Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Meeting Packet 12-15-2022L 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 November 17, 2022. VI. OLD BUSINESS None VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Code Amendment B. Staff Report VIII. WORKSHOP A. Staff Report AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, DECEMBER I5, 2022 6:30 PM Mixed Use District Code Amendment (CA2022-003) Broadmoor Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendments IX. OTHER BUSINESS A. 2023 Work Plan and Schedule X. ADJOURNMENT This meeting is broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.comlosctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance. Please silence your cell phones. Thank you. �I' Pasco PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2022 6:00 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, Paul Mendez; Telephone: Tanya Bowers, and Rachel Teel, Kim Lehrman, a quorum was declared. Commissioners Absent: Abel Compos Staff Present: Community & Economic Development Director Rick White, and Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez and Administrative Assistant II, Carmen Patrick. Other: Bob Stowe and Rean Flisakowski 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 16 November 17, 2022 Chair Cochran asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda. ❖ 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 Mendez moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of October 20, 2022. Commissioner Hendler seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS None. PRESENTATION A. Bob Stowe — Broadmoor Master Plan and Tax Increment Finance Presentation Jacob Gonzales stated this presentation and staff report is intended to provide the Commission with a summary and the status of the efforts related to the Broadmoor Master Plan. This is a significant planning effort that has required the development of an Environmental Impact Statement and new proposed development regulations that will end up in a Master Plan itself that are intended to implement the vision for the Broadmoor planning area. In terms of what's next, we are completing the draft Environmental Impact Statement. We plan on issuing that Environmental Impact Statement in December and hosting a public hearing to give both the public and the Planning Commission an opportunity to review the document and the plan itself. There is a 30-day requirement for a public comment period, so that will last through mid -January. We will come back and hopefully issue the final EIS with our recommendation to Council. Following that, in February this Master Plan would be incorporated into the other items associated with the 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment dockets, which is an item later on tonight's agenda. Please view Bob Stowe's power point located in our agenda through this link: SKM C450i22111614440 (dvicweb.net) •b Comments/Questions from Commissioners Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 16 November 17, 2022 Commissioner Mendes asked the City's General Fund will be servicing the debt until the TIFF revenues start coming in, is there any plans to reimburse, the General Fund and what is the projected timeline? Mr. Stowe commented yes, the extent that the TIF revenues are capable of supporting the projections that we've laid out, under the moderate scenario. There're sufficient revenues there so the City can pay itself back for any interim financing that it needed to do in the early years. It can pay itself back once the TIF. Regarding timeline, I think most of the development that we show being created occur within a ten -to -twelve-year period. Chair Cochran asked was this project analysis based on alternative one, no changes or alternative two, some changes? Because wouldn't that impact this based on how you're going to break up the zoning and the density and all that? Jacob Gonzalez answered one of the challenges with the current land use as prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan and also with the existing developments that are within the current Broadmoor area and those to the north and south where the densities at which they were developed at would not allow the City to eventually meet its growth target for the Broadmoor area. One of the things we've had to do is develop a land use that can actually beef up the allowable densities, so we can actually hit our growth target of roughly 7000 households, several thousand jobs. With the current land use and the current developments, we would not achieve that growth target. Part of it has been kind of back forecasting in a sense to make sure that the alternative to land use that you saw early on in the presentation could implement the densities that have been used in the forecasts, in the Transportation Master Plan and the Sewer Utility Comprehensive Plan and certainly in the efforts that Bob Stow and his colleagues have been working on. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Code Amendment Residential Design Standards (CA2022-001) Jacob Gonzalez commented the objective of this effort was to make the necessary and critical revisions to the zoning code and development standards, to increase housing options, flexibility, and simplicity, and also to allow for our zoning code to actually implement the Comprehensive Plan itself. One of the key differences that will occur with a positive recommendation includes a significant revision to the way our zoning code is laid out. It will be more tabular, and it'll be more customized based on the housing typology. We are proposing to structure the zoning code differently so that it's based still under the zoning code, but more on the typology of the home product itself. Keep in mind that the overall density of development is limited by a variety of factors, even with these proposed changes. Most critically, that would be the density limits of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and also the height limits that we have in the zoning code as well. So that would be the only change between the last meeting and tonight's meeting. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 16 November 17, 2022 ❖ PUBLIC COMMENTS Caleb Stromstad: Good evening, Planning Commission, Caleb Stromstad, Aqtera Engineering, 2705 San Andrews Loop, Pasco. We are excited to see this item move forward. Staff put a lot of work into that, that's apparent. We initially proposed our recommendations in December of last year. Our proposal was a one pager and looking at that narrative staff has gone above and beyond what we asked for in that. So, it was actually enjoyable to work with staff on this one because we're kind of each marching to the same tune. We did get the actual text changes, it's an 83-page document, it's pretty substantial. We received these two and a half, three weeks ago, and we would like some time to review this. We've been engaged with staff, these slides that were presented, made comments on that. We have not had a chance to review this in depth the comment and the reason why that's important is because we're the ones that put this to work. And so, we need to go through this and make sure that one, there's a lot in here in this proposed text amendments that we're not included on these narrative slides. There's some new information that we want to review, and we do like the tabular format that staff put together. We're hopeful that it's all good, but we just want to have some time to vet that. So, our recommendation is to continue this public hearing and to give us time to work with staff to make sure this text amendment is bulletproof. Because with these kinds of substantial changes, we just want to make sure that it's just done right, and we've got the time to do that. Thank you. Jacob Gonzalez replied Chair Cochran, one of the things I needed to mention was that the ordinance has not been finalized in terms of being vetted by our legal review. So that certainly will need to happen. It will happen before this item is shared with the Council. If there are substantial differences between the ordinance and what's been presented today, then this may likely come back. But I think the intent is to make sure that the ordinance represents what's been shared with the commission tonight. Mr. Stromstad continued one last comment in the interest. We wanted these changes made two years ago. We submitted it a year ago going through these substantial change efforts. My encouragement to Planning Commission would be to piecemeal these, so we actually get actionable items into working ordinances effectively as opposed to dragging them out like these larger initiatives tend to do. ❖ Comments/Questions from Commissioners: None Kent Bloodsk My name is Kent Bloodsky, West Richland Washington. I am a realtor of the Tri-City Association of Realtors. I have worked in this community for years and helped hundreds of people buy and sell homes here. Tonight, I'm representing the developers that I work with here in the City and the home builders. I want to thank staff for making the modifications to the lot coverage because we have been talking with them over the last several months regarding some of the constraints of the 7200 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 16 November 17, 2022 square foot minimum, not being able to build homes that were in high demand. One of the things as realtors we get to see is the statistics of what the consumer is looking for. Currently in this market, a 2300 square foot house, three car garage, covered patio, covered front porch was exceeding the lot coverage restrictions. So, the 60% is going to help us a lot. It's also going to help in the second topic I was going to talk about is accessory dwelling units in some of these cases. One particular, we are in the process of building one that's going to have a mother live with a son type of thing and have her own unit, which was exceeding the lot coverage there as well. So, it's really going to help out in that matter. I'm hoping that these can be expedited through, I don't know how quickly. I know we're applying for a few variances. I'm looking at them because they're probably talking with the builders so that we can get some of these projects rolling, because a lot of the consumers have been waiting while we've been going through these discussions and the builders also waiting. And of course, prices are changing all the time. Just to share a few numbers with you, the current average prices in the Pasco market right now for new construction for the sold houses for the year to date is $536,000. So, these are important decisions being made by you, by staff on the affordability aspect of what the residents here in the City of Pasco will have to deal with in the coming future. Pending prices are $674,000. That's for all the homes that are currently under construction that are under contract right now. That's a pretty tough price point for affordability to get people into homes here. And of course, the average active, which are 61 active listings today on the market is $579,000. So, we got a long way to go. Adding extra cost to development is one way to add into that price, increase that price. But doing things like this lot coverage modification that we've done tonight and hopefully move forward to City Council is a big step forward to actually decreasing that affordability. Thank you. ❖ Comments/Questions from Commissioners None. Commission Bowers moved to close the public hearing on the proposed Code Amendment for Phase One Residential Design Standards, CA2022-001 and recommend the Pasco City Council adopt the proposed Code Amendment as contained in the November 17, 2022, staff report. Commissioner Mendez seconded, unanimously passed. B. Code Amendment Street Connectivity Amendment Update Rick White stated when this item went to the City Council, they directed staff to continue to converse with the Home Builders Association. In the course of those conversations, we've come up with what's in front of you tonight. The result is a slightly modified recommendation that you'll see starting on the bottom of page two of this staff report. Our trusted and valuable consultant Rean Flisakowski will lead the commission through the PowerPoint presentation. Please view Rean Flisakowski's power point located in our agenda through this link: Pasco - Document Center civicweb.net ❖ Comments/Questions by Commissioners: Commissioner Mendez commented I just have a comment. I think, based on the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 16 November 17, 2022 presentation, it appears that there's a lot of benefits to the proposed Street Connectivity standards. I think it would improve walkability, livability, quality of life, impact on reduced transportation cost. But of course, there's costs involved with housing, I presume. I'm sure the HBA will let us know if there's any outstanding issues related to increased costs on the new housing, but certainly looks favorable to me. Chair Cochran asked we do not currently have street connectivity standards, or not defined, correct? Jacob Gonzalez stated that's correct. We have some loose language regarding the extension of public streets, but really the only barometer we have beyond policies and Comprehensive Plan, etc. is the only limit on how long a block could be is our block length maximum of 1320ft. So, in August of this year, when we were talking about the Residential Design Standards update, commissioner Handler, you had asked about how do we prevent sort of the long blocks of townhomes or row homes being developed in Pasco. And at that time, I had mentioned, really the only requirement is still the only requirement that exists today, which is once you deduct side yard setbacks and the right of way dedications from each side of that block, you can roughly have a row of 1000ft row of townhomes under today's standards. ❖ PUBLIC COMMENTS Caleb Stromstad Caleb Stromstad, Pasco Washington. It's been a little over a year since we've been up here speaking. Rean did an amazing job with that presentation and articulation of what staff is presenting, that's something that we'll never be able to beat. Those presentations are top notch, so give them kudos for that. I'thought it'd be helpful for everybody to go through the history of everything, because the way it's presented often leads to different interpretations. So, December 2019, that's when the first workshop meeting was brought to the Planning Commission. I happened to be having another item on the Planning Commission agenda that summer and found out about what was being proposed. I was able to get the development community involved in August of 2020, and so between August and it being recommended to council, that was two, months, so from our perspective, the train was already rolling down the tracks. We were just trying to get input and slower down because of the significant impacts. Specifically, you're talking about doing a change like this, just comparing it to our local jurisdictions, to Kennewick, to Richland, to West Richland. That should be our comparison data for our local area, and we're doing some drastic changes to that. So back to our timeline, we had that two -month window, our recommendations fell onto deaf ears. The staff s recommendation for Street Connectivity went forward to City Council as it was originally prepared. Then it sat dormant for seven months, and then it finally made it to a Council workshop. Then it's at dormant for another three months before it went to a regular meeting for Council. We interjected, explain to them the cost implications were not thoroughly vetted, and their direction was to take it back to the Planning Commission, collaborate with the development community, and evaluate the cost impact. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 16 November 17, 2022 So, we started that immediately after that meeting in 2021. It was August 2021 when Council gave that directive. We had a meeting with the development community at the end of September. We met internally, we hatched out a plan of collaboration, like what collaboration looks like. We even broke out a book that defines how we focus on interests, not positions. Agreed to that process. Last email communication was in November 2021 from staff saying, we'll get back to you. Eleven months later in August, we were asked to reconvene. And the last three months we've been trying to collaborate. But what happened in that eleven -month period was the Transportation System Master Plan was adopted, which is so prescriptive, it pretty much writes the Street Connectivity Ordinance, and we're not involved with that. So, we were a little naive on the political workings on how these ordinance gets passed, but here we are today. So, I understand the sense of urgency, we all do. We actually understand the emergency response problems. We met with the Chief a number of times. There are really practical solutions to increase connectivity. The Council goals can be met. That's a benefit to everybody. The way this has been going about has been rather frustrating for us, because again, in our naivety, we were told to collaborate, and that's what we expected was collaboration. Those meetings were barely listening. The recommendation you have before you today is simply to reinstitute what you submitted to Council last fall, which is further backing from the TSMP that was submitted. So, in our opinion, the Council's specific directives from August of 2021 have not been listened to by staff or the Planning Commission. So, we first recommend that this record be kept open. On a parallel track, we are engaging with Council, our recommendations for City Council is to prepare a subcommittee from the Council. And we would encourage the Planning Commission to have a subcommittee as well, to actually mediate and attend those meetings so you can observe firsthand what collaboration looks like and what it doesn't look like. At the end of the day, as representations of the development community, we put this stuff to work. We design the subdivisions, we understand the cost, the real estate agents know the end user. We can actually come to a good resolution. This is an extreme measure, and we hope the Planning Commission understands that. We also understand that Planning Commission gets to hear from staff every month. They've got a good budget and a lot of time to present some really good slides and they do a good job about it. We can't compete with that. We're actually considering asking Council to get a budget to compete with the level of work that's going on here. We don't want to submit our own proposals. That's not our job. We want to work collaboratively with Planning Commission, with city staff to accomplish council goals. And 100%, that hasn't happened. I think the big takeaway we can all take away from this is collaboration can't happen once the cake has been made. The cake was made in 2020 and there's no change in it once it's made. And as you can see, nothing substantial has changed except for we were left in the dark while the TSMP was approved. And now staff has the backing of that document to force the Street Connectivity Ordinance. So again, final request is to continue this hearing and also look forward to more challenging questions to staff because they need to be held accountable for what they're doing. And we'll help you with that. And also encourage them to collaborate. Listening is not collaborating. Objectively looking at things, that's collaboration and that has Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 16 November 17, 2022 not happened yet. Happy to answer any questions. $• Comments/Questions by Commissioners: Commissioner Mendez asked is there a specific standard that HBA is objecting to related to spacing standards, connectivity issues, perimeters? Caleb Stromstad answered that's a great question, Commissioner Mendez. In short, connectivity can be achieved in a cost-effective way that meets the goals of the City Council. And more importantly, the urgency should be towards fire response and on a high- level emergency response time is collectors connected to subdivisions. So, we've got a number of existing subdivisions inside the City. Where the collector arterial road, there's 1000, 2000ft over, there's limited between accesses into that subdivision, so that subdivision has limited access points. There's a couple of situations where subdivisions back up to each other for a half a mile and there's no road connecting them. Simple standards like that that we can implement, again, we could have implemented those two years ago. Back to what I said on the design standards, we got to piecemeal this thing get some effective legislation out there, because we all want this. We're actually designing subdivisions with a lot of this stuff already in play as respect to Council's wishes, Planning Commission, and staff, because we know that that's important. We're putting in the mid - block pedestrian crossings. We're providing sub streets. So, this stuff is happening, and so that's important to know. But at the end of the day, it's significant on costs and it reduces density. So, this lies in the face of two things. You increase the cost of housing significantly. We provided a simple sketch in August of 2020 that said, if you take an existing subdivision and you implement the block standards, that would decrease the density 12.5 percent, and it would increase the development cost 17, 000 per lot. We then have a home builder come in and say, when you prorate that out, by the time you get to the end user, give up to $30,000 per lot to the end user. That's significant. Again, we brought that up in August of 2020. That got council's attention. We hope it gets your attention, and we hope this gets like I said. Matt Hire: Matt Hire, Kennewick WA. I'm the Government Affairs Director for the Tri-Cities Association of Realtors. Specifically, I'm here tonight on behalf of our Government Affairs Committee and our 1200 members that can provide their services in your City. The HBA community alerted us to potential increased housing costs that are involved in this plan. Just this past September, local realtors joined the collaborative process between city staff and the development community. I'm just kind of want to go over some basic bullet points here that I've kind of taken some notes on and want to put forward tonight. But I really want to stress this aspect that our local association's goals completely support the mission of Washington Realtors and the National Association of Realtors to help design and grow data driven cities that promote smart growth, walkability, and multimodal transportation. To this point, I applaud the conversations that are taking place in this room. Fine work by Jacob Gonzalez as well as Planning Commission for even having these discussions. It's very forward thinking, and I appreciate you for tackling these trends head on. However, the plan put forth Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 16 November 17, 2022 tonight has not allowed time for this collaborative process to yield the positive results that could be incorporated into this proposal. This proposal is far too drastic for a City the size of Pasco. Instead, there are multiple paths that can be taken to get a plan over the finish line very soon. I'm yet to see accurate data, polling, surveys, or statistics that Pasco residents specifically are in support of this proposal or that they are knowledgeable of how impactful the changes would be to their community. Not that surveys haven't been done, but how you ask the question and interpret the data are what matters. None of the groups supporting this proposal are as involved in your housing market locally, as your developers, builders, and realtors. In this instance, we three entities are all unified in opposition to this proposal in its current form. This is a major decision that requires a little more time. I'd like to personally leverage assistance from the National Association of Realtors and additionally form a subcommittee with some Council and Planning Commission members that act as mediators. I'm confident that all parties' interests can be included, and personally, from the realtor's perspective, we would be put at ease if we knew that there was a lock tight survey with statistics that where the results were clearly spelled out to your specific residents here in Pasco, not the broader area, not nationally. I do recall, I think it was August of 2020, I went through a memo put forward to the Planning Commission that actually referenced NAR survey, that 53%, which I remind you is a light majority, but 53% of Americans are in favor of walkability in their communities. It was left out though, in that survey that the respondents to it were only from the largest 50 cities in the United States. I think that we can get there. I would just like to take a little more time to make sure that everyone comes to the table. And there has been a little disconnect between staff since we've come on board that we've seen between staff and the developers. But I do think that one or two of you and potentially one or two Council members could help assist in finding a resolution. Thank you. ❖ Comments/Questions by Commissioners: None. Steven Bauman: Good evening, Commissioners, my name is Steve Bauman and from here in Pasco. I'm not an unfamiliar face to you, I've been here a number of times before and on this specific topic. So, thank you for the opportunity to speak on it again. Just have a few bullet points that I wanted to visit with you about. My first one was referenced before, is the Transportation System Master Plan happen in a vacuum that we as developers and engineers in this community were not invited to the table to potentially influence, but certainly to have a voice as impacted community to that. And that Transportation System Master Plan is now being used to justify this. And when this almost unchanged document was first brought, other justification was used and now the Transportation System Master Plan that was passed without our input, is being used to justify and that's unfortunate. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 16 November 17, 2022 I wondered if we could go to the slide that showed the percent of income that is used for travel. There was a number of slides there that I feel that didn't accurately reflect a comparison. So, this slide here, our community is an agricultural based community. Our largest percentage, and I didn't bring the actual statistics with me tonight, but the largest employment in our community is in the Ag community and that requires travel. Farms aren't in town. You got to travel to those to get there. So, if we look at Yakima, it is fair to compare us similarly to Yakima because they're an Ag based community. It's not fair to compare us to Auburn because there's no similarities in the statistics of our community and what we use travel for. So, I think that as we go through these slides, I think that we need to be more careful to compare apples to apples because to compare Pasco to Tacoma is an unfair comparison. So that was just an observation. And there's numerous ones that I think that meet that same critique. There's one thing that I noticed here tonight that I think that is a glaring piece that is missing to this that we have brought as a concern. I'm a developer myself, my own land in Pasco and numerous parcels, and I'm actively in the process of developing them as well as I'm a consultant for other landowners and to develop on their behalf. And we have brought it numerous times forward that we are concerned with what this implementation would do to the cost of development. And I think that this really needs careful scrutiny and a cost comparison. We've asked for it numerous times. We have provided analysis from our side. It was critiqued and it was said, well, we don't know where that analysis comes from, so it was discounted. I think that this needs a careful cost analysis. Previously, Caleb pointed out that this could be $30,000 a lot. On one hand, the City is actively going after grants to study affordable housing. And on the other hand, we're considering implementing something that has the potential to be $30,000 increase per lot in development cost. And at the same time, this additional connectivity in cross streets reduce density in a massive way. Another piece that I wanted to point out, that was pointed out before, but I really wanted to highlight it again is it was said before that the collaborative changes. So, I wanted to say in one of these, you see, there's been a lot of meetings since we were here last time and one of those would be the collaborative part has not been there. And one of the last meetings that I was in, I pointed that out and I asked very specifically, can you point out anything that has changed from your plan from where we started? We have come to the table as developers and seen the need in a lot of ways, concerns that were pointed out and we said yes. We agreed that that needs to be done mid -block, pedestrian crossings and those type of things. We see the need and are willing. Without question, we have come to the table and said, yes, that's a real need. The community is asking for it and we don't see a problem with that. So, in this meeting, I asked, we've come to the table, is there anything that you can say that you've come to the table with? I was told by staff, we feel like that we started at the destination, and that's really unfortunate. There is no collaboration when the cake has already been baked. You can't work together on the ingredients when it's already in the oven. So, thank you for this opportunity. I agree with the two previous or that I think subcommittees should be formed that include both City Council as well as the Planning Commission and members from realtors to developers, to the engineering community. And most of all, I think a very detailed cost analysis of what this implementation would cost. Thank you for the opportunity. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 16 November 17, 2022 ❖ Comments/Questions by Commissioners: None. Phil Barlow: My name is Bill Barlow. I live in Kennewick, I work for Ben Franklin Transit, and I'm 100% in favor of this connectivity proposal. I want to go back to the analogy about the baked cake. The cake was baked long before 2020. Our problem is trying to serve the neighborhoods of Pasco. We can't go into the neighborhoods of Pasco. We're faced with 800 to 1000 foot of running fence, with a required sidewalk along it, with no pass into those communities. Those people have to walk out and around to get to our buses. A lot of times those sidewalks are 2 and 3ft higher than the curb line. So, we can't make an ADA connection. The development that's gone on in the past is really unservable. And if it isn't put to a stop, a hard stop now, you're going to have the same thing. Look at the number of proposals that are already going to be approved under the old regulations. It really is time to put some controls on the kind of growth that I've seen in Pasco. We have much better service than most of the other communities in Richland and Kennewick. We really struggle and we're chasing that old pattern of low -density sprawl. We chase it, we can't even get in front of it. So, I got to tell you, it really is time to push through this regulation and do it now. That's all I have to say. Thank you. ❖ Comments/Questions by Commissioners: Commissioner Lehrman asked regarding the walk score, how do we compare nationally on who pays for it? Jacob Gonzalez answered we could certainly try to attempt to answer that question. But in terms of the methodology of the walk score itself, it typically takes into account the access point to and from and the surrounding vicinity around the school site, including the surrounding land uses itself, which those variety of inputs lead to the result that we see on the screen today. I do not believe they take into account the funder of the infrastructure themselves, but we can certainly look into that question to an extent, I believe. Chair Cochran stated I thought the comment was made is walk scores below 50 are generally less favorable than those above 50, and that's probably based on a national kind of baseline. Commissioner Teel asked is the walk score solely just how far you're walking? Or does it consider, like, if we were to add more requirements, how there would be your kid would be going through a lot more intersections or across streets more? Does it consider other factors other than just distance? Jacob Gonzalez stated yes, this goes back to one of the first slides regarding quality of the transportation mode itself and the directness of the route. Also, with regards to walk score, where they do take into account the surrounding land uses as well. In terms of how this proposal would impact existing school sites, I'm not sure that it would because they're already well built out. For the expanded urban growth area or for infill development, it certainly would have an impact. But I think in terms of schools that already developed, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 16 November 17, 2022 whether in Central Pasco or Northwest Pasco, etc., I think there's probably limits, very strict limits, about what this rule would do based on the existing infrastructure that already exists there. Commissioner Bowers stated I just would love to hear from staff a reaction to a number of the people who just testified regarding the lack of collaboration on this particular proposal regarding Street Connectivity. Jacob Gonzalez answered we reached out to the development community, hoping to end up with a result that would be an attempt to meet Council objectives, a variety of planning efforts that the City has adopted as of late. We did ask the members of the HBA to actually lead several of the meetings, including developing the agenda themselves. Unfortunately, I don't think we ended up at a result that we could bring back to the Planning Commission, at least as a recommendation from staffs perspective. Chair Cochran stated as there are no more comments from Commissioners, I think we have a couple of options here. We have a recommendation for staff from a motion. We also have the option of continuing this to another public hearing in the future. We also have an option of making a motion towards the feedback we got about a recommendation to Council, I suspect around a subcommittee that could be Planning Commissioner members, staff, and Council members. That is completely in our ability to make a motion for as well. So, I'm open to motions for any of those things from the commissioners. Commissioner Hendler stated I'd like to see the committee formed with the additional members from the community participating with the Council. I think that's a great idea if it makes sense in the procedures here. Chair Cochran stated the Council has to create the subcommittee and the Council can certainly make members of themselves. They can pick themselves as well as some of us that are willing and plus representatives from the public, I suspect. But from us it's just a recommendation. Rick White stated if a motion is made to that effect, that he would request the Commission have a couple of the Planning Commission members that are willing to be on that committee be identified tonight. Volunteer committee members from the Planning Commission will be Commissioner Hendler, and Commissioner Mendez should Council agree. Commissioner Hendler moved to recommend a subcommittee as discussed to the Council, Commissioner Bowers seconded, unanimously passed. C. Memo Downtown Pasco Master Plan Good evening again, members of the Planning Commission excited to bring back to you the Downtown Pasco Plan. We've been working on this effort with our consultants for about a year now, and this effort has included significant community engagement and outreach, and we are Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 16 November 17, 2022 excited to bring this back to you today for a recommendation of approval to Council. The plan itself, is a plan that's focused on a vision guided by goals, achieved the strategies, but realized through specific actions, and this is a plan of actions. This is a high-level overview of the goals of the plan itself as expressed both through the engagement process and through the input received a variety of community members, stakeholders, residents and businesses both within and outside of the downtown area. And those are creating a downtown that is lively and authentic, a downtown that has a district showcasing our history here in Pasco, embracing and creating new connections to the river and having a place that's for all to enjoy regardless of age. We wanted to share the slight difference actually in terms of the live polling that took place. We did engagement events in October and actually two nights ago we had one here in the Council chamber. Just wanted to run through those with you so you could see the results in the community and also what likely will yield upcoming code amendments as we move forward in implementing the Master Plan. • Master Plan Priorities for Implementation (ranked) o October ➢ Active & Safe Streets/Places for all ➢ A downtown that reflects Pasco's history, people and culture ➢ Private Sector Development Investment o November ➢ Active & Safe Streets/Places for all ➢ A downtown that reflects Pasco's history, people and culture ➢ Robust and collaborative downtown management • Strategies for Active & Safe Streets/Places (ranked) o October ➢ Improve lighting and safety ➢ Right -size and enhance downtown street activity and mobility through catalyst projects ➢ Create downtown parklet program o November ➢ Right -size and enhance downtown street activity and mobility through catalyst projects ➢ Develop a programming plan for streets and public spaces ➢ Improve lighting and safety downtown • Strategies to Promote Private Sector Development & Investment o October ➢ Update land use and zoning ➢ Manage and update building development and street use codes ➢ Pursue catalyst sites and consider public/private partnerships o November ➢ Facilitate development of opportunity sites ➢ Update eland use and zoning ➢ Manage and update building, development and street use codes Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 16 November 17, 2022 Strategies that Reflect Pasco's History, People, Culture and Landscape (ranked) o October ➢ Establish a public mural and public art program ➢ Marketing and community strategy for locals and visitors ➢ Integrate sustainability and resiliency o November ➢ Establish a public mural and public art program ➢ Marketing and community strategy for locals and visitors ➢ Integrate sustainability and resiliency The next steps for us, one would be a hopeful adoption of the Downtown Pasco Master Plan, the implementation scope, which we are working with our consulting team at Framework, to develop an implementation plan for us over the next year or so, so that this plan can continue moving forward, which includes a variety of code and development regulations and amendments that will be brought to the Planning Commission first. We are working with BDS Planning and Urban Design. They were an engagement consultant for the Master Plan, and we will be seeking their help with the downtown management aspect and then also with the friendly support from the Benton Franklin Council of Governments. We also have an opportunity to do some brownfield and reuse plan assessments for some sites downtown, in particular the old Thunderbird site, to identify what would be the best use for that in the near term and potentially what would be the best use for that in the long term for the success of downtown. Staff is seeking a recommendation of approval of the Downtown Pasco Master Plan. Thank you. ❖ Comments/Questions by Commissioners: Commissioner Hendler commented I don't see a lot of discussion in this Master Plan about encouraging housing, and that really is bothersome to me, having been involved in many Master Plans and the most successful Master Plans that have sustainability are those that have a large housing component. I just think it's an important aspect to a Master Plan and unfortunately, I don't see a lot of discussion about encouraging housing. Jacob Gonzalez answered both staff and our consultant team have prioritized housing in the sense of how we can increase not only more housing, but housing density in both the downtown today and the expanded downtown land use, which is part of the land use amendment that's on the next item tonight. That's a big component of updating the land use and zoning code is to change the development center to actually allow for increased housing density in terms of height density and potentially typology as well. So that part actually is kind of being implemented right now. Also, with the Housing Action Plan, which is underway, the downtown area will be a significant key area for increased housing in central Pasco. 41* PUBLIC COMMENTS None. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 16 November 17, 2022 Commissioner Bowers moved to close the public hearing and recommend to Pasco City Council adopt the Downtown Pasco Master Plan as contained in the 11/1712022 staff report, seconded by Commissioner Lehrman, unanimously passed. WORSHOP A. Memo 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Jacob Gonzalez stated Planning Commission members, this is just a quick update on where we're at with the Comprehensive Plan Amendments for the 2022 docket cycle. You made a recommendation to council to establish the docket, via resolution by Council earlier this fall. So, we're here tonight to talk about the remaining components to the cycle. Evaluation Criteria: o The proposal amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety and welfare and protection of the environment. o Is it consistent with the variety of cities plans, policies, comprehensive plans specifically? o Does it correct an obvious mapping error? And actually, we have three of those proposed amendments this cycle. o Does it address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan as well. Now, there are some additional components as well related to the eventual decision from the Planning Commission. It's important to remember that the Comprehensive Plans are living documents, but they do provide a set of strategies, goals and a vision for the future with regards to land use, housing, transportation, economic development, parks, recreation, etc. That'll be something that will bring back to you to have kind of in the back pocket as you make decisions on the proposed amendments. We had 18 initial applications submitted, six were City initiated, and twelve are private. Now, the private side, one was withdrawn voluntarily by the applicant and one other was denied by the City Council. So, in total, there are 16 Comprehensive Plan Amendments on the docket for 2022. In terms of the process, just wanted to give you a quick introduction because this will likely be a lengthy meeting in December where we will have a workshop and then a public hearing and recommendation in January for the Planning Commission. Again, just wanted to give the Planning Commission a little bit of an update of where we're at with this process. It is typical in cities where the cycle goes beyond the one calendar year. I think, particularly in our case, as we initially had 18 amendments because of the fact we hadn't had that process for several years. So, it'll take a year or so to kind of get back on the yearly cycle. But that's totally normal, and it's allowed by the Growth Management Act. OTHER BUSINESS A. Memo 2023 Planning Commission Schedule Yes, and thank you again for the last time tonight. I think for the members of the Planning Commission, this is actually with regards just to January. We can come back in December with a little bit more of a discussion on it, but we expect to have quite a bit of amendments and items Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 16 November 17, 2022 before you in December and then again in January. One of them was removed off the agenda today with the adoption of a recommendation of the design standards. But there are several others, particularly as we begin to implement the Downtown Master Plan. In January, we are seeking your input and potential recommendation on if you would entertain either hosting two meetings in January, one