs to allow for safer pedestrian crossings over the Lewis Street Corridor, widen sidewalks, tree planters, so that we can bring some more trees and shaded structures to the downtown. Pedestrian oriented lighting, catenary lighting, bike friendly. There may not be a dedicated bike lane, but it is designed safe enough that you could ride your bike on Lewis Street in the future with good design in mind. Next is what we would call a "festival" street. This has been a concept that's been tossed around, and that was what to do with 4' Street between Lewis and Columbia. So, this is a Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 11 September 15, 2022 potential where you've designed a street that works for both those traveling via all modes, but also works for people who would like to hang out and have a festival in an event downtown. What's great about this is that you could really take advantage of the investment at Peanuts Park and the Farmers Market Pavilion, but also take advantage of the outdoor dining opportunities offered by the vendors and the restaurants that utilize the Pasco Specialty Kitchen and vice versa. So, good opportunity here conceptually, but again shows that there's a lot that can be done within our existing right away. There's a lot that can be done with our existing environment and sort of the network and structure that downtown has. It really does provide us with a variety of options to move forward with. Not all of these are perfect and not all of these will remain the same viable in the process. But I think what they do show is that it is a different way to consider what our downtown could look like in the future. And our consultant, I think, has captured that in this illustration here. I talked about wayfinding and the City has been working with our regional partners on a wayfinding initiative for several years now. I believe some of these signs are popping up soon and of course, we would like to highlight our downtown. I think when you look from this perspective too, you can see that while we're separate from our Columbia River, the distance isn't too far. As Pasco continues to grow and we see development and redevelopment occur along some of our travel corridors like 10' Avenue and 20a' Avenue, and A Street, and Lewis Street, Sylvester, etc., you can begin to see Downtown's role as a function of the entire City, but also within the Central Pasco area as well. So, we certainly would like to focus on thinking about ways to be more creative with introducing and getting folks to see where downtown is at in relationship to the rest of the City as they travel in and out throughout the community. There's been a lot of discussions about both public and private investment, and this is a high- level example of what that could be for us, particularly with regards to private investment and housing. That's been a big issue for us citywide and here in Pasco we are trying to tackle that issue head on. A part of this also includes updating our downtown development codes and standards to allow for more housing, townhomes or multi -story units, etc., to introduce that to Downtown. That's been a comment expressed by the Planning Commission and many others, and this is an opportunity for us to do that. In fact, through the Comprehensive Plan Amendments that are going through the docket process right now, the establishment of a Downtown land use area would allow exactly this to occur. We can develop special and custom standards and development regulations that may provide more flexibility or provide more standards so that we have tree planters every 30ft, or that we have awnings every 60ft, etc. But also on the housing side, to allow for increased densities, potentially increased height. These all come to the Planning Commission at some point, but it's the first step of many in getting to reintroduce new housing, its particularly private market housing, into the Central Pasco and Downtown Pasco area. At the council meeting, there was a mention of roughly 30 plus implementation steps or so, and so we won't mention all of them this evening, but this is what they look like in the planning documents. So, as you have some time to review the draft plan, you'll see these implementation steps in the actual implementation chapter. Some examples of these goals are: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 11 September 15, 2022 ➢ Develop a lighting plan for downtown. What our lights need to look like downtown? Do they all have to be the same as they exist in the rest of the City? Can they be lower, etc. ➢ Creating regulations to allow parklets within the public right away. ➢ Designing and funding a parklet pilot program, to help get that off the ground. ➢ Develop a wayfinding plan for downtown, and there is an agency who would be responsible for that, potential timeline and eventually will be a cost associated with that, so that we can begin to prioritize the implementation steps as well based on all three of those elements. So, again, a brief summary, but on a really important plan for us. The document was too big to email, but I know that all of you have been provided a copy of it. We also plan on having it up on our website within the next few days and then issuing a series of press and public releases to begin to let the public know that the draft plan is out for your review, and it will be out for that review for roughly 30 or so days. We are working with our consultant team to