Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC MEETING MINUTES 1-15-2611P Pasco PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES City Hall - Council Chambers 525 North Third Avenue Pasco, Washington THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2026 6:30 PM CALL TO ORDER The 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: Rosa Torres, Austin Crawford, Pat Jones, Kim Lehrman, Rob Waites, Dana Crutchfield, Miguel Miranda and Jerry Cochran, a quorum was declared. Commissioners Excused: Brian Tungesvik Staff Present: C&ED Director Haylie Matson, C&ED Deputy Director Craig Raymond, Senior Planner Daniel Leavitt, Planner III Ivan Barragan and Administrative Assistant II Carmen Patrick DECLARATIONS 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. Miguel Miranda recused himself on items CPA2025-002, Z2025-001 and CA2025-006, as a realtor of the community, he has an active client that is directly impacted by the decisions made tonight. ❖ Commissioner Lehrman wanted to clarify two meetings ago in November, -She had made a correction. She is not living in the SR20 Riverview area, and that correction during the meeting was not reflected in the meeting minutes in December. Chair Cochran asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda. ❖ No declarations were heard. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Jones motioned to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of December 18, 2025. Commissioner Crawford seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS None PUBLIC HEARINGS • CA2025-002 Sandwich Board Signs within Right -of -Way The proposed code amendment was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission in a workshop and later advanced to a public hearing. Notice was posted at City Hall and published in the Tri-City Herald. No public comments were received. Staff presented a limited code amendment to allow sandwich board signs within the public right-of-way in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District and a 300-foot buffer area. The proposal updates the sign code, clarifies definitions, revises the allowance table, and creates a new section, PMC 17.15.025 (Sandwich Board Signs). Page 1 of 8 The amendment establishes clear standards governing placement, number of signs per business, hours of display, ADA accessibility, intersection safety, prohibited locations, enforcement and removal procedures, and includes a hold harmless provision, along with minor consistency updates to Title 17. A revision from the prior proposal adjusts corner lot standards, allowing signs closer to intersections when frontage placement is not feasible, provided a minimum 10-foot clearance from the curb radius or verge is maintained for pedestrian safety and sight distance. Staff noted this represents a significant update to a long-standing prohibition and provides added flexibility for downtown businesses while maintaining pedestrian safety. Alternatives included taking no action, allowing signs without regulation (not recommended), or expanding the allowance citywide. Staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council for consideration at the February 9, 2026, workshop, with final action anticipated at the February 17, 2026, meeting. Questions/Comments from Commissioners Commissioner Jones asked about a slide depicting a vehicle marked with an "V and its purpose. Ivan Barragan explained that the image was intended to clarify that sandwich board signs are not permitted on vehicles. Commissioner Lehrman stated that she appreciated the language clarifying the construction of the signs but noted that the code does not specify that signs should be weighted. Given wind conditions in the area, she encouraged staff to consider adding language to address this concern. Ivan Barragan commented that he understood. Commissioner Crutchfield expressed concerns regarding enforcement and staffing capacity, noting the limited availability of code enforcement resources. She referenced an example observed along Court Street near Andy's Diner where multiple sandwich board signs —located in areas that would not be permitted under the proposal —were placed in the middle of the sidewalk, potentially obstructing pedestrian access and ADA compliance. She questioned how the proposed standards would be effectively enforced given these constraints. Director Matson explained that enforcement is complaint -based and prioritized by life -safety concerns due to limited staffing. With two code enforcement officers handling a high volume of inquiries, issues are triaged, with immediate hazards addressed first. Staff noted that sandwich board signs are already a citywide issue and that the proposed amendment would establish clearer standards within downtown, where visibility and oversight are greater. The amendment is not expected to significantly change current enforcement practices. Chair Cochran opened the meeting for public comment, no individuals appeared, he then closed the public hearing for this item. Commissioner Lehrman asked if there was insight as far as potential opportunities for additional code enforcement staff. Director Matson noted that a presentation to City Council on code enforcement priorities and staffing levels is