for our normally scheduled items and a second one for the Comprehensive Plan, public hearing and recommendation, or potentially just pushing back the meeting to the 26 of January instead of 19th. We wanted to give you some ample time to ponder that decision, and we can come back in December with more of a confirmation, if that's appropriate. But essentially asking if you would be okay with two meetings in January or maybe pushing it back towards on Thursday, the 26 January, to have a longer meeting, but given us more time to prepare both finding commission and certainly staff and any of those members of the public who would like to attend or provide comment. Planning Commissioner will decide in December if we will have two meetings in January or have a longer meeting at the regular January meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Bowers made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner Hendler. Passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:28 pm. Respectfully submitted, Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Department Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 16 November 17, 2022 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING P­LSC0- City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue — Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2022 6:30 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Code Amendment: Mixed Use Zoning District MF# CA2022-003 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. Policy Guidance The proposed code amendment would implement and consistent with the following: • 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan o Land Use Element o Housing Element o Transportation Element • City Council 2022-2023 Goals o Economic Vitality ■ Implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan through related actions including zoning code changes, phased sign code update, and development regulations and standards. Applicability and Implementation The Mixed -Use Zoning District would be applicable to lands within the Mixed Residential and Commercial Land Use. The Mixed Residential and Commercial Land Use covers approximately 1 430 acres of lands within the Pasco Urban Growth Area. As indicated in the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan, and codified in PMC 25.215.015, the intent of the Mixed Residential and Commercial Land Use is to allow a combination of residential and commercial uses within the same development or development site. The Land Use also encourages a variety of housing typologies ranging from single-family to townhomes, apartments, and condominiums at a density of 5 to 29 units per acre. While the Comprehensive Plan encourages mixed -use developments, there is not a zoning district that would enable this citywide. The proposed amendment would implement the Mixed Residential and Commercial Land Use, allowing an applicant to utilize the proposed zoning district to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Implementation of the proposed code amendment would require a rezone that is conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, For example, a parcel that is currently zoned C-1 in the Mixed Residential and Commercial Land Use, may apply for a rezone to the new MU (Mixed -Use District). This requires a public hearing with the Pasco Hearing Examiner, followed by a final approval by the Pasco City Council. Subsequent permits for buildings and projects would then be required to be in conformance with established district standards. Development Standards As indicated in the background section, the proposed code amendment would modify the existing Waterfront Development Zoning District (WDD) to accommodate mixed -use projects citywide. A summary of proposed changes is attached to the staff report as Exhibit A. The draft ordinance (Exhibit B) provides all proposed changes to the WDD. Environmental Determination City staff issued the Notice of Application for on November 29, 2022. A Determination of Non - Significance is expected. Public comments on the environmental checklist submitted by the applicant will be accepted through December 15, 2022. RECOMMENDATION Staff has prepared two motions for consideration of the Planning Commission. Option 1 would close the public hearing and recommend that the proposal be forwarded to the Pasco City Council for approval. In the case that the Planning Commission would require more time to review and discuss, Option 2 would continue the public hearing to the January 2023 meeting. 2 Option 1 MOTION: I move to close the public hearing on the proposed code amendment for the Mixed - Use Zoning District (CA2022-003) and recommend the Pasco City Council adopt the proposed code amendment as contained in the December 15, 2022, staff report. Option 2 MOTION: I move to close continue the public hearing on the proposed code amendment for the Mixed -Use Zoning District (CA2022-003) to the January 2023 Planning Commission meeting. 3 EXHIBIT #A SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES (NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST) Criteria/Regulation Recommendation Rationale Chapter Change Waterfront to Mixed Use District Implements the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and goals and policies; applies to a This zone will not be considered a wider area Relation to other There are codes that discuss Codes "residential" zone for purposes of spacing or other development interpreting other Title 25 regulations standards that relate to residentially zoned areas (i.e. PMC 25.165.205, 25.165.050(2)(a)) Permitted Outside of Osprey Pointe store / shop size Encourage neighborhood stores Commercial Use is 40,000 gross square feet (compared with and specialty centers; 80,000) - larger is allowed with a CUP encourage right -sizing the retail for compatibility with residential Prohibited Uses Added "Single Room Occupancy Units" as There is a current moratorium a prohibited use on SRO's—these can be studied and amended later, if desired Separate standards are created Dimensional Same as existing, create a separate section Standards (outside of to distinguish between Osprey Pointe and to maintain the original site - Osprey Pointe) City -Wide specific code of Osprey Pointe, and to develop code for the purposes of City-wide implementation. While theses standards are currently proposed to be identical we want to structure the code so that future changes could be made in a straight -forward fashion. The proposed height limits for Maximum Building • Commercial, office, education and Height at all other government uses: maximum 85' single-family detached, locations (outside of except with a special permit duplexes, and courtyard Osprey Pointe) • Residential accessory: 15' • Residential detached single-family and apartments / condominiums are consistent with R-3 and R-4. duplex: 40' • Residential courtyard apartments/condos: 45' • Multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in mixed -use buildings: 90' Landscaping • Materials and spacing requirements Provide a higher standard for area beautification; creates a • Road frontage landscape buffers on commercial properties adjacent to or across from residential zones • Landscaping on pedestrian walkways Design standards Cul-de-sac prohibition, maximum block (transportation) length, and private street allowance (outside of Osprey Pointe') J Building design standards (outside of Osprey Pointe) Screening standards Requirements for architectural elements, exterior wall materials, frontage walls, pedestrian entry treatments, and electrical / mechanical equipment screening, and allowance for sidewalk seating buffer between residentially zoned properties Provides flexibility in street design; promotes a walkable and bikeable area; improve street connectivity and promote Similar to 1-182 overlay standards. The intent is to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by promoting high quality development using aesthetically pleasing designs, creating a safe pedestrian -oriented streetscape, and upgrading Pasco's visual identity, and reduce the impact of parking lots and blank walls. Screening of equipment, materials and I Similar to 1-182 overlay (outside of Osprey I goods behind 100% sight obscuring fence, standards. Promote high quality Pointe) wall or structure Allows temporary businesses. Includes J urban areas. Temporary business Similar to 1-182 overlay standards (outside of regulations for temporary businesses on standards. Provides limitations Osprey Pointe) siting, accessory equipment, and signage. on accessory equipment to keep the business temporary Similar to the 1-182 overlay Sign standards Requirements for signs including (outside of Osprey permitted and prohibited signs. Establishes standards. Protect against Pointe) relief. unsafe signs and recognize speech rights. Design requirements Creates desirable and undesirable Allows for flexibility in design as (structures, site elements of project design to encourage design is often contextually planning, and and discourage certain design elements. based. landscaping) (outside of Osprey Pointe) 'These additional design standards / requirements are not proposed at Osprey Pointe as some property has already been developed with certain standards. The Osprey Pointe site is under a master development agreement. EXHIBIT #B Chapter 25.127 MU MIXED U, Sections: 25.127.010 Purpose. 25.127.015 Terms defined. 25.127.020 Permitted uses. 25.127.030 Permitted accessory uses. 25.127.040 Conditional uses. 25.127.050 Prohibited uses. 25.127.060 Unlisted uses. 25.127.070 Development standards. 25.127.010 Purpose. The ournose of the mixed use i MUI district is to allow the location of a compatible and integrated mix of commercial and office education and povernment uses with residential uses as established within the comprehensive Plan. This zone district is intended to provide a high level of diversity in housing types including townhouses and flats in mid -rise buildings ranginft from two to six stories to move toward the city's land use and housing p oals and policies relating to density and a broad ranee of housing types. as required under the Growth Management Act Chapter 36.70A RCW. In addition round floor neighborhood -scale commercial and/or office uses are encouraged to create a cohesive bike- andpedestrian- oriented community, These uses are to be designed to complement and support the nearby retail, office, and residential uses and located in resulting in reduced vehicle trios and a more sustainable and convenient environment with potential access to transit. 25.127.013 Relation to Other [odes. j1) This chapter sets out standards for site development and as such the overlay districts identifying, area -specific standards for aesthetics and design ii.e. the Commercial Corridors Desi n Standards in Chapter 25.135 PMC and the 1-182 Corridor Overlay District in Chapter 25.130 PMC] do not apply to property zoned MU. Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 Deleted: WD WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT... Deleted: The purpose of the waterfront development (WD) district is 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 Point property, historically owned by the Port of Pasco.... W This zone is not to be considered a "residential" zone for ❑umoses of interpretation of other Title 25 regulations. 25.127.015 Terms defined. "Artisan manufacturing" means small-scale businesses that manufacture artisan goods or specialty foods. Small manufacturing production primarily focuses on direct sales rather than the wholesale market. "Osprey Pointe" means that eorraphic area situated close to the Columbia River waterfront and within the property known as Osprey Pointe, historically owned by the Port of Pasco. 25.127.020 Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in thepl fixed use district: Deleted: waterfront development (1) Commercial, Office, Educational, and Government Uses. (a) All uses permitted in the 0 office district; (b) Artisan manufacturing; provided, that such uses are intended to be compatible with surrounding development and shall adhere to the following requirements: (i) Structures shall not encompass more than 10,000 square feet of area, and the 10,000-square-foot total shall include all indoor storage areas associated with the manufacturing operation. (ii) Outdoor storage is prohibited. (iii) Loading Docks. Where the site abuts a residential use, the building wall facing such lot shall not have any service door openings or loading docks oriented toward the residential use. (iv) Public Viewing. Artisan manufacturing uses must accommodate public viewing or a customer service space. Public viewing shall be accomplished with windows or glass doors covering at least 25 percent of the front of the building face abutting the street or indoor lobby wall, allowing direct views of manufacturing. The display area may be reduced below 25 percent where fire -rated separation requirements restrict opening size as determined by the building official. A customer service space including a showroom, tasting room, restaurant or retail space may be provided that substitutes for the exterior public viewing area. Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 (v) All uses shall not emit smoke, gas, odor, dust, sound, vibration, soot, heat, glare, or light that is detectable beyond the property line; (c) Banks and financial institutions; (d) Bars, taverns, and craft breweries, boutique wineries, and small-scale distilleries and/or tasting rooms (any production of product shall be small-scale in nature, with annual production limited to 300 barrels per year of beer or equivalent product); (e) . Reserved, Deleted: Churches and similar places of worship; (f) Dancing schools; (g) Gyms and fitness centers; (h) Hotels and motels; (i) Laundries/dry cleaners; Q) Portable food vending/food trucks; (k) Printing shops; (1) Public or commercial parking garages; (m) Public markets for fresh produce and craft work; (n) Restaurants and eating establishments, including food halls with shared common areas; (o) Stores and shops for the conduct of retail business and similar services in buildings not exceeding 40.000 gross souare feet (except that the maximum area is 80,000 gross square feet at Osprey Pointe} such as: (i) Bakeries, retail for distribution from the premises; (ii) Barber and beauty shops; (iii) Bookstores, except adult bookstores; (iv) Catering establishments; (v) Artist and office supplies; (vi) Florists; (vii) Specialty retail stores; (viii) Museums and art galleries; Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 3 (ix) Clothing, shoes and accessories, and costume rentals (new/unused materials only); (x) Crafts, stationery, and gift shops; (A) Department and drug stores; (xii) Grocery or specialty food stores; (xiii) Furniture and home appliance stores; (xiv) Import shops; (xv) Jewelry and gem shops, including custom work; (xvi) Shoe repair shops; (xvii) Sporting goods stores; (xviii) Tailor and seamstress shops; (xix) Upholstery shops; (p) Locksmith shops; (q) Membership clubs; (r) Theaters (movie or live theater); (s) Veterinary clinics serving household pets (no boarding or outdoor treatment facilities); and (t) Universities, colleges, and business, professional, technical, and trade schools. (2) Residential Uses. I (a) Specific limitations at Osprey Pointe: (LSingle-family detached dwellings maybe located west of the alignment of South Maitland Avenue at densities prescribed under PMC 25.127.070; ii Attached single-family dwellings (duplexes and townhouses) may be located east of the extension of South Maitland Avenue, but no further than 500 feet east of the alignment of South Oregon Avenue, at densities prescribed under PMC 25.127.070; iii Multifamily dwellings may be located no further than 500 feet east of the alignment of South Oregon Avenue; and iv Short-term vacation rental uses and bed and breakfasts may be established where residential uses are allowed. Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 4 Ib) Single-family dwellings (including zero -lot -line dwelling (c) Two-family and multiple (family) dwellinlisr (d) Recreational facilities for residents (i.e. playground, basketball court. bocce ball court). (3) Recreational and Entertainment Uses. (a) t ecific crovisions at Osprev Point, Indoor and outdoor event and entertainment uses and facilities (commercial or public), not to exceed 15 acres; ii Marinas and marine repair facilities; JLLL Mixed -use buildings containing any combination of residential, commercial, office, educational, and government facilities in a single building; and (iv) Public and private parks and trails. (b) Indoor and outdoor event and entertainment uses and facilities (commercial or public). 25.127.030 Permitted accessory uses. (1) Accessory dwelling units when associated with a permitted residential use; (2) Family home childcare in conformance with WAC 170-296A-0010: (3) Sheds not exceeding 200 square feet provided they are located in the rear yard of residential uses or a place of business and attached to the primary structure; (4) Private parking lots and garages meeting the development standards of this chapter; (5) Storage facilities accessory to multifamily dwellings for the sole use of residents; (6) Home occupations in accordance with Chapter 25.150 PMC; 171 The keeping of dogs a its, provided such number of animals does not exceed three dogs and three cats, (8), On lots with a minimum of 5,000 square feet and containing# only one sinizle-family dwelling unit, the keeping of up to three rabbits or three chicken hens for personal use, provided the *^ 1 -umber of animals (including dogs, cats, rabbits, and chicken hens) does riot Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHSL, Inc. December 5, 2022 5 exceed six; in all cases animals shall not be allowed to roam or fly to other rwerties• roosters are not allowed; (W Alcoholic beverage sales (SO _ Private streets, meeting the standards of PMC 25.127.070(14)' 1111 Swimming Pools; and 12' Plazas. courtyard water features (such as fountains and cascading water features and other c-,A—ar atherin s aces and amenities. 25.127.040 Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of special permit as provided in Chapter 25.200 PMC: (1) Retail, wholesale, and department stores and shops exceeding a gross floor area of 40,000 ivare feet or exceed in;! 80,000 square feet at OSPreV Pointe ; (2) Landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials; provided, that plants and materials are located behind a building and are not visible from the public right -of. -way or residential uses; (3) Nursing homes and assisted living facilities; W Churches and similar Places of worshic. (5 Marine gas sales; _ W. Gasoline and service stations; (Z) Drive-thru uses rovided that drive-thru aisles should Provide adequate on -site clueuing,_ (s) Indoor and outdoor event and entertainment uses and facilities (commercial or public) exceeding 15 acres; and (9� Exceptions to maximum building heights listed in PMC 25.127.070(9). 25.127.050 Prohibited uses. The following uses are prohibited district: (1) All uses permitted conditionally in the 1-2 medium industrial district; Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 6 Deleted: 7 Deleted: and L Deleted: 8 `Deleted: . Deleted: 4 Deleted: 5 Deleted: 6 Deleted:7 Deleted:8 Deleted: in the wD 1 (2) Automobile assembly, services, or repair; (3) Vehicle rental; (4) Tire stores; (5) Car washes; (6) Automobile detail shops; (7) Automobile sales; (8) Auto body shops; (9) Mini -storage facilities; (10) Pawn shops; (11) Card rooms and bingo parlors; (12) Secondhand dealers —similar or like uses although not specifically listed are also prohibited; (13) Adult bookstores or entertainment facilities; (14) Truck stops — diesel fuel sales; (15) Truck terminals; (16) Heavy machinery sales and service; (17) Contractor's plant or storage yards; (18) Mobile home and trailer sales and service; (19) Veterinarian clinics for livestock, including outdoor treatment facilities; (20) Pharmaceutical laboratories; (21) Industrial medical facilities; (22) Any outdoor manufacturing, testing, processing, or similar activity; (23) On -site hazardous substance processing and handling or hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities; (24) Kennels and animal boarding facilities; (25) The manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging of cosmetics, pharmacology, and the reducing and refining of fats and oils; Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 7 (26) Junkyards, automobile wrecking yards, scrap iron, scrap paper, or rag storage, sorting, or baling; (27) Cemeteries; (28) Recreational vehicle parks; and (29) Outdoor storage of RVs, boats and trailers• a, nd (30) Single Room Occupancy units. 25.127.060 Unlisted uses. All unlisted uses shall be classified as conditional uses and require a special use permit under Chapter 25.200 PMC. 25.127.070 Development standards. (1) All structures, uses, and shoreline modifications shall comply with the City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 29.15 PMC), where applicable. (2) Minimum Density. (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Residential uses: 14 units/net acre average for residential portions of Osprey Pointe (net acre excludes infrastructure, such as roads, utility easements, stormwater infrastructure, and excludes critical areas, and applies to the entire WD district rather than to individual developments). Additionally, residential uses shall not comprise more than 50 percent of the gross land area withinQsorey Pointejcl Residential use : Average of 5 to 29 dwelling units per net acre. For the purposes of this subsection, net acre excludes infrastructure !such as roads, utility easements, stormwater infrastructure), excludes critical areas and excludes other unbuildable areas such as any required landscape buffer areas, fire lanes and parking lots, and applies to the entire MU district rather than to individual develo ments. (3) Minimum Lot Area at Oskrey Pointe. (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Residential uses: 1,000 square feet (single-family detached), 1,500 square feet per unit (duplex and single-family attached). There is no minimum lot area for multifamily dwellings. Proposed Amendment to PMC25.127 Prepared byAHBL, Inc, December5, 2022 Deleted: the WD district Deleted: the WD district ' Deleted: ¶ (4) Minimum Lot Width at Osprey Pointe. (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Residential uses: 35 feet (single-family detached), 20 feet per unit (duplex and single- family attached). There is no minimum lot width for multifamily dwellings. (5) Lot Coverage prey Pon . Dictated by parking requirements, setbacks and landscaping. W Dimensianal Standards for Lots not located at Osprey, Pointe. The following standards apply except in cases of a Bindiny. Site Plan or Zero Lot Line development in which case there are no minimums): (a) Minimum Lot Area. 01 Commercial office education and government uses: none. (ii) Residential uses: 1.000 square feet Isingle-family detached), 1,500 square feet per unit du iex and sirwle-family attached). There is no minimum lot area for multifamii dwellings. (b) Minimum Lot Width. 10 Commercial office education and government uses: none. Oil Residential uses: 35 feet (single-family detached 20 feet per unit (duplex and single-family attached). There is no minimum lot width for multifamily dwellings ld Lot Coverage_ ,dictated by parking requirements, setbacks and landscaping. (; Minimum Yard Setbacks —Front. (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Residential uses: 10 feet (single-family detached and attached, and duplexes), 20 feet (garden -style apartments/condominiums), none for multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in mixed -use buildings. O Minimum Yard Setbacks — Interior Side Yard. (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Residential uses: five feet (for primary structures in single-family detached and attached, and duplexes; however, the minimum yard setback is reduced to three feet where fire barriers are provided for buildings), 15 feet from other buildings (garden -style Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 Deleted: All other uses: Deleted: 5 Deleted: 7 apartments/condominiums), none for multifamily adjacent to commercial areas, in mixed - use buildings or for zero -lot -line development. (9j Minimum Yard Setbacks — Street Side Yard and Rear. Deleted: 8 (a) Commercial, office, education and government uses: none. (b) Residential uses: 10 feet (single-family detached and attached, and duplexes; however, the minimum setback for detached garages is three feet), . feet from other buildings _ Deleted: 20 (garden -style apartments/condominiums), none for multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in mixed -use buildings. (10) Maximum Building Height. (a) At Osprey Pointe: (i) Commercial, office, education and government uses: 60 feet. ii Residential uses: 35 feet (single-family detached and duplexes), 40 feet (single- family attached and garden -style apartments/condominiums), 90 feet (multifamily adjacent to commercial areas or in mixed -use buildings). I b} At all other locations: i Commercial- office. education and government uses: maximum 85 feet exceot a greater height may be approved by special permit. Deleted: 9 Oil Residential uses: maximum 15 feet for accessory, buildings; maximum 40 feet for Deleted: 35 detached sin le-famil duplexes; maximum 45 feet forlourtyard Deleted: garden -style apartments/condominiums: maximum 0 feet for multifamily adjacent to commercial l_ - Deleted:85 areas or in mixed -use buildings: except that in all cases a greater height may be approved by special permit. liiil Nothing in this chapter precludes the use of rooftop decks or permitted uses to be permitted on the roof provided that building codes are met. ( } Fences and Hedges. _ _ { Deleted: 10 (a) Fences and walls shall meet the requirements of Chapter 25.180 PMC, with the following exceptions: (i) Fences and walls shall be constructed using a combination of natural materials such as wood, stone, or brick including those on industrially used properties. (ii) Barbed wire and electrified fencing are prohibited on all properties. (1 Parking and loadinr. _ _ Deleted: 11 Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 10 (a) All new uses in the district must provide parking in accordance with Table 25.127(1). The Community and Economic Development Director may approve ratios lower than the minimum if the new use provides bicycle parking, includes access to an improved bus stop, or will have shared parking spaces. See subsections (11)(d), (11)(e), and (11)(f) of this section pertaining to parking reductions. The Community and Economic Development Director shall determine parking requirements for unlisted uses. Uses which are not listed in the table shall have parking requirements of the nearest analogous use which is included in the table, as determined by the Community and Economic Development Director. If the number of minimum off-street parking spaces required in Table 25.127(1) contains a fraction, the number shall be rounded up if the fraction is equal to or greater than one-half, and rounded down if less than one-half. (b) On -street parking or off-street public parking lots may be used in combination with dedicated off-street parking to accommodate parking demand from individual developments. (c) On -street and off-street public parking may be time -limited, metered, or otherwise restricted in order to ensure that parking demand from individual developments does not adversely impact parking availability for the district as a whole and may be managed by either the Port vi;,,d proper.,1, City or an association/business entity (depending on public or private ownership). Parking spaces must be located within 500 feet of the proposed use unless the use is listed under the "Recreational and Entertainment Use" category in Table 25.127(1) in which case parking may be located off site; provided, that if the parking facility is under different ownership, a written agreement or lease is required. No more than 30 percent of the minimum parking requirement for an individual use may be on -street spaces or off-street public spaces more than 500 feet away from the proposed use except as noted above. (d) Bicycle Parking Reduction. For every five bicycle parking spaces provided, the number of vehicle parking spaces may be reduced by one up to maximum of 10 percent of the minimum number of spaces otherwise required. (e) Zronsit Reduction. jf a site is within''/< mile of n rurrpr.t i7lAnnod or ,zronosed transi` rvice, the required number of parking stalls may be reduced by 10 percent. (f) Shored Uses. Owners of two or more uses, structures, or parcels of land within 500 feet of each other may share the same parking area when the hours of operation do not overlap. Whenever shared parking is allowed under this section, the parking lot shall be signed so as to reasonably notify the public of the availability of use, and spaces shall not be assigned, allocated or reserved between uses; a notarized and recorded parking agreement shall be required for shared parking between two or more separate tax parcels under separate ownership. (g) Special event parking lots used on an infrequent basis such as those associated with seasonal play fields shall be exempt from provisions of this chapter. Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 11 - Deleted: W D Deleted: Bus Stop Deleted: Where an improved, permanent bus stop (i.e., bus shelter) is located within 1,000 feet of a use h No boat. motor home canno trailer, trailer, fifth wheelpickup camper, snowmobile or utility trailer as defined in PMC Title 25 shall be stored or maintained on any public street, right-of-way. or othPr:vrhlir areas. Table 25.127(1). Number of Minimum Required and Maximum Allowed Parking Spaces by Use in theo—U District _ _ _1 Deleted: WD Use Category I COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, EDUCATIONAL, AND GOVERNMENT USES Maximum Churches, places of worship, clubs, fraternal societies 1 per 100 square feet main assembly area 1 per 60 square feet of main assembly area Commercial lodging (hotel, motel, bed and breakfast, short-term vacation rentals) 0.5 per room 1 per room Educational Uses Elementary schools 1 per classroom and 1 per employee 1.5 per classroom Middle schools 1 per classroom 2 per classroom High school 7 per classroom 10.5 per classroom Universities, colleges, business, professional, technical and trade schools 0.3 per full-time student and 0.8 per employee 0.5 per FTE student and 0.8 per employee 5 per -i uu0 square feet of gross_ Gyms or fitness centers 3 per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area floor area Museums and art galleries 2. per 1,000 square feet of gross 4 oer 1.000quare feet of gross floor area floor area Offices: administrative, professional, government non- retail -oriented banks and financial 2 when located on the ground 4 when located on the ground floor 0,when Imated on floors above floor: ) when located on floors ahov, institutions the ground floor the ground floor Portable food vendors/food trucks None required None required Restaurants/bars/ breweries, wineries, and distilleries 0.5 per 3 seats 1.0 per 3 seats Retail sales and services 3per 1,000 square feet of grass 5per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area floor area Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 12 Deleted: (per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area unless otherwise specified) Use Category Minimum Maximum Wholesale sales 3 J 000square feet of gross floor area per 1.000 square feet of gross floor area RESIDENTIAL USES Single-family detached leer unit 2 ep r unit Accessory dwelling units 0.5per unit 1 per unit Single-family attached and two- family dwellings 1 per unit 2-pg unit Multifamily dwellings 0.75p_r unit 1.5per unit Nursing homes and assisted living facilities 0.25 per bed 0.5 per bed RECREATIONAL AND ENTERTAINMENT USES Public and private parks and trails To be determined during land use approval process Event entertainment (indoor or 1 per 8 seats 1 per 5 seats outdoor) *Dolt appl,o rki-g_for_ special events such as h.Ut ram_ limited to concerts or performances with conveyance options fsuch as shuttle buses or vans) or shared parking within walking distance Theaters 1 per 4 seats 1 per 2.7 seats INSTITUTIONAL USES Hospitals and clinics 1 per bed or exam room 1.5 per bed or exam room Police and fire stations or similar 2 oe 1 000 s uq are feet of gross 4per 1,000 square feet of gross civic uses f-1,fJQLrp I fh2or are -- I Deleted: (per unit unless otherwise specified) Deleted: (per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area unless otherwise specified) Deleted: (per 1,000 square feet of net floor area L unless otherwise specified) (1-V Landscaping. Deleted:2 (a) Surface parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance with PMC 25.180.070. (b) Single-family detached and attached residences and duplexes shall be landscaped in accordance with PMC 25.180.OSC Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by ANBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 13 (c) Single -use commercial property shall be screened in accordance with PMC 25.180.050(3). Commercially used property in multistory and/or mixed -use buildings are exempt from s reening requirements. dl No landscape areas shall contain artificial grass, treesplants or other artificial materials as a live vegetative substitute. e There shall be at least one tree and three shrubs for ever 300 square feet of landscaped area. If) All landscape maintenance shall comply with the provisions of PMC 25.180.120. (g) Road Frontage. u Landscaped buffers on commercial properties adiacent to or across a public or private street or alley from residentially zoned properties must be a minimum of 15 feet in width and may additionally serve as a swale for stormwater provided that at least 50 percent of the total area is vegetated. However, landscaped buffers may be substituted fora plaza with an average minimum width of thirty feet featuring two or more of the followinp features: street trees in pits, planters that are a minimum of three feet wide and three feet tall featuring vegetation. space for shaded outdoor seating (permanent or non -permanent), benches stamped concrete or avers protrudiniz awnings, planted beds ledges for seating. public artmonument si na e _wayfinding signage. such plaza additionally serves to substitute for the need of any sidewalk provided that angeight-foot wide unobstructed walking Path is established and maintained. Oil Landscaping in the unused Portion of the right-of-way shall match the established landscaping pattern and theme for the street. (h) Pedestrian Walkways. i Excluding Pedestrian connections through Parking lots walkways shall be landscaped their entire length. Trees shall be a minimum of three feet from sidewalks and curbs at the time of planting, except: a where tree wells are utilized - L Deleted: landscaping _ Deleted: ten (bj Where sidewalks exceed eight feet in width in which case a five-foot wide Deleted:, and except walking area shall be reserved. (1! ] Transportation. _ _ Deleted: a (a) The internal transportation network of Osprey Pointe shall be designed_ tojilaximi_z_e Deleted: the waterfront district multi -modal travel options. [ Deleted: maximum Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December S, 2022 14 All transportation infrastructure shall meet the intent of the City Complete Streets Ordinance (Chapter 12.15 PMC) and comply with the International Fire Code. Dedication of public right-of-way is not required when private streets are used. (13) Design Standards (Transportation %,sarey � J. al Auplicability. This section applies to development located at Osprey Pointe. () Speed limits: 20 MPH. (.) Sidewalk Widths. (i) Residential: minimum six feet. (ii) Commercial/mixed use: minimum 10 feet. (c ) Local Access Streets. (i) Driving lane minimum width: 11 feet. (ii) Parking lane minimum width: eight feet. (iii) Dedicated bicycle lane minimum width: five feet (where included). ;) Alleys. (i) Minimum: 20-foot width. Private Street/Lane. (i) Private street improvements for streets providing access to uses which are not single-family residential shall meet the standards for local access roads, at a minimum, with the exception being that sidewalk must be present on at least one side and on - street parking must be present on one side. This will result in a roadway section, with curb and gutter, that measures 31 feet back-to-back of curb. Street lighting will be provided per the type chosen at the developer's discretion. (ii) Private street improvements for streets providing access to single-family residential uses shall be designed to meet International Fire Code requirements for fire apparatus, including pavement markings and signage for "No Parking - Fire Lane." Sidewalks are not required when pedestrian paths are provided with a design accommodating pedestrian circulation which is separated from vehicle traffic movements. Street lighting will be provided per the type chosen at the developer's discretion. (iii) Private streets must not interfere with vehicle, public transportation or nonmotorized access to public areas, and may not preclude the connection of the transportation system. Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 15 - Deleted: a I Deleted: TI Deleted: a Deleted: b Deleted: d Deleted: e (iv) Storm water facilities must be designed to treat and retain all storm water on site without any runoff entering City of Pasco right-of-way. (v) Every private street within the district shall be named, and names shall be clearly posted in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standard. 06) Desi4n Standards [Transportation). _ a Applicability. This section does not a )Ply to develo ament located at Osprey Pointe. (bl All street improvements, grades- widths construction and design shall comply with the standard andspecifications as set forth in the Cit 's adopted Standard Specifications, except as otherwise contained in this section. (c) Street layout must be designed for street connectivity between neighborhoods, be pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and promote function safety and aesthetics with minimum adverse environmental impact. di Block Length. Blocks shall not exceed six -hundred feet unless no other Practicable alternative is available. as determined by the approving authority. (e) Cul-de-Sac Streets. Cul-de-sacs are not permitted. However subject to the followin a cul-de-sac street may be allowed where the ap-proving authority determines that environmental or to o ra hical constraints existing development patterns. legal restrictions. or com fiance with other applicable city requirements Preclude a street extension. Where the city determines that a cul-de-sac is the only reasonable option, all of the following standards shall be met: 1. Cul-de-sac streets shall have a maximum length of three -hundred feet measured from their centerline intersection with the public access street right-of-way to the turnaround. 2. The cul-de-sac shall rovide or not preclude the opportunity to later install a pedestrian and bicycle access way between it and adjacent develo able lands. f Private Streets. Private streets may be allowed subject to the following: 61 Private street im rovements shall meet the standards for local access roads. (ii) An enhanced pedestrian path may be provided in lieu of sidewalk construction where the desi n to accommodate Pedestrian circulation is separated from vehicle traffic movements. iii Street li hti ig will be provided Per the type chosen at the developer's discretion. Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 16 livl Private streets must not interfere with vehicle, public transportation or nonmotorized access to public areas, and may not preclude the connection of the transportation system. v Storm water facilities must be designed to treat and retain all storm water on site without any runoff entering City of Pasco right-of-way. vi Eveiv Private street within the district shall be named and names shall be clear) posted in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices MUTCDI standard. 07f Building Desion Standards. al Avalicobility. This section does not anoly to development located at Osprev Pointe. b Intent. The intent of this section is to implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan by Promotinghigh quality development using aesthetically pleasing desiF,ns, creatin a safe edestrian-oriented streetsca a and u radin" Pasco's visual identity, and reduce the impact of parkin lots and blank walls. icl All buildings within a multi -building complex must achieve unity of design through the use of similar architectural elementsr such as roof form, exterior building design and materials, colors and window patterns. (d) All new buildings shall have exterior walls that are constructed of at least one but not more than three of the following materials: wood, brick, stucco, steel, block, glass, or composite materials and shall have textured. embossed, sculpted or painted finishes. Exterior walls must include more than two of the following architectural features: columns, pilasters, belt courses, brackets, arches, decorative molding,guuoins and similar architectural features. Changes in materials shall occur at inside corners and not outside corners. (el All new retail buildings shall have windows, doors or display areas that cover 50 percent of the around floor frontage wall area (walls that face frontage streets). Structures facing residential zones or developments are not required to have a minimum amount of lass or dig la • area but must have architectural design features and/or building modulation. f Pedestrian entries for all structures shall be visible from the fronts e street driveways and off-street Parking areas. Pedestrian entries must be emphasized through landsca ed entry approaches consistent with the building design and theme, by the use of modulation to emphasize indentation or Protrusion of that portion of the building containing the entrance, or by the inclusion of porte-cochere or other covered entry methods. Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 17 (g) Sig nage affixed to the building must be no hif: her than the roof Iine of the building f h} No heating. air conditioning. electrical or other mechanical equipment shall be installed on a roof slope that faces a oublic street or a residence. All equipment installed on the roof must be screened from the street level by a solid nonreflective barrier that incor Porates the buildin 's architectural st le. f it Wall -mounted electrical and mechanical equipment shall be located on the less visible side of the building and obscured from public view. Sidewalk seating, Any food or drink establishment may rovide sidewalk seating for its customers ad[acent to the place of business meeting the following provisions: fit Five feet of unobstructed sidewalk must be maintained at all times for through travel. liil If the sidewalk is located in the Ripht-of-Way, the placement of tables shall be subiect to the filing of a satisfactory hold -harmless agreement and primary liability__ insurance policy suitable to the City Attorney which will indemnify the City and release it from liability. 18 Screening Standards. fal A00 icability. This section does not apply to development located at Osprey Pointe. Deleted: b All equipment, material or goods not housed or stored within the primafy structure shall be within a 100 percent sight -obscuring fence, wall or structure, with the exception that outdoor garden sales areas associated with retail buildings must additionally Deleted:. incor orate false walls in the fencing design that match or complement the architectural features of the main building -walls. c Gas meters. electric service boxes and other mechanical equipment shall be screened from public view by sight -obscuring fence, walls or planting materials. 