host an online workshop and webinar within the first week or two of October where we can ask attendees about how they would like us to prioritize the implementation step. Which ones do they need to we need to address now? Which ones do we need to wait for a little bit later time, etc. So, a lot more work to do. I think most would say the implementation of any plan is the hardest part, but I think there's a lot of credit to those that have been a part of the community, of developing this plan. It's a really grand effort. ❖ Comments//Questions by Commissioners: Commissioner Bowers commented I am just really proud of all the work that has been done. Downtown Pasco is an amazing place and has so much potential, and you've captured it in this plan. Commissioner Lehrman commented I really appreciate how much time and attention the staff has put into presenting and sharing out this Master Plan. I love how the historical buildings of Pasco are included in the plan. So, thank you very much for a really well -made product. Mr. Gonzalez, what is he most excited about in this plan presenting out to the public, if that question is okay. Jacob Gonzalez answered that's an interesting question. I think from a staff perspective, I think a lot of us are very excited that the community members, business members, have been asking for a plan for quite some time. I think there's been some variations of some planning efforts to an extent in the past, but I don't know if there's been a comprehensive approach to a plan for downtown. I think this effort certainly captures that and it does so in a way that I think resembles the spirit, excitement and the expectations of not only our downtown businesses and residents, but certainly of the entire Pasco community, from our elected officials and hopefully to the Planning Commission members as well. City staff is really excited about this effort, a variety of departments have been involved such as Public Works, Parks and Rec, Finance, Community and Economic Development, and our executive team. I think what we're really excited about is being implementing it, so it won't be too long before we come back to the Planning Commission with step one. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 11 September 15, 2022 Commissioner Hendler commented this is exciting plan, nice job. Are you encouraged that the proposed downtown plan will allow/promote a mixed use development so that we can get people living in downtown Pasco? I've always found, for a successful downtown plan, the ingredient is really a healthy residential component. I briefly scanned over this, and it looks like there's some discussion about that. But do you feel that there are opportunities for residential development because it could be a prime ingredient catalyst for moving this thing forward? Jacob Gonzalez answered I certainly think there is going to be more opportunities for housing options, whether it's mixed use or standalone housing itself in the downtown area. I think this is the part where we begin to align all of our planning efforts. The Housing Action Plan, which is kind of getting a slow start, but it's underway, its emphasis is to increase housing options. One of the things that we're excited about through that effort is looking at incentives in areas that we want to focus more housing in. And it could be these redevelopment corridors or activity centers such as downtown or some of the other major nodes in the City. Are there incentives we can provide to developers? Are there other things we could tweak in our regulatory structure that may encourage more housing or at least remove unnecessary barriers? And we can take some guidelines and references from other communities that have been successful but still relevant for Pasco. So, the short answer I think, is absolutely. I think it'll take some time, but it is our hope that it won't be a regulatory barrier to it, more so just waiting for the market to be able to support that. And when that can't happen, is there a way for us to provide some appropriate support for those to occur? Rick White stated Commissioner Hendler, that is one of the action items in the plan is to increase the availability of housing options in the downtown. Commissioner Campos stated I would like to echo the sentiment of my fellow commissioners on the excitement and how well done this plan is. I think that we all know that it could be beautiful, but the way the approach that was made of making sure that needs are being met from transportation, the different ways that people transport to get down there, to celebrating our culture and doing all the celebrations of everything that happened down there. I think every box was checked with that. So well done, City staff. I think we're really looking forward to it. C. Verbal Memo Broadmoor Master Plan Members of the Planning Commission, just a short update on where we're at with another fairly significant master planning effort for the Broadmoor area. You may recall that we are concurrently developing both a master plan and the associated nonproject Environmental Impact Statement for the planning area. The plan is intended to incorporate design guidelines, visionary statements, and what the community and area may look like in the future. One of the last things that we're refining on that with some of the property owners is what the development standards would look like. So that's very similar to what we talked about in the Downtown