planned for later this year at the request of the City Manager's Office. Staff explained that reductions in staffing have required corresponding adjustments to enforcement priorities citywide. Staff recommended bringing the issue to City Council for policy direction, noting that expanding enforcement across all issues citywide would require additional staffing and would be a budget consideration. Commissioner Crutchfield stated that, given the challenges facing code enforcement, she questioned the Page 2 of 8 wisdom of taking action on an issue that will likely require enforcement when similar activity is already occurring in areas where it is not proposed and is difficult to enforce. She noted that while these issues may not be as severe as other reported violations, the enforcement challenges remain. Director Matson added that the proposal would reduce enforcement burden by allowing sandwich board signs under clear standards rather than prohibiting them outright. Establishing defined parameters would provide clarity for both business owners and code enforcement, reduce conflicts, and allow the Downtown Overlay District to serve as a pilot area to evaluate compliance and effectiveness. Chair Cochran noted an additional benefit of the proposal is reduced City liability. Establishing regulations and a hold harmless provision would help protect the City in the event of injuries related to sandwich board signs in the public right-of-way, as compared to having no clear standards or enforcement framework in place. Commissioner Lehrman asked about funding for code enforcement officers and whether Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are used. Director Matson explained that approximately $70,000 is allocated to one or both positions, but those funds are restricted by CDBG requirements and must be spent in designated low-income areas, limiting applicability to downtown enforcement. Future funding levels are uncertain. Commissioner Lehrman also asked whether codifying sandwich board sign regulations could lead to increased complaints used to harass business owners. Director Matson responded that clear, objective standards are expected to reduce disputes rather than increase them by providing consistency, clarity, and allowing downtown businesses to better self -manage compliance. Commissioner Jones stated "I move that the Planning Commission recommend, and the City Council approve Code Amendment CA2025-002, allowing Sandwich Board Signs within the public right of way only in the Downtown Pasco Overlay District as proposed in Exhibit 2."Motion seconded by Commissioner Crawford, motion passed unanimously. • CPA 2025-002 Emergency Comp Plan Amendment Residential Density Amendment Director Matson provided background on an inconsistency between the City's land use map and zoning code. In 2023, the city updated its low -density residential designation citywide to 3-6 units per acre; however, the RS-20 zoning district retains a 20,000-square-foot minimum lot size, effectively allowing approximately two units per acre. This conflict was identified at the staff and legal levels following a development proposal, and development in the affected RS-20 areas has been paused. She noted that property owners have been unable to develop for approximately 18 months due to this inconsistency and requested Commission action to provide relief. She acknowledged broader policy concerns and upcoming state requirements but explained that the proposal would resolve the immediate issue while keeping the area at the lowest density in the city. Director Matson presented a revised proposal establishing a new R-15 zoning designation allowing 2-3 units per acre and reverting the land use designation to 2-5 units per acre. This represents a modest increase from historic standards and maintains consistency with long-standing zoning policy. Staff noted public comments requesting larger lots for septic feasibility but explained that RS-20 has never allowed densities below two units per acre and that further reductions would conflict with city policy and Growth Management Act requirements. She emphasized that Pasco must plan for approximately 18,000 new housing units over the next 20 years and that reducing density in the Riverview area would require increased density elsewhere in the city. The Page 3 of 8 proposal recognizes Riverview's unique conditions, including larger lots and limited sewer availability, while limiting reliance on septic systems. Director Matson also discussed a potential lot size adjustment allowing up to a 20 percent variation to address septic and site constraints, consistent with flexibility allowed in other zoning districts. Staff recommended forwarding the revised 2-3 units per acre proposal to City Council, noting it represents the lowest density staff supports, and clarified that final recommendations rest with the Planning Commission. Questions/Comments from Commissioners Chair Cochran thanked staff for responding to Commission direction and for balancing developer and property owner interests while preserving West Pasco's character. The Chair noted the proposal addressed a code inconsistency consistent with City Council direction and emphasized the importance of resolving the current issue