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