plan, and it's very similar to the Residential Design Standards update. So just making sure that what we placed in that plan makes sense for Broadmoor as we intend to accommodate quite a Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 11 September 15, 2022 significant amount of growth in that area. On the Enviromnental Impact Analysis side or statement side, staff has been working with a variety of both departments within the City, outside agencies, property owners and various consultants to make sure that we have the necessary mitigation. Can't simply just throw 7000 housing units out there and expect everything to be okay. So, in particular, a big emphasis on transportation and transportation mitigation. So, the layout of the streets, the role that the streets will play, the functional classifications of that street system out there, the level of improvements, including funding sources for that, which may include a tax increment finance district out in the area, which would be one of the very few east of the Cascades, as they've been allowed now in Washington. So, we're refining that effort internally with our consulting groups. It is our hope that we will be back here in mid -October with a draft of both the plan and the nonproject EIS, and both plans will essentially require 30-day public review comment period. Then we'll be back later in 2022 with the final plan for your review. ❖ Commissioner Comments/Questions: Chair Cochran stated one of the questions I keep hearing from folks out in that area is, are there going to be similar efforts, like workshops, with the current residents and property owners? I think there's a lot of fears regarding what things will be done, what will be done with the gravel pit, will buildings be built next to homes, etc. Are there attempts to engage the current residents there that are worried about some of these things because of the uncertainty they have? Jacob Gonzalez answered we engage with quite a bit of them when they received a notice for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. There was a lot of discussions over the phone and via email we had with residents adjacent to the site. We actually expanded the notification on that because in reality, 300ft from the Broadmoor site doesn't hit too many homes. So, we felt it was appropriate to extend that distance a little bit more so we can capture residents that might be affected by it, and those discussions all seem to be fairly positive. One of the things that we've tried to express is a heavy emphasis on the mitigation. The idea of not just planning it out there and leaving it alone but trying to pre plan and identify all the potential mitigations whether it's shrub step, critical area habitat, and working with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine what that mitigation needs to look like. The other part too is although some areas in the Broadwood planning area may develop within the next five to seven years, there are some portions that are going to take 15, 20, 30 years to develop, including potentially the gravel pit. While we don't want to talk about moving forward with subarea plans, I think there's portions and areas of that Broadmoor planning area, roughly 1300 acres or so, that are going to require consistent analysis and attention over the coming decades. We hope that we've addressed some of the comments and concerns from the public, and our Public Works Department has really been out in front of that on the transportation side, hosting webinars and online discussions with folks over the past year or so. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 11 September 15, 2022 OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Lehrman made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner Campos. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 7:12 pm. Respectfully submitted, Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Department Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 11 September 15, 2022 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION City PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING r1�Si City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue — Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2022 6:30 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Planning Manager SUBJECT: MF# CA2022-001 Residential DegL Standards, Phase 1 Background City staff are preparing a substantial update to the Pasco Municipal Code to accommodate a variety of residential housing options and typologies, increase development flexibility and clarity, and accommodate local market needs. Work on Phase 1 began in December 2021 and was initiated with the help of the Home Builders Association of the Tri-Cities (HBA-TC) and to supplement the upcoming Housing Action and Implementation Plan. The proposed recommendations are being conducted with the assistance of our Housing Action and Implementation Plan consultant, Oneza and Associates. This has been shared with the Planning Commission on several occasions the past year, see below: Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Public Hearing Public Hearing Workshop December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 September 2022 The purpose of this staff report is to provide the Planning Commission with an update on staff efforts and coordination with stakeholders. Comments on the Proposal Staff has continued the dialogue.with members of the Home Builders