The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015.10.12 Council Workshop PacketPage 3-7 8-11 12- 15 16-29 Workshop Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. ROLL CALL: AGENDA PASCO CITY COUNCIL 7:00 p.m. October 12, 2015 (a) Pledge of Allegiance 3. VERBAL REPORTS FROM COUNCILMEMBERS: 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: (a) Tourism Promotion Area (b) Senior Center Relocation Plan (c) National Citizen's Survey (d) Police Department Strategic Plan Presented by Bob Metzger, Chief of Police (e) Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards (MF# CA 2015-003) 5. MISCELLANEOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 7. ADJOURNMENT. REMINDERS: 1:00 p.m., Sunday, October 11, 2520 W. Court Street — Prestige Motors Grand Opening Ribbon Cutting Ceremony. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS) 11:45 a.m., Monday, October 12, Pasco Red Lion — Pasco Chamber of Commerce Membership Luncheon. 6:00 p.m., Monday, October 12, Conference Room #1 — Old Fire Pension Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER REBECCA FRANCIK, Rep.; SAUL MARTINEZ, Alt.) Page 1 of 29 Workshop Meeting October 12, 2015 3:30 p.m., Thursday, October 15, FCEM Office — Franklin County Emergency Management Board Meeting. (MAYOR MATT WATKINS, Rep.; COUNCILMEMBER TOM LARSEN, Alt.) 11:30 a.m., Friday, October 16 — Benton -Franklin Council of Governments Board Meeting. (COUNCILMEMBER AL YENNEY, Rep.; REBECCA FRANCIK, Alt.) This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at www.pasco-wa.2ov/psctvlive. Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact the Clerk for assistance. Page 2 of 29 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council September 30, 2015 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 10/12/15 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Tourism Promotion Area I. REFERENCE(S): 2016 Budget and Marketing Plan (Council packets only) 2016 Budget Summary TPA Reserve Account Request Letter dated October 5, 2015 2016 Special Project Expenditure II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Presentation by Kris Watkins, President and CEO, Tri -Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: The Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) was formed in late 2004 to generate and administer the proceeds of a "per room night assessment" on hotels/motels in the Tri - Cities, imposed by the hotels themselves. The interlocal agreement (between Pasco, Kennewick and Richland) that created the TPA requires the annual budget and expenditure from the reserve account for the TPA to be approved by the City Council. The Budget Summary for 2016 is attached. V. DISCUSSION: The TPA "assessment" is remitted by the hotels to the state which, in turn, distributes it to the city in which is was collected. The city is obligated to pass the funds to the TPA, for use in accordance with the approved budget. Page 3 of 29 The TPA Commission has voted unanimously to request the transfer of $20,000 from the reserve account to be used for a supplemental tourism related project during 2016. Council should approve the 2016 TPA Marketing Plan and Operating Budget and Special Project Expenditures or indicate changes necessary to gain approval. Page 4 of 29 Budget Summary Expenditures 2015 Proposed 2016 Revenues Budget Budget Kennewick $497,200 44% $517,000 44% Pasco $259,900 23% $270,250 23% Richland $372,900 33% $387,750 33% Total: $1,130,000 100% $1,175,000 100% Expenditures Group Markets $492,162 43.8% $521,498 44.4% City Wide Conventions Associations Corporate & Government SMERF (social, military, education, religious, fraternal) Sports Housing & Groups Services $58,700 5% $63,051 5.4% Tourism Development $280,475 25% $284,826 24.4% Administration $183,663 16% $190,625 16% (administrative staff, office supplies, rent, telephone postage, equipment maintenance, etc.) Opportunity Fund $90,000 8% $90,000 7.7% Accounting/Professional $22,000 2% $22,000 1.9% Capital Expenditures $3,000 .2% $3,000 .2% Tota I: $1,130,000 1 100% I $1,175,000 1 100% Visit TRI -CITIES P.O.ox 2241 Tri Cities, WA 99302-2241 ,r 509-735-8486 .,'„R1 � ,,,�„i£ 00-254-5824 Faxx 5 509-783-9005 www.VisitTRI-CITIES.com WASHINGTON info@VisitTRl-CITIES.com October 5, 2015 Ms. Dave Zabell City of Pasco P.O. Box 293 Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Mr. Zabell: Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present to the Pasco City Council on behalf of the Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission. The Commissioners would like to request the transfer of $20,000 from Tourism Promotion Area Reserve Account to be used for a supplemental tourism related project during 2016. We prepare the Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) budget in July of each year for the following calendar year. As is the case with most every budget process, there are always more worthy projects to be considered than funds to support them. We manage our resources carefully to ensure our expenses never exceed our projected income and we budget conservatively. As a result, there is currently $22,727 in funds available for reinvestment in tourism related projects. The funds available for project investment are in addition