19) Temoorary Business Standards. dal ApplicobilitV. This section does not apply to development located at Osprey Pointe. (b) Temporary businesses are only permitted on lots that are fully developed with curb, butter and sidewalk and improved with harking lots, landscaping and buildings. Icl Temporary businesses must be located at least 100 feet from the property line of any residentially zoned property. ldl Goods. wares and merchandise of any kind can only be displayed or offered for sale from the temporary business vehicle or conveyance. e Limited ancillary or accessory equipment may be utilized with a temporary business and must be tel-rivorary in nature and easily removable such as coolers. umbrellasr tents. Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 18 tables. and chairs. The following types of ancillary or accessory equipment are not permitted to be used with a temporary business including but not limited to: benches picnic tables Propane tanks awnings, carport structures satellite dishes recreational equipment, amusement devices. entertainment a ui ment ortable or tem ora sheltersportable heaters temporary lighting fixtures decorative lighting, freezers ref ri erators not located on the business vehicle carpet, fencing, and faux landscape elements. Si na a is only permitted on the temporary business vehicle and not on public ri ht-of way or in parkins lots. IN No advertisinP for services activities and Products that are not available on or from the temporary business vehicle is permitted. {il Temporary businesses must be located at least 25 feet from any public right-of-way- {il Temporary businesses must locate in an area of the parkins lot that will not impede fire lanes or the use of drive aisles within and around Parking lots. k Required off-street oarkinp cannot be diminished by the location and operation of a temporary business except such parking spaces may be used for temporary businesses on weekends or holidays. f20) Sion Standards. jJ AtWlicobility. This section does not apply to development located at Osprey Pointe. {b} No sign shall be erected, re -erected, constructed, saainted,posted, applied or structurally altered except as provided in this section and pursuant to the approval of the Director of Community and Economic Development. All signs shall comply with the International Building Code and PMC Title 17 and conform to the following. fcl Prohibited Signs. W Signs, which by coloring, shape. wording or location resemble or onflict with traffic control signs or devices: hil Signs that create a safet • hazard. Idl Permitted Signs. i Permanent subdivision signs or area name si ns of a oermanent character at street entrances or entrances to a specific area or development. These si ns shall not exceed six feet in height: ii Temporary banners. flags i ennants which are maintained in Rood condition: Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 19 liiii Contractor, architect or engineer signs that identify the roect are permitted during, the period of construction: Ovl Standard official directi gal informational warnina, or safety signs and street signs; and v Portable readerboards. flashin movable or moving sins Rrovided that such signs must not be located in view of any residentially zoned land located within 300 feet of the sign. (e) Nonconforming Signs. i Signs that were permanently installed and legally erected prior to the adoption of this ordinance shall be allowed to remain in use so long as they are continuously _ maintained ifi Relief. [i Where relief is sought from the provisions of this section pertaining to si na e standards an apolication shall be made in the form of a letter explaininp the relief soup ht and the reasons therefor, accompanied by a scaled site plan and a $100.00 fee. The complete applicationshall be filed with the Director of Community and Economic Development. Within 15 working days from the date of receipt of a complete application, the Director of Community and Economic Development shall issue a written decision to approve, aonrove with modifications, or deny the request for relief. Any decision of the Director of Community and Economic Development may be pppealed to the City Council if written notice of appeal, which shall include all and exclusive reasons for said appeal, is filed with the Director of Community and Economic Development within 10 working days from the date of the decision. In the event a written decision is not issued by the Director of Community and Economic Development within the required time period, the application for relief shall automatically constitute a qualified and properly filed notice of appeal and shall be considered by the City Council in accordance with this section. The City Council within 30 calendar days from the date of filing of the appeal, shall consider the a,veal at a regular meeting thereof, but such consideration shall be limited to the reasons included in the written notice of appeal and shall include the written decision of the Director of Community and Economic Development and the reasons therefor. The City Council ma • affirm modify or reverse the decision of the Director of Community and Economic Development. 21 Desi n Recommendations f Structures. Site Plannirn and Londsca in 1. al A vlicobilit . This section does not apply to development located at Osprey Pointe. b Desirable Elements of Pro ect Design. The followinci design elements are desirable and highly encouraged: Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 20 i Si nificant wall articulation insets, poo outs columns canopies. wing walls trellises Oil Natural wall materials includinp, stucco stone brisk clapboard, and ceramic tile• liiil Multi -planed roofs, Ovl Full roof treatments; (v) Roof over hangs, arcades, plazas and outdoor dining areas NO Traditional storefront desi n i.e. use of recessed or sheltered arcade or porch entries use of awnin s doors with a high Percentage of lass to frame service entries/ facilities and refuse containers screened from view]; lvii) Articulated mass and bulk oriented to Pedestrian/village scale: (viii) Significant landscape and hardscaoe elements; (ix) Shared access driveways Ifor new and larger develoomentsi•_ x Use of parking drives and courts or other open saces on the site to help buffer the buildings from any adjacent incompatible land uses; (xi) Landscaped and screened parking and loading; Ixiil Pedestrian orientation and scale; and (xiiil Upper flogs that feature a step -back. b Undesirable Elements of Pro"ect Design. The tollowing design elements are discouraged or may be .prohibited in other sections of the Pasco Municipal Code: li) Large blank, flat wall surfaces; ii) Unpainted concrete slum stone or corru ated metal - NO Highly reflective surfaces mirror windows) - (iv) Plastic siding; (v) Large front yard setbacks accommodating narking NO Visible outdoor storage, loading, and euuipment areas: c Prohibited Elements of Proiect Design. The following design elements areprohibited: (i) Disiointed parking areas and awkward circulation patterns: ii Over abundance of access driveways, or unsafe locations: ani Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 21 NO Large commercial development across numerous lots, without pedestrian orientation. Proposed Amendment to PMC 25.127 Prepared by AHBL, Inc. December 5, 2022 22 r*4m CN r-I LO N a� 0 om 0 %No N Q� C 0 0 N Co E •v � N crt ON N.� � g.. M o co a) :� x L �.x o U o �? o C6 o co.— c� U C 0N� H Q. a) " � Q �-Co o cvcn �� 73 i 0 cil cap m O Cn C6 � U) .O 70 C: O Q. 7 Cl) Co -0 u H m bu0 .B 2- m CO �70 bu0 Q = CLCO C: N �Q CD E C: 'Qo _ U N I` 00 M N 10 rl r-I 0000 0000 O O O O 0000 ti ti ti ti ti ti tir-: LO LO LO LO L6 L6 ui L6 N N N N N N N N 0000 w U U U U W GJ N O� 0"O f6 Q N c fa V i Q. U� .— v O aJ C CuE N .L E O c: ' O O Q O (,� � � ;+� �. In O GJ _ Q E C O >O 4A 'cn r- 5 C : j brA a� .� o cc G Ln cu v E V o -� •� N p a-+ O W ate-J OTC E c O ass 0 &- �O 4-J O aJ .� � w O aJ v .N O u E `+- O� ,biA w w O c _ = N O v L bA 0- � � L= t v � — _O 'E •� "a ,� 0 V) Cl) s C O m a > — c) a-J O C = O N -0 cn N C O +J y= 4-U S — N 4 •i O : bi4 O N -0 ::3 c/9 �(jD_ bIA '� U O a- J f� � 0 fu V N t aJ O s cn bo LP)- a M C •L '~ N (II ateJ j U C Ln a) x O v to ru O i Q 4 -' taA H- a) C •� O � o 4 ca c� U ca .— O a .X E � a) 4= O W Ln a) 3 a--+ �- -0 c N >� S 4- Q � — fa 4j N W 0 ++ i i a-•+ c �n a) U w aJ m lfl — � V>. Qw.�.Ln �� �`L 0��+ o i V O L L N 4-J0 aJ a-J N O (3) s u -C C m •— 3-0�4-J-0U O O s- M L-r 04-J a) > cV M 0 '4-0 a �, [ CIf „ - c 3 t�A (n U a U CO CO E co . +cu t6 >% Q co — co CO � Co E , ,>p o -a E 'sZ �� 'cn.= O .� 0 0 0� U brA 2i E U u) U U LO 0 0 LO LO 00 m 1:;T � V--i z4-J 7C3 LLJ —>CL J ❑ 4= � c� .� W U W FM co in V) m E .� (3) .=3 O' b�A �U co Q U) 70 c cc U) c6 co Q U 4) � O O 4— to .-J -0 O D m c� O O O O (n � m E O � Q U) C6 .i F- O O F E O %- U U) (n (o O U) -0 CoCc O Q OCo +� U O O —O N ,Col � O -0 �aA Co top Q Co IC) Co 70 Q N -0 CO m . O C: C: J r. 0 O U O C CO co O O U N c6 0 . Q 'V cr Co (1) O CD cn U N O C6 O � O O O 4 C� U U � .. -0( (n E N O n ' w C6 E .m U j Q % 4— E (6 p 4—in .� O .co 0 N N O �0-+ 70 Q Q U 70 Co O +-' =3 -E CO c6 L) Z CO ,� C6 W �� � to z Ecn U J z E .cn -0 m (n — 70 M I 0 C: COcn 0 m .Q �� O Q� 0 + O cn �- O co .� co •L O c6 U o i ! � CO o 70 N U p p co O O -r- - Co O •co — co N O co .cn O 0 _0 U O O 07 � o .�- a) 0 a) 70 �E >O ca co (6 u cnCO co CO O CO c j co .� CoCo cn }, W a- W (n 0 Z LU LU (n Co '— C: co E 0+� N N U•i •N C: 0 .- U • - 0- CN .5 (1) � v 00 moo (D n� 0 CC � � o cn��— o70 00W.-0•�cacn .—� 0-00 U4J�V� E� =.0 00��co to n Qcar-i 2Eo.4?E Of • co cc c6 4� O N 00 O c6 cn 02 E 0- O W 0 �O O= Q• U cc O-0 O CL co -0 E, U O 0 04- o.-- CnL-0 -0 }, N co m •. L co W E U 0--o C: '— cy- co c O U) � O U)co Co +-0 a) U U) Cc CO 0 o�� O E O (1) Co ORO a) ..L2 L4-:- S7 U) 70 77 L--- 9 — V O � 70 O a� a� .a E cc o cn 0-0 70 a) a� �C:: O .� w co -0 r 0*- a� 70 70 a� co (n 0 a 0 z w O U W 0 (M) �tto E y�� P1 AAA/ 0 O i E O E N O U 0 � O EN U a) cn U "6 � i O �, U _0 C: O 4- c� � N 0 U O 4— m MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PJCol City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue — Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2022 6:30 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Broadmoor Master Plan & Environmental Impact Statement Background Development of the Broadmoor Master Plan and the supporting Environmental Impact Statement is nearing completion for a draft issuance for public comment. Work on the Broadmoor Master Plan has been underway for several years now, dating back to a 2004 land use and market analysis study. Over recent years, efforts have been made to update several critical components associated with the development of over 1,200 acres situated in northwest Pasco. The Planning Commission may recall that work on the Broadmoor Master Plan and Environmental Impact Statement was restarted following the adoption of the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan. On July 27, 2021, the City issued a revised Determination of Significance (DNS) and a request for comments on the scope of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Broadmoor Master Plan. The purpose of this staff report is to provide the Planning Commission with an update on the progress and status of the Broadmoor Master Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement. Issuance of both the plan and EIS are to occur on Friday, December 16, 2022. Summary of Non-Prolect Environmental Impact Statement The EIS is to evaluate the impacts resulting from the adoption of a Master Plan for an area of approximately 1,200 acres in the northwest portion Pasco City Limits and the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary. The purpose of the Master Plan is to advance the 2018-2038 Pasco Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and implement the community vision for the Broadmoor Area. Alternative 1, No Change (No -Action): The No -Change (No -Action) Alternative is consistent with the 2018-2038 Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations. This alternative may result in decreased residential densities in the Unincorporated Urban Growth Area due to County zoning limitations, and previously permitted low -density developments in the area. Alternative 2, Comprehensive Plan Growth Target Implementation: This alternative will include similar land uses from Alternative 1 to accommodate a denser retail, commercial and residential development, often in a mixed -use setting. Alternative 2 will allocate open space locations, based on recent changes in irrigation water management. This alternative will maximize the growth and density potential of the area by planning for several development 1 cluster areas connected by open space, public transportation, and a well-connected street pattern. This target will seek to maximize coordination and compliance with public agencies and recently adopted plans and policies of the City of Pasco. The preparation of this Non -Project EIS addresses the questions required as part of the SEPA assessment process (WAC 197-11) and the requirements for "Planned Action" as part of WAC 197-11-164. Use of a Non -Project EIS addresses the potential environmental impacts of land use changes and development at a program, plan, and/or policy level by assessing the impacts in a city- or area -wide context rather than a site -specific analysis. Specific objectives for the EIS were established for the review, including: • Planning for the future development of the Broadmoor area as outlined in the accompanying Master Plan • Fostering economic development and protecting the quality of the Pasco environment (natural and habitat) • Planning for an orderly transition from vacant land to mixed -use, commercial, and, residential uses with a land -use plan of the entire area • Improving mobility options for all users by providing and requiring the necessary roadway and non -motorized connections at existing and planned arterials with internal connections • Identifying and completing the necessary mitigation to off -set adverse environmental impacts The EIS is a critical element of the Broadmoor area planning. It identifies specific mitigation measures necessary for the development to occur. Upon the completion of a Final -EIS, all developments within the Broadmoor area will be subject to concurrence with the EIS and the Master Plan. Following the issuance of the DEIS, staff encourages review and input on the mitigations highlighted in the following areas: • Land and Shoreline Use • Population, Housing, and Employment • Transportation • Public Services and Utilities • Historical and Cultural Resources Each of the affected environments, including those identified above will be addresses in the Non - Project EIS with an assessment of the current conditions, and the mitigations necessary to off- set development impacts. Summary of Master Plan The development of a master plan for an area spanning 1,200 acres has required and will need continued attention for key elements, including: infrastructure, development regulations, compliance and conformance, phasing, and costs. The