Association of the Tri- Cities (HBA-TC) on this effort. While most of the initial comments have been corrected and addressed satisfying both the proposals intent and the HBA-TC, there are remaining concerns expressed by the HBA-TC on the following: • Maximum Lot Coverage for detached single-family dwellings • Off-street parking for multiplexes and apartments • Internal vehicle circulation standards for multiplexes and apartments 1 Lot Coverage: • The HBA-TC has requested a maximum lot coverage of 60% for detached, single-family dwellings in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. • Staff has increased lot coverage maximum to 45% in the R-1 zoning district, and 50% in the R-2 zoning district. These maximums apply to detached, single-family dwellings. Off -Street Parking for Multiplex and Apartments: • The HBA-TC has raised concerns that the proposal is restrictive, and the intent is unfounded. • The staff proposal includes options to allow off-street parking along the frontage (within the site) for multiplexes and apartment developments. This is departure from the current Pasco Municipal Code requirement which does not allow parking in the front (PMC 25.185.030). Internal Vehicle Circulation Standards for Multiplexes and Apartments • The HBA-TC raised concerns that the proposal is restrictive, and requests that staff seeks input on internal circulation standards, and there are negative trade-offs associated with the proposal. • Staff has revised the original proposal to require non -motorized access points to the site every 330' — 660' feet along the site perimeter and at all arrival points, including public right-of-way intersections, crosswalks, transit and school bus stops. Language has been added to ensure the appropriate coordination is performed to provide circulation between and within the site. Additional Considerations Staff acknowledges that the proposed changes to the Pasco Municipal Code represent a significant shift in regulations with the intent of providing more options for housing, flexibility in the development process, and the implementation of the Pasco Comprehensive Plan. While the code amendment directly addresses housing, it does not consider impacts to transportation (outside of the development site) or access to parks and open space opportunities. Staff is addressing the transportation component through a series of planning efforts, including the pending Street Connectivity Code Amendment (CA2019-013). The proposed amendment would create maximum block length and block perimeter standards and ensure that new developments provide for a multitude of transportation options that achieve City Council Goals. One of the most common concerns raised by the public, including neighborhoods of new development are the preservation of open space, and increasing access to parks and recreational facilities. The City does require the payment of a Park Impact Fee (PMC 3.50) which is intended to ensure that new residential developments contribute their proportionate share to the capital costs necessary to provide parks and recreational amenities. The impact fee allows for reductions and credits based on the dedication of amenities or facilities, but there is not a requirement for these dedications. Many communities require parks or open space dedications based on the development type, such as the number of lots, housing units, size, 2 location, or density. For example, the City of Kennewick requires common open space for multi- family developments that exceed seven units per acre. The City is currently completing efforts on the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan, which is expected to be ready for adoption in November 2022. The City has level of service standards of 2 acres of neighborhood parks and 2.1 acres of community parks per 1,000 population. Based on the existing inventory, the City is currently providing 1.4 acres of neighborhood parks and 1.44 acres of community parks per 1,000, which is around 70% of its goal, as determined in the master plan Needs Analysis. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan is expected to be ready for adoption by the end of 2022. City staff welcomes input from the Planning Commission on the potential impacts of the proposed Residential Design Standards to transportation and recreational opportunities, and whether additional considerations should be made within the proposal to address these them. Proposed Recommendations Staff has prepared a matrix of recommendations for Planning Commission discussion and is attached as Exhibit A. Policy Guidance Proposed shall be consistent with the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan, including: • Land Use Policy 1-5: Enhance the physical appearance of development within the community through land use regulations, design guidelines, and performance and maintenance standards including landscaping, screening, building facades, color, signs, and parking lot design and appearance. • Land Use Goal 2: Plan for a variety of compatible uses within the Urban Growth Area. • Land Use Policy 3-C: Ensure all developments include appropriate landscaping and screening, as required by adopted regulations and guidelines. • Land Use Policy 4-B: Encourage infill and higher density uses within proximity to major travel corridors and public transportation service areas. • Land Use Policy 4-F: Support mixed use, smart growth, infill, and compact developments with transit and pedestrian amenities that promote a healthy community • Land Use Policy 5-A: states that the allowance of a variety of residential densities within the Urban Growth Area is important in maintaining a broad range of residential housing opportunities. • Housing Policy 3-A: Pasco Comprehensive Plan supports the increase of the housing supply through appropriate and flexible development standards. 