to the minimum reserve requirement of $300,000, the amount set based on the recommendation of the City Managers who participate in at Commission meetings as Ex-Officios. It is the Commission's position that once the reserve account reaches this level, that any additional funds should actively be used to promote the Tri -Cities as a destination; creating increased visitor spending in the community. The project under consideration accomplishes that goal. Given that the balance of the Tourism Promotion Area Reserve Account exceeds the acceptable level of $300,000; the Commissioners of the Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commission have voted in favor of re- investing the surplus revenues, in the amount of $20,000 that will help fund the development of a regional wayfinding plan. A summary of the project and the associated expenditure is attached for your review. Again, thank you for your consideration and support of the tourism industry. I am available for any questions or comments you may have. Sincerely, Kris Watkins President and CEO Page 6 of 29 Tourism Promotion Assessment Reserve Request Reserve Project Request: $20.000 Regional Wayfinding Study The Tri -City Regional Hotel -Motel Commissioners have unanimously approved a contribution of $20,000 from TPA reserves to assist in funding the development of a regional wayfinding plan that will include signs, gateways and kiosks to link the communities of Kennewick, Pasco, Richland and West Richland. Reserve Balance Funds Available: $ 322,727 Minimum Reserve Balance Required: (As set by the Commissioners with advisement from the Ex-Officios) ($300,000) Available Funds for Investment as of July 1, 2015: $ 22,727 Wayfinding Support Reserve Request: $ 20.000 Revised Balance: $ 2,727 July 2015 Page 7 of 29 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 1, 2015 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 10/12/15 FROM: Rick Terway, Director Administrative & Community Services SUBJECT: Senior Center Relocation Plan I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Location Map Modular Relocation Costs II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: $160,500 If the expense budget for the Senior Center is maintained at its current level for 2016, an estimated savings of $60,000 will be realized in utility & maintenance costs affected through the sale of the current Senior Center building. The net cost for relocation would be $100,000. IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: On June 15, 2015, Council approved the Purchase & Sale Agreement with the Pasco School District for the Senior Center building at 1315 N. 7th Ave. The sale should be finalized in 2016. V. DISCUSSION: The plan for a new Community Center (2014-16 Council Goal) will take 1-2 years to complete. Senior Center staff and programs, including Meals on Wheels, that are housed in the current building will need to be moved to new a location(s) during this transition period. Page 8 of 29 Due to the requirements for accessibility to the population served, the new Community Center would not work as Meals on Wheels primary Pasco location. With this relocation plan, we can create a building in their service area that would be a 5 to 10+ year solution for the program. Meals on Wheels currently serves 30-40 meals a day to Pasco Seniors and, with current population trends, this number is expected to increase. Meals on Wheels also operates a meal program at the Housing Authority just north of City Hall which could be merged with the City program improving the Housing Authority's relationship with the community. The triple -wide modular building would move from its current location, east of the Police Building construction site, to the City owned lot directly across N. 1 st Ave. The building would be placed on a foundation and the interior remodeled to accommodate Meals on Wheels and Foot Care needs. Parking, sidewalks and landscaping would also be added. This would create a mid to long-term solution for the Meals on Wheels program, and an interim solution for the programs housed in the current Senior Center building including Foot care, China Painting, Woodcarving, Pinochle, Dominos, Senior Library and Senior Computer Lab. Page 9 of 29 I .n Id—P - Q �o Cu�Yen�n � � artdeT+ coo" _ ct rnAtr a 14 Modular Relocation Costs Mobilization Relocation of Modular Excavating Foundation Utility Connections (water, sewer and power to building) Landscaping (irrigation, sight screen on east side, turf and trees) Striping Parking lot at the location and 20' wide road through property Permits Meals on Wheels adjustments Total 10,000.00 20,000.00 5,000.00 17,000.00 12,500.00 20,000.00 1,000.00 30,000.00 5,000.00 C[i7[iI�I�][ili7 160,500.00 Page 11 of 29 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 7, 2015 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 10/12/15 FROM: Stan Strebel, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: National Citizen's Survey I. REFERENCE(S): II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: Proposed at $14,280 IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: As discussed in prior meetings, with the conduct of the National Citizen Survey, the Council may add up to three "policy" questions