independently of broader state housing policy discussions. The item was then opened for Commission discussion. Commissioner Crutchfield stated that staff clearly incorporated prior Commission and City Council feedback, noting the importance of avoiding a one -size -fits -all approach and honoring commitments made to residents at annexation regarding neighborhood character. While acknowledging that change is inevitable, she appreciated the proposal's attempt to balance flexibility with community character. She asked for clarification on the purpose of a maximum lot size and whether a nearly one -acre lot could still be developed with a single-family home. Director Matson explained that state law allows a single-family home on any existing legal lot regardless of size, and such development would not be denied. The maximum lot size applies only to subdivisions and is intended to maintain the overall zoning density of 2-3 units per acre, while still allowing flexibility through varied lot sizes. Lots larger than one-half acre would need to be balanced by smaller lots within the same subdivision to meet density requirements. Similar density controls existed under the former RS-20 zoning. Commissioner Lehrman asked staff to respond to concerns raised by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding septic systems near the shoreline and potential Shoreline Master Program conflicts, and whether Shoreline Master Program updates would be required if the proposal is forwarded to City Council. Director Matson stated that staff reviewed the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife comments and found no conflict with the Shoreline Master Program, noting the proposed density is lower than the shoreline's allowed density range. She explained this position and stated that no Shoreline Master Program update is proposed at this time, as the concern reflects differing agency interpretations rather than a true conflict. Commissioner Jones expressed concern about septic systems near the shoreline and the importance of sewer connections to protect water quality, and thanked staff for the prior response. She asked how sewer would be provided where it is not currently available, who would bear the cost, and whether per -foot cost estimates exist. Director Matson explained that extending sewer infrastructure is expensive and can make development infeasible, which is a key reason for proposing a reduction to -two units per acre to allow limited septic use where appropriate. Under the City's 2023 land t}se changes, development generally assumed sewer connection at the property owner's expense or delayed development until service is available. Where septic is not feasible, sewer extension or delayed development would be required. She explained that the City has attempted to partner with developers to extend sewer service in the area, Page 4 of 8 including discussions about a lift station involving City Manager Zable. These efforts have been limited by the need for multiple easements and funding constraints, making projects infeasible. While grant opportunities continue to be explored, no funding is currently available, and future sewer extensions would likely require developer partnerships, which have not been successful to date. Commissioner Crutchfield asked for clarification on the proposed administrative adjustment authority for minimum lot sizes, questioning the City's role given Health District oversight of septic systems and expressing concern about administrative discretion. She suggested that Hearing Examiner review with public notice could provide greater transparency. Director Matson responded that the proposed 20 percent adjustment is intended to address site -specific constraints, such as irregular lot shapes, while avoiding the added cost and time of a Hearing Examiner process. The adjustment would allow minimum lot sizes to range from approximately 11,000 square feet up to one-half acre, providing flexibility in lot design while maintaining overall density standards. She stressed that the provision is optional and could be revised or removed at the Commission's direction, noting that an alternative would be a fixed minimum lot size of 14,520 square feet and a maximum of one-half acre with no adjustment. Commissioner Crawford asked whether the code amendments were intended to provide maximum flexibility to avoid hamstringing existing properties. Director Matson confirmed that the proposal is largely developer - and property -owner -focused and provides substantial flexibility, though it cannot resolve constraints imposed by septic requirements. She explained that where Health District standards require larger lots, flexibility is limited, but the proposal helps address site -specific challenges such as irregular lot shapes, topography, or parcels divided by roads, allowing more varied lot configurations. Commissioner Miranda commented that the proposed 20 percent adjustment may not be sufficient in some cases, citing an example where a 2.48-acre parcel cannot be reasonably subdivided into five balf-acre lots due to septic requirements. He asked what guidance the city would provide in that situation. Director Matson responded that in such cases, development would need to proceed