3 Environmental Determination and Public Notice The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Checklist has been prepared for this proposal. The city (Lead Agency) anticipates issuing a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) that the proposed changes to the Pasco Municipal Code is unlikely to have significant adverse environmental impacts. RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided two recommendations for consideration: MOTION (Option 1): 1 move to close the public hearing on the proposed code amendment for Phase 1 Residential Design Standards (CA2022-001) and recommend the Pasco City Council adopt the proposed code amendment as contained in the October 20, 2022, staff report. MOTION (Option 2): 1 move to continue the public hearing on the proposed code amendment for Phase 1 Residential Design Standards (CA2022-001) to address the additional considerations as contained in the October 20, 2022, staff report. 4 EXHIBIT P CA2022-001: Residential Design Standards, Phase 1 Minimum Lot Size (SQFT) Per Unit Home Type R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 SFDU — Detached 7,200 5,000 3,000 2,000 SFDU - Attached • Town home/Rowhouse 7,200 3,000 2,000 1,500 • Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex 7,200 (+3,600 per each 2,500 2,000 1,500 • Cottage House, Courtyard Housing (4-12 3,600 2,000 1,800 1,500 units) Multiplex/Apartments Dependent on Comprehensive Plan Density, Site Design and Parking Requirements. PGS 7, Draft Pasco Residential Design Standards Home Type Minimum Site Frontage & Width (FT) R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 SFDU—Detached 60'/ DU 40' / DU 40' / DU 30' / DU SFDU - Attached • Townhome/Rowhouse 35' / DU 25' / DU 20' / DU 20' / DU • Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex 60' / Lot 40' / Lot 40' / Lot 30' / Lot • Cottage House (Entire 60' / Lot 40' / Lot 40' / Lot 30' / Lot Multiplex/Apartments, 40' Minimum Dependent on Comprehensive Plan Density, Site Design Courtyard Apartments and Parking Requirements. Not permitted in cul-de-sac or dead end. (Entire Lot) PGS 8, Dry. ,sidential Design Standards HOME TYPE Building Setbacks Front Rear Side SFDU — Detached, Duplexes (Living 15'* 15' 5' Unit) SFDU — Attached, Townhome, Cottage Housing, 12'**,+ 15, 5' Multiplex/Apartments" *Permitted when/if attached garage is setback at least 20', or accessed via rear alley or shared private driveway; no encroachment of a utility easement permitted **Permitted with shared driveway is used and parking is located in middle or rear of development + When building is accessed directly from public streets, standards of SFDUs-Detached shall apply ^Multiplex/Apartments or mixed use buildings permitted without a minimum setback if abutting a sidewalk 8' or wider and has garage or parking located _. i the back or side c the site. A 5' landscaping buffer setback is required when abutting sidewalks below 8' PGS 11-12 Draft Pasco Residentio. --,,yn Standards Code Amendment CA2022-001: Residential Design Standards, Phase 1 September 29, 2022 Building Height & Lot Coverage R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 Home Type Bldg. Height Lot Coverage Height Lot Coverage Height Lot Coverage Height Lot Coverage SFDU - 35' 45% 35' 50% 40' 60% 40' 60% Detached SFDU — 35' 60% 35' f Dependent on 40' Dependent on 40' Dependent on Attached Comprehensive Comprehensive Comprehensive Cottage 25' 60% 25' Plan Density, Site 25' Plan Density, Site 25' Plan Density, Site Housing Regs and Parking Regs and Parking Regs and Parking Multiplex / 35' 60% 45' Requirements. 45' Requirements. 45' Requirements. Apartments PGS 12 Draft Pasco Residential Design Standards Parking and Driveways — Multiplex/Apartments Off -Street Parking Off -Street Parking Location Driveways • Studio and 1brm units: • Permitted adjacent to public frontage. May • Internal and shared accessways or Reduced to 1 space not exceed 10% of total off-street parking or driveways shall be a minimum 26' 20% of entire frontage length (combined). width, except for PMC 21.20.060 • When permitted adjacent to public frontage, must be screened with a minimum of 15' of approved landscaping. • Parking areas shall be designed to incorporate incremental breaks to provide adequate access, turnaround, and circulation. • Minimum distance of 15' between entrance/exit of site and nearest parking stall. PGS 16-18 Draft Pasco Residential Desiy rca nn�6 anu v� �rcrraya - .+vva l^ ..