Broadmoor planning efforts also includes an established planning vision with a set of principals as described below: K • Encourage a pedestrian and transit friendly environment • Establish a connected community with ample choice for circulation and access • Provide a variety of housing choices with a focus on higher density options • Create economic opportunities for all • Ensure and promote the protection of the natural environment and open space • Development an aesthetically pleasing community with quality design Provide infrastructure and public facilities The plan, similar to the Non -project EIS, will assess the existing conditions of the planning area, followed by specific development requirements, standards, and recommendations necessary to implement the vision for the Broadmoor area. The proposed development standards for residential housing are similar to those recommended by the Planning Commission as part of the Residential Design Standards Update in November 2022. Emphasis has been placed on the built environment, many of the proposed development standards are associated with building placement, location of parking, frontage improvements, and public spaces. In addition to the standards for development of residential and commercial, an emphasis on mobility is included, particularly with regards to the development of mixed -use sites and multi -modal connections. The recommendations will be similar to those proposed previously by staff implementing the Transportation System Master Plan and will be clearly indicated in the master plan document. Adherence to the master plan is critical for the success of the Broadmoor area planning effort. A significant amount of public investment has occurred, along with an increasingly amount of private investment activity. Similar to other major planning efforts,.the Broadmoor Master Plan is meant to be amended, as necessary, to ensure it is up to date with forecasted market conditions under the intent of aligning with the established Council and community vision. Schedule Task + t oe 4ew ef+h Draft EIS d nnaste Y.I, rr • Issuance of Draft EIS • Draft EIS Comment Period Ends • Issuance of Final EIS • Council Review/Adoption Timeframe NgvembeF December 16, 2022 January 16, 2023 February 2023 February — March 2023 3 MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION City:; PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PASca City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue — Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2022 6:30 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2022 Pasco Comprehensive Plan Amendments Background The purpose of this staff report is to provide the Planning Commission with an update on the 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment items. On August 22, 2022, the Pasco City Council recommended to docket 16 of the proposed 18 Comprehensive Plan Amendment items, via Resolution No 4251. As a reminder, the Washington State Growth Management Act limits amendments to the comprehensive plan to once per year. With few exemptions, Washington State Law prohibits local jurisdictions from amending their Comprehensive Plans more than once per calendar year. The docketed applications for the 2022 Amendment Cycle are provided in Exhibit #A. The City has established a process outlined in the Pasco Municipal Code (PMC 25.215) that allows for proposed amendments to be considered concurrently, considered the annual docket. As part of the amendment process, the City mut first establish the docket. The docket includes Comprehensive Plan amendment applications to be reviewed during the annual amendment cycle. Amendment Approvals The Pasco Municipal Code, sections 25.215.020(8)-(9) identify those amendments may be approved if it is found that: (i) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; ii. (ii) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan not affected by the amendment; iii. (iii) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or iv. (iv) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. Additional factors for consideration include: 1 (a) The effect upon the physical environment; ii. (b) The effect on open space and natural features including, but not limited to, topography, streams, rivers, and lakes; iii. (c) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; iv. (d) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities, including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; V. (e) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; vi. (f) The current and projected project density in the area; and vii. (g) The effect, if any, upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. Summary of Amendments In total, the proposed amendments recommended for the docket represent a shift of land uses of approximately 933 acres across the city. There is a notable increase (proposed) in Medium Density Residential (385 acres), Mixed Residential, and Commercial (640 acres), and a decrease in Industrial Land Use (197 acres). Staff Recommendations It is the intent of staff to provide the Planning Commission with the sufficient information to assist with the recommendation made to the Pasco City Council. Staff emphasizes that several of the proposed amendments, both private and city initiated are significant changes to both the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The Broadmoor Master Plan and Downtown Pasco Master Plan amendments constitute of many changes to the current Land Use map. Decisions by the Planning Commission and City Council are legislative and require that both use its legislative judgement as stewards of the City of Pasco's Comprehensive Plan. As required by RCW 36.70A.130, rather than adopting changes on a piecemeal basis, proposed amendments must be considered concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained. Next Steps A public hearing will be scheduled for January 2023 to consider and make recommendations on the 2022 Amendment Docket. Staff anticipates that a final decision for the amendments will be made by Council in February and March 2023. 2 EXHIBIT #A -DOCKETED AMENDMENTS FOR THE 2022 AMENDMENT CYCLE Privately Initiated Applications File Number: CPA2022-001 Applicant: Stacy and Todd Kidwell Description: Future Land Use Map Amendment: Medium Density Residential to Mixed Residential and Commercial Address / Parcel(s) 11518065 Total Area (Acres) 3.89 Environmental Determination Determination of Non -Significance, issued 06/07/2022 File Number: CPA2022-002 Applicant: Roland Jankelson / Devi E Tate Description: Future Land Use Map Amendment: Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential and Commercial Address / Parcel(s) 117642098, 117642105 Total Area (Acres) 2.18 Environmental Determination Determination of Non -Significance, issued 06/07/2022 File Number: CPA2022-003 Applicant: Description: Broetje Orchards / New Heritage Future Land Use Map Amendment: Industrial to Mixed Residential and Commercial Address / Parcel(s) 112470014, 112430012, 112430021, 112462078, 112462096 Total Area (Acres) 197 Environmental Determination Determination of Significance, issued 06/07/2022 File Number: CPA2022-004 Applicant: Paul Lavrentiev Future Land Use Map Amendment: Low Density_ Residential to Medium Density Residential 115180075 Description: Address / Parcel(s) Total Area (Acres) 32.26 Environmental Determination Determination of Non -Significance, issued 06/07/2022 File Number: CPA2022-006 Applicant: Fred Olberding / Caleb Stromstad Description: Future Land Use Map Amendment: Commercial to Mixed Address / Parcel(s) Total Area (Acres) Environmental Determination 114330048 12.82 Determination of ificance, issued 06/07/2022 EXHIBIT A: DOCKETED AMENDMENTS FOR THE 2022 AMENDMENT CYCLE File Number: CPA2022-007 Applicant: Description: Randy Mullen Future Land Use Map Amendment: Commercial to Mixed Address / ParceI(s) 116160080 Total Area (Acres) 2.5 Environmental Determination Determination of Non -Significance, issued 06/07/2022 File Number: CPA2022-008 Applicant: Travis Blake Description: Future Land Use Map Amendment: Commercial to Mixed Residential and Commercial Address / Parcel(s) 115480078, 115480079 Total Area (Acres) 4.6 Environmental Determination Determination of Non -Significance, issued 06/07/2022 Planning Commission Recommendation: Recommended for the docket File Number: CPA2022-009 Applicant: Clarence and Patricia Alford Description: Future Land Use Map Amendment: Low Density Residential to Mixed Residential and Commercial 115180055 19.93 Determination of Non -Significance, issued 06/07/2022 Address / Parcel(s) Total Area (Acres) Environmental Determination File Number: CPA2022-010 Applicant: Rudd McClory Description: Future Land Use Map Amendment: Commercial to High Address / Parcel(s) Total Area (Acres) Environmental Determination I File Number: CPA2022-011 licant: Description: Address / Parcel(s) _ Total Area (Acres) Environmental Determination 119312083 8.48 _ Determination of N ificance, issued Paul Lavrentiev / John Fetterolf Future Land Use Map Amendment: Commercial to Mixed Residential and Commercial 118501041 6.68 Determination of Non -Significance, issued �06/07/2022 EXHIBIT A: DOCKETED AMENDMENTS FOR THE 2022 AMENDMENT CYCLE City Initiated Applications File Number: CPA2022-013 Applicant: City of Pasco — Community and Economic Development Description: Future Land Use Map and Text Amendment: Establish Downtown Land Use Address / Parcel(s) Various Total Area (Acres) 153 Environmental Determination Not issued, a Determination of Non -Significance is anticipated File Number: CPA2022-014 Applicant: City of Pasco — Community and Economic Development Description: Future Land Use Map and Text Amendment: Broadmoor Master Plan Address / Parcel(s) Various Total Area (Acres) 1,200 Environmental Determination Determination of Significance, issued March 2017, revised July 2021 File Number: CPA2022-015 Applicant: City of Pasco — Community and Economic Development Description: Future Land Use Map and Text Amendment: Commercial to Mixed Residential and Commercial LRamqar Estates Address / Parcel(s) 113884077, 113884078, 113884079, 113884080, 113884081, 113884082, 113884083, 113884084, 113884085, 113884086, 113884087,113884088,113884089,113884090,113883022 Total Area (Acres) 6.68 Environmental Determination Not issued, a Determination of Non -Significance is anticipated File Number: CPA2022-016 Applicant: City of Pasco — Community and Economic Development Description: Future Land Use Map and Text Amendment: Commercial to Mixed Residential and Commercial (West Court Street: N 19th Ave — N 14th Ave1 Address / Parcel(s) Various Total Area (Acres) 9.25 Environmental Determination Not issued, a Determination of Non -Significance is anticipated EXHIBIT A: DOCKETED AMENDMENTS FOR THE 2022 AMENDMENT CYCLE File Number: CPA2022-017 Applicant: City of Pasco — Community and Economic Development Description: Future Land Use Map and Text Amendment: Industrial to Mixed Residential and Commercial (S 101 Avenue: W A Street — W Address / Parcel(s) 112282058, 112282076, 112282085, 112282094, 112282101, 112282138, 112282147, 112282156, 112282165, 112282184, 112282192, 112282209, 112282263, 112282272, 112282281, 112282290, 112282307, 112282442, 112282450, 112282469, 112282512,112282549 Total Area (Acres) 4.29 Environmental Determination Not issued, a Determination of Non -Significance is anticipated File Number: CPA2022-018 Applicant: City of Pasco — Community and Economic Development Description: Future Land Use Text Amendment: Chances to the Future Land Use Map descriptions and densities. Address / Parcel(s) Various Citywide Total Area (Acres) Environmental Determination Not issued, a Determination of Non -Significance is anticipated EXHIBIT A: DOCKETED AMENDMENTS FOR THE 2022 AMENDMENT CYCLE a Q w J V V H Z CW G M z CW G a N N O N W Z 0 LL m m X W MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION Cityo PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 14111 City Hall — 525 North Third Avenue — Council Chambers DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 2022 6:30 PM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Planning Manager SUBJECT: 2023 Work Plan and Schedule The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Planning Commission with a summary of efforts that will occur during 2023. A table has been provided below summarizing the projects, tasks and items that will eventually require discussion and review by the Planning Commission in the upcoming year. Item Description Timeframe Council Goal(s) Murals Update PMC to provide Spring 2023 Economic Vitality opportunities for murals that further design principals and community vision, create process for programs and implementation Completion of Broadmoor Master Winter Broadmoor Master Quality of Life Plan and Plan and Environmental Impact 2023 Financial Sustainability Environmental Impact Statement, including updates to Economic Vitality Statement codes and regulations to support Broadmoor Visioning Housing Action and Development of Housing Action and Summer Quality of Life Implementation Plan Implementation Plan with a set of 2023 Financial Sustainability strategies and implementation Economic Vitality measures to support and Community Identity encourage new housing production that meets local housing needs. Conduct review and prepare Summer Shoreline Master Quality of Life Program updates to the Pasco Shoreline 2023 Financial Sustainability Master Program (SMP). On -Call assistance with Framework Ongoing Downtown Plan Quality of Life Implementation Consulting to move forward with Financial Sustainability implementation of the Downtown Economic Vitality Pasco Master Plan An effort to move downtown Ongoing Community Identity Downtown Quality of Life Management Pasco's Financial Sustainability organizational infrastructure, Economic Vitality business engagement, and Community Identity culturally responsive placemaking forward. 1 Other items not listed above, include: • Single Room Occupancy Code Amendment • Anti-Displacement/Disparate Impacts Analysis • Economic Development Plan • Traffic Impact Fee • Development/Engineering Standards Updates • 2023 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Schedule The dates for the 2023 Planning Commission meetings are provided below. As a reminder, staff had asked the Planning Commission for input regarding the January 2023 meeting date. Due to the expected public hearing discussions associated with the Broadmoor Master Plan and the 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Docket, staff recommends the Planning Commission push the January 2023 date a week. Tentative schedule is provided below. • January 19 or January 26 • February 16 • March 16 • April20 • May 18 • June 15 • July 20 • August 17 • September 21 • October 19 • November 16 • December 21 2