at a lower intensity or wait until sewer service is available. Allowing exceptions below two units per acre could shift overall land - use patterns and risk broader reliance on septic systems, which would hinder long-term sewer planning. She emphasized the need for coordinated planning for future sewer service rather than parcel -by -parcel exceptions. Commissioner Lehrman asked whether staff would have sufficient capacity to manage case -by -case decisions given the City's move toward more automated permitting systems. Director Matson stated that the proposal is straightforward to administer and largely aligns with existing automated processes. The built-in flexibility is workable, and in cases of uncertainty staff would likely allow the 20 percent adjustment. She does not anticipate an increased workload for staff and noted that, after the area being effectively paused for over a year, there may be an initial increase in applications that can be managed with existing staffing levels. Public Comment: Roger Wright lives on Willow Way in the citv of Pasco: As a local civil engineer, thanked Council and City staff for their service and responsiveness. He expressed support for the City's goal of creating housing but emphasized the need for practical and logical standards. He explained that on -site septic systems require a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres per Health Department regulations, which limits flexibility when parcels do not divide evenly. He shared a current project example where sewer service was initially pursued, including funding infrastructure, but delays in updating the sewer comprehensive plan ultimately made sewer infeasible. As a result, the project shifted to septic, but parcel Page 5 of 8 configuration prevents exact half -acre lots. He stated that while the proposed 20% lot size flexibility could help, averaging lot sizes below the half -acre minimum is not allowed by the Health Department. He requested a workable, common-sense solution for irregular parcels while acknowledging and supporting the City's two -units -per -acre policy. Chuck Rambo lives on Warnett Rd. between Road 64 and 68 in the city of Pasco: Stated that the proposal may inadvertently prohibit subdivision of parcels between approximately 2.4 and 2.5 acres. With a 20% lot size adjustment, 2.4 acres is the maximum size that can accommodate four half - acre septic lots, while 2.5 acres is the minimum needed to meet Health Department requirements, resulting in parcels that cannot feasibly be subdivided into either four or five lots. He indicated this outcome was likely unintended. He suggested that a larger adjustment, such as 25%, could provide a workable solution for smaller parcels, noting that without such flexibility the result would be very low -density development, which he did not believe was the City's or State's intent. He concluded that he would follow up with staff to discuss the technical details further. Brett Lott lives on Castle Holly Court in the city of Pasco: Noted that he is working with staff on the same project and reiterated that sewer service was the preferred option but is not currently feasible due to City constraints. He emphasized that while most developments fit within standard regulations, some sites present unique conditions that do not align cleanly with rigid standards. He expressed concern that strict policies without flexibility can unintentionally prevent otherwise reasonable development, particularly when minor deviations exceed the 20% allowance by a small margin. He cautioned that over time, the intent of the policy may be lost, leaving permit staff constrained by exact language rather than intent. He emphasized the broader housing shortage at the state and national level and stated that delays in development directly increase housing costs. He requested additional flexibility in the policy —such as increasing the allowable adjustment or including a provision for case -by -case consideration —to allow staff discretion in unique situations. He provided an example where City -required road placement results in compliant half -acre lots on one side and slightly larger lots on the other, narrowly exceeding the limit. He concluded by encouraging the City to seek solutions that enable development rather than prohibit it, noting that not all projects are large enough to independently fund sewer infrastructure. Commissioner Jones observed a common theme among the speakers that additional lot size flexibility — potentially up to 250/o—could help projects move forward. He asked whether a framework that maintains a 20% standard but allows applicants to request additional flexibility through a review process might address unique site conditions. He noted that land parcels are not always uniform and that some discretion may be appropriate. He expressed that developers bring valuable expertise and that it may be in the City's best interest to work collaboratively to find solutions rather than rely solely on rigid standards. He suggested the concept warranted further discussion. Chair Cochran asked Director Matson whether there are potential mechanisms that would allow limited exceptions without undermining the intent of the proposed change. He highlighted the