� Off -Street Parking Location Driveways • Minimum distance of 15' between entrance/exit of site • Shared driveways permitted, minimum 26' width, except and nearest parking stall. for PMC 21.20.060 • Recommended: SFDUs-attached, parking shall be • Attached DUs: No Maximum located via rear access. Required when adjacent to • Detached DUs: Maximum of 4 DUs on shared driveways arterial or collector roadways. • Attached DUs: driveways encouraged to have shared driveway from public street • Driveways that exceed 50% of lot width are not permitted. When driveways of individual dwellings exceed more than 50% of lot width, they must include one or more of the following treatments: o Shared driveway or Driveway access via alley or rear access o Minimum driveway length of 20' with sidewalk located behind the curb -cut and not interrupted with slope. Code Amendment CA2022-001: Residential Design Standards, Phase 1 September 29, 2022 Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian & Vehicle Circulation Vehicle Circulation • Multiplex/Apartments and Multiple Dwellings: • Minimum with (internal access) of 26' with a turning radius Dedicated pedestrian network between parking lots, of 26' public streets and sidewalks, open spaces, and community facilities. • Shall provide pedestrian and bicycle access within and onto the site. Access points onto the site shall be provided (a) approximately every 330'to 660' feet along existing and proposed perimeter sidewalks and walkways, and (b) at all arrival points to the site, including abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit and school bus stops. In addition, access points to and from adjacent lots shall be coordinated to provide circulation patterns between sites. • Walkways shall form an on -site circulation system that minimizes the conflict between pedestrians and traffic at all points of pedestrian access to on -site parking and building entrances. Walkways shall be provided when the pedestrian access point onto the site, or any parking space, is more than 60' feet from the building entrance or principal on -site destination. • Conformance with ADA design standards I PGS 19-20 Draft Pasco Residential Design Standards I Code Amendment CA2022-001: Residential Design Standards, Phase 1 September 29, 2022 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION '- -' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue —Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2022 6:30 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Memorandum: Street Connectivity Amendment Update Background The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Pasco Planning Commission with an update on the pending code amendment to implement street connectivity measures for new development in the city. The Planning Commission may recall that staff initiated the amendment in December 2019 to address long established goals and policies adopted by Council and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. After eight public hearings, the Planning Commission recommended the amendment to the Pasco City Council on October 15, 2020. The 2022-2023 Council Goals on Transportation are included below: COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION NETWORK Promote a highly functional multi -modal transportation system including, but not limited to: Application of the adopted Transportation System Master Plan including development of policies, regulations, programs, and projects that provide for greater connectivity, strategic investment, mobility, multi -modal systems, accessibility, efficiency, and safety. Excerpt from the 2022-2023 Council Goals, Resolution No 4182 — May 16, 2022 Staff presented the amendment to the Pasco City Council at three workshop meetings from Spring 2021— Summer 2021. The most recent presentation (August 18, 2021) with City Council included a staff recommendation to consider additional evaluation of the proposal. A summary table of the Planning Commission recommendation from October 15, 2021, is provided below: ��- Max Block Max Connectivity to Public Intersection Alternative Length Block Abutting Lands Accessways/Connections Distances perimeter Required where block Pasco Planning Citywide: Res: 1,880' Yes w/street length/perimeter standards AASHTO / Commission 660' Riverview: I stub placement are exceeded and where a FHWA (October 2020) C-1: 2,800 (within the site) cul-de-sac is within 1,320' 1,000 of a planned public facility 1 While the proposed amendment has received a significant amount of support from local, regional, and state transportation officials, a considerable amount of feedback and concern raised by the.Home Builders Association of the Tri-Cities (HBA-TC). A staff recommendation to the Pasco City Council on August 23, 2021, was made to consider additional evaluations of the proposal with the Pasco Planning Commission and to collaborate with the HBA-TC. Coordination with the HBA-TC In August 2022, staff shared (virtually) with the Pasco Business Advisory Council the updated Pasco City Councils, focusing on transportation, and also re -introduced the effort to update development standards and regulations to achieve Council goals. Staff has met with representatives from the HBA-TC on three separate occasions (September 13, September 22, September 26) to discuss methods to achieve Council goals on transportations, including seeking specific feedback, input, or suggestions on the Planning Commission recommendation. A fourth meeting is scheduled for October 14, 2022. Representatives from the HBA-TC led the meeting on September 26, which focused on defining the intent, terms and definitions, Council Goals, strengths, and perspectives of each stakeholder, identifying existing conditions and challenges of the transportation system, and options for mutual gain. Staff will continue to meet with members of the HBA-TC, and any other/all stakeholders, including affected organizations, agencies, and, community members to discuss transportation policy, planning, standards, and efforts. Next Steps Staff will continue to provide updates to the Planning Commission as this effort moves forward. Additionally, an update to the Pasco City Council is planned for October 24, 2022, to share what progress has been made, and to request feedback on how to move forward. City staff have continued to evaluate information, data, and best practices on how to develop a cohesive multi -modal transportation system, as called for by City Council in the 2022-2023 Goals. The results from the 2021 National Citizen Survey indicated a decrease in positive rating of traffic flow on public streets (2019: 41%, 2021: 29%) and well -planned residential growth (2019: 45%, 2021: 36%). The results also indicated that residents believe a higher priority should be placed on transportation planning quality (78%), and, the design and layout of the city (90%). There is an acknowledgement from staff the proposal will codify standards that are not required in neighboring jurisdictions but emphasizes that the proposal supports, and best archives adopted City Council goals. The proposal has received support from a wide variety of agencies and organizations, including Ben Franklin Transit, The Benton -Franklin Council of Governments, Bike Tri-Cities, Visit Tri-Cities, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and the Pasco Fire Department. 2 While alternatives developed by the HBA-TC in coordination with city staff may be helpful, there may be a deficiency of these proposals in achieving adopted Council goals and policies. 3 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue — Council Chambers 0� DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2022 6:30 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Memorandum: Text Amendment Request for Mixed Use Zoning District Background The City has received a request for a zoning text amendment to the Waterfront Development District Zoning District (WDD) and for the establishment of a new Mixed Use (MU) Zoning District. PMC 25.210.020 states that any person, firm, corporation or group of individuals, or municipal department may petition the Pasco City Council for a zone or text change. The Waterfront Development District (adopted January 2021, via Ordinance No 4514) was established to allow the location of a compatible mix of commercial, residential, and recreational uses on parcels situated close to the Columbia River waterfront and within the Osprey Pointe property, historically owned by the Port of Pasco. Outside of the WDD, the city does not provide development standards or regulations for mixed use projects, sites, or building. The request for a text amendment would identify a set of modifications to the WDD, that would facilitate mixed uses citywide, and implemented under the current Comprehensive Plan Land Use of Mixed Residential and Commercial. The new Mixed Use (MU) Zoning District would allow a compatible, integrated mix of commercial (and office, education, and government uses) and residential uses. Planning staff is seeking initial comments and feedback from the Planning Commission about the requested text amendment and recommends that the effort move forward for evaluation and eventual consideration. A proposal narrative has been attached to the staff report (Exhibit A). PROJECT MEMO EXHIBIT A TO: Jacob Gonzales FROM: Nicole Stickney SUBJECT: Proposal Narrative DATE: 9/27/2022 PROJECT NO.: 2220070.30 PROJECT NAME: Elite - Mixed Use Zoning LN a The following provides a brief overview of the proposal (zoning text amendment) we submitted last month to amend PMC 25.127. Thank you for your assistance with this process. The Pasco Comprehensive Plan designates multiple areas of the city with the land use classification of "Mixed Residential Commercial," but does not currently have a zoning district to facilitate mixed uses throughout the City. Accordingly, we propose that the City Council amend Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) Chapter 25.127 (Waterfront Development Dist.) which was written for the lands near the Columbia River at Osprey Pointe. We suggest the chapter be renamed to "Mixed Use (MU) District" and we have proposed a set of modifications to the code. These modifications are recommended to allow a compatible, integrated mix of commercial (and office, education, and government uses) and residential uses, and to carry out the comprehensive plan (particularly the Mixed Residential Commercial land use classification). The amendment of Chapter 25.127 would broaden the applicability of the chapter, so that the zoning code would apply city-wide (and no longer be specific to only Osprey Pointe). The zoning district would be an implementing zone that could be assigned to properties classified as "Mixed Residential Commercial" on the city's Land Use Map. • The Mixed Use (MU) zoning designation would fill the current gap between the Comprehensive Plan (which has a Mixed Residential Commercial" designation on the City's Land Use map) and the zoning regulations of Pasco, in order to carry out the goals of the comprehensive plan. The zoning text amendment would be a citywide change and would impact properties adjacent to any areas rezoned in the future to the MU designation. This designation would be compatible with a range of uses including residential, office, retail, public services, schools, and other uses. The proposed zoning text amendment would carry out the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan and the "Mixed Residential Commercial" land