need to balance flexibility with maintaining the overall purpose of the policy and invited staff to share any suggestions, based on the testimony received, that could allow discretion while preserving the framework for further discussion. Director Matson stated that staff does not recommend additional exceptions without undermining the intent of the proposal. She explained that increasing flexibility to 25 percent would expand allowable density beyond the intended 2-3 units per acre, effectively allowing densities closer to 1-3 units per acre. The 20 percent adjustment does not resolve cases where larger lots are required for septic systems, and staff emphasized concerns about expanding long-term reliance on septic systems. Page 6 of 8 She stated coordinated sewer infrastructure as the preferred solution but noted progress has been limited by funding constraints, despite coordination efforts with developers beginning in September 2025. Given current infrastructure and timing, staff stated that a coordinated sewer solution is not realistic in the near term and cautioned that allowing larger septic lots would likely undermine the City's ability to implement a future sewer system. Commissioner Crutchfield asked whether the City typically installs sewer trunk lines with connection costs passed on to developers or property owners. Staff confirmed this remains the City's practice and noted that connection costs can be significant. Director Matson explained that sewer connection fees are paid at the time of connection to cover system capacity, treatment, and maintenance, and are typically passed through as part of development or building permits. While costly, sewer connections provide long-term benefits by eliminating reliance on septic systems and supporting city infrastructure. Commissioner Lehrman asked whether developers would bear the cost of extending sewer trunk lines where infrastructure is not in place. Director Matson confirmed that developers would be responsible in those cases and noted that alternative funding tools, such as TIF, could potentially be explored for smaller developers. Staff also confirmed that the Health Department continues to regulate septic systems within the city. Chuck Rambo lives on Warnett Rd. between Road 64 and 68 in the citv of Pasco: Noted that Washington State has enforced strict septic system standards for decades, and that newer systems are highly regulated and less prone to failure. He stated that the proposed 20% lot size adjustment works for parcels larger than three acres but does not address smaller parcels, particularly those around 2.5 acres. He expressed concern that such parcels could become unbuildable and remain vacant, which can negatively affect surrounding neighborhoods. He suggested that a 25% adjustment, particularly for smaller parcels, could help address these situations. Chair Cochran closed the public hearing. Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment Motion: Commissioner Lehrman stated "I move that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2025-002, including proposal land use map amendment established the low -density residential Riverview designation 2-5 dwelling units per acre development. As shown in Exhibit 2 and the 2018 conference plan addendum shown as Exhibit 7." Commissioner Jones seconded, motion passed unanimously. Residential Density Amendment Motion: Commissioner Jones stated "I move to recommend that the City Council consider approval of the rezone replacing the R-S-20 zone with the R-15 Low Density Residential District, as shown in the zoning map revision (Exhibit 4), and approval of the associated zoning map, Comprehensive Plan, and text amendments identified in Exhibit 6. This includes revising PMC 21.20 to replace references to R-S-20 with R-15. " Commissioner Lehrman seconded Motions passed with a vote of 7 ayes to 1 opposed. Next Steps: This will go to the City Council for a workshop, then to a regular meeting. WORSHOP None OTHER BUSINESS Director Matson introduced the city's new Senior Planner Daniel Leavitt. Page 7 of 8 Informed the Commission that Framework has been contracted with the city to help with the municipal code changes. Stated that CED is still looking to fill vacancies for a Planner II, a Permit Tech and a Senior Plan Examiner. Let the Commission know of the status of the new online permit system that will be implemented in February. Commissioner Lehrman commented towards the end of the meeting, after motions are passed, show a graphic or flow chart of the upcoming steps in order for the motions to then become a code and that more graphics and pictures be included for a better understanding of residents. Director Matson agreed, stating both can be added to the PowerPoint presentation. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran stated with no other business, I recommend a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Jones made the motion to adjourn the meeting, it was seconded by Commissioner Lehrman, and the motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:18 pm. YouTube link to watch full meeting: h=s://youtu.be/8hu7LneA rE Re!�&ctfully submitted, Carmen Patrick, Administrative Assistant II Community & Economic Development Department Page 8 of 8