use designation. This includes expanding housing options while potentially reducing car dependency (see Goals in the Land Use (LU), Housing (H) and Transportation (TR) Elements, numbered LU-4, LU-5, LU-6, H-1, H-3, and TR-1). The proposal to amend the zoning district is intended to provide a high level of diversity in housing types and move toward the city's land use and housing goals relating to density. Ground floor, neighborhood - scale commercial and/or office uses are encouraged to create a cohesive pedestrian -oriented community. The creation of growth opportunities, and infill, within the UGA of the City is in alignment with the goals of the GMA to reduce sprawl, which in -turn, reduces energy needs and reliance on natural resources. Moreover, this also complements the work that staff has recently engaged in, working on implementing the city's first Housing Action Plan. • Implementation of the proposed zoning text amendment and subsequent development could foster a mix of uses located in proximity to one another, such as commercial and residential uses. This then may lead to a potential decrease in energy and natural resources uses, facilitating residents to reduce automobile commute times to/ from home to work and to/from other activities. c: J. Trinidad (Trini) Garibay, CEO/ Co -Founder: Elite Construction + Development Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION City-f PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1411 P co City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue — Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2022 6:30 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rick White, Community and Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Memorandum: Corner Lot Fencing Code Amendement Earlier this year the Planning Commission recommended to City Council revision of the corner lot fencing regulations per the attached Staff Report. The Planning commission recommendation was not acted upon by Council and instead there was direction further consider options that take into account larger lot sizes. As this process involved considerable involvement of the Commission and public input — staff is requesting your consideration of the following options — or asking the Commission if there are options that aren't listed but should be considered: 1. Continue the recommendation per the attached staff report; 2. Develop an option that builds on the recommendation of the attached report but explores a transparency qualifier as a mechanism to move closer to the flanking street; 3. Provide for independent fencing location analysis on a case -by -case basis by a licensed engineer; or 4. Provide for condition use permits utilizing some of the options above. Although the Council discussion focused on larger lots — staff is unable to determine a specific benefit that would result from only applying to lots of a particular size. It seems the focus should be on an overall option that could be applied uniformly throughout various lot sizes and zoning districts. MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION Gtyof PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IR&O City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue — Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2022 6:30 PM 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: 0-3t� ion 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. 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. Q MU Q 602 1 02 �Ch cc co ui M ca r ool / N,�" d PO d 0 to 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(l)(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; Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 1 (d)(e) 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 l/12 or less) and/or shed -style roofs with varying pitches as part of an architecturally integrated design. (f)(0 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)W 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; 0)(4) 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; (1)(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; (mil} 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. Ordinance Relating to Comer Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 2 (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 hetise f4ein - 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 Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 3 rails that are an integral part of the fence design and aesthetics and not used solely for structural support may be visible from a public street. 0) All fencing in commercial and industrial districts shall be placed on the inward side of any required perimeter landscaping, with landscape treatments occurring along the street frontage. (k) No fence, wall or hedge, landscape material or foliage higher than 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. (1) Fences constructed in any zoning district may be permitted at the back of sidewalks in public right-of-way upon approval of the City Engineer, except as provided in 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. Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 4 (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. Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 5 Blanche Barajas Mayor ATTEST: Debra Barham, CMC City Clerk Published: Ordinance Relating to Corner Lot Fencing and Design Standards - 6 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC City Attorney