to the survey without additional cost. Each of the City's previous NCS efforts included policy questions. At the meeting of September 28, Council considered possible questions including four questions previously suggested in addition to a possible new question regarding the City's ban on marijuana. Staff has provided a draft of that question in addition to the questions prior reviewed. V. DISCUSSION: As the meeting of 9/28, the Mayor polled members on questions that were of interest to each. The resulting tally from the discussion was: * District -Based Voting: 5 * Public Records Requests: 3 * Safety Cameras: 2 * Marijuana: 2 * Recycling: 1 Questions for consideration: Page 12 of 29 Mariivana In 2012, Washington voters approved Initiative #502 which established a system to regulate, license and tax the production, processing and sale of marijuana. The State Attorney General has issued an opinion that individual jurisdictions may adopt land use regulations which effectively prohibit businesses or individuals from the production, processing or sale of marijuana and marijuana products. Marijuana possession and use, except for medical purposes, continues to be banned under federal law. Following an initial moratorium on marijuana in 2011, the City, in July 2014, imposed land use regulations which effectively prohibit the production, processing and sale of marijuana or marijuana products. Use and possession is not affected by the City's ban. Part of the reasoning of the City Council in its adoption of the ban included the fact that in the 2012 election, with 76% voter turnout, Pasco voters rejected Initiative 502 with 59% opposed to legalization and 41 % in support. Do you agree or disagree with the City's current regulations which ban marijuana production, processing or sale within the City? a) Strongly Agree b) Somewhat Agree c) Strongly Disagree d) Somewhat Disagree Recycling The City contracts with Basin Disposal Inc. (BDI) for solid waste collection and disposal services. BDI has indicated an ability to provide supplemental user rate estimates for implementing curbside recycling services for recyclable materials such as paper, aluminum, glass and plastics and/or for yard waste. Which form of recycling would you most prefer? a) Paper, aluminum, glass and plastics b) Yard waste c) Both d) None Safety Cameras Some of the most serious traffic accidents occur at signalized intersections, many of which involve red light violations. Some cities in the state and country have implemented safety cameras at high incident locations to discourage red light violators Page 13 of 29 through automatic ticketing for violations. A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration of seven cities found that while right-angle or "T-bone" type collisions were reduced by 25% with the deployment of red light cameras; the incidence of year- end collisions at such intersections was increased by 15%. Rear -end collisions however are generally less costly and result in fewer injuries than "T-bone" collisions. Do you support or oppose the City's consideration of safety cameras to increase red light compliance and safety at certain signalized intersections? a) Strongly support b) Somewhat support c) Somewhat oppose d) Strongly oppose District -Based Voting The legislative branch of the City operates with seven members serving on the City Council. Two members are elected "at large" by all voters and regardless of the candidates' place of residence within the City. Five members are elected on the basis of residence, with only residents within the district able to file to run for election and only voters residing within the district voting on district candidates at primary elections. According to current state law, all voters within the City may vote on district candidates at the general election. While some favor the current system because, while it ensures geographical representation on the City Council, it suggests that members of the Council must look to city-wide interests and needs. Others favor a change to "district -based" voting for the general election where only district residents vote for City Council candidates at the general election, in order to assure that elected Councilmembers represent the voters from within the district. Do you favor: a) The current system of voting (City-wide in the general election) b) District -based voting (allowing votes of only district residents in the general election) Public Records Requests The State Public Records Act provides that units of state and local government must be responsive to citizen requests to view or obtain copies of public documents. While most requests are specific in nature and limited in scope, some requestors have used the system to make burdensome or harassing requests for huge volumes of non-specific documents — resulting in significant public costs for responding to such requests. To what extent do you agree that public records requestors, if making frequent, large volume requests, should be required to pay a proportionate share of the costs of making such requests? a) Strongly Agree b) Somewhat Agree c) Somewhat Disagree Page 14 of 29 d) Strongly Disagree Staff appreciates Council's discussion and direction on this matter. Page 15 of 29 AGENDA REPORT FOR: City Council October 5, 2015 TO: Dave Zabell, City Manager Workshop Meeting: 10/12/15 Rick White, Director Community & Economic Development FROM: Jeff Adams, Associate Planner Community & Economic Development SUBJECT: Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards (MF# CA 2015-003) I. REFERENCE(S): Proposed Ordinance Planning Commission Minutes Dated: 5/21/2015, 6/18/2015 and 9/17/2015 II. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL / STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Discussion III. FISCAL IMPACT: None IV. HISTORY AND FACTS BRIEF: At the April 16, 2015 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission reviewed photos of a stark building recently constructed on Sylvester Street which dramatically contrasts with the adjacent bank and surrounding neighborhood. While this kind of construction does not conform to the character of the surrounding neighborhood, it is permitted under the current code. The Planning Commission held workshops on May 21 and June 18, 2015 to consider changes to the code regarding design standards for commercial corridors. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 17, 2015 where the Commission recommended the City Council adopt the arterial corridors commercial design standards. Prior to the public hearing, Staff provided public notice directly to owners of properties within the areas impacted by the proposed regulations. Page 16 of 29 V. DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance includes the following guidelines for arterial corridors commercial design standards: 1. The proposed standards apply only to new construction and only when the value of that new construction meets or exceeds 50% of the assessed value of the improvements on a given parcel. 2. The proposed standards apply only to Office ("O") and Retail Commercial (C-1) Zoning districts. 3. The proposed standards apply only to the street -facing facades for properties that are not adjoining residential properties and also to the sides and rear for properties that adjoin residential properties. 4. The proposed standards require certain baseline items as "Mandatory" and a second tier of items where the property owner could choose suggested standards at their discretion. Staff would benefit from Council discussion and direction on this issue. Page 17 of 29 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING PMC CHAPTER 25.59 DEALING WITH COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS DESIGN STANDARDS ON SELECT PARCELS IN THE "O" AND C-1 ZONING DISTRICTS. WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control physical development within their borders and to ensure public health, safety and welfare are maintained; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pasco has zoning regulations that encourage orderly growth and development of the City; and, WHEREAS, on September 17, 2015 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider creating design standards for properties along major corridors in the Office ("O") and Retail Commercial (C-1) Zoning Districts; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that to further the purposes of maintaining a quality community, it is necessary to amend PMC Title 25; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That PMC Chapter 25.59 be added as follows: CHAPTER 25.59 COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS DESIGN STANDARDS Sections: 25.59.010 PURPOSE.................................................................................................1 25.59.020 APPLICABILITY.....................................................................................2 25.59.030 USE IN COMBINATION........................................................................2 25.59.040 PLAN REQUIRED...................................................................................3 25.59.050 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL..............................................................3 25.59.060 DESIGN STANDARDS...........................................................................3 25.59.140 RELIEF.....................................................................................................4 25.59.150 PENALTY AND ENFORCEMENT........................................................5 25.59.160 ADDITIONAL PENALTY-LIEN............................................................5 25.59.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of the Commercial Corridors Design Standards is to provide additional development regulations to create aesthetically attractive buildings and commercial development along the commercial corridors of the City. 1.59.20 APPLICABILITY. 1. The Development and Design Standards of this Overlay District will apply to all office ("O") and Retail Commercial Zoning districts (C-1) located along the street corridors, as listed below: a. "A" Street Page 18 of 29 b. Argent Road c. Columbia Street, between 1st Avenue and 10th Avenue d. Court Street e. Lewis Street £ Sylvester Street g. West Clark Street h. 3rd Avenue, north of "A" Street i. 4th Avenue, south of Highway 395 j. 5th Avenue, between "A" Street and Court Street k. 6th Avenue, between "A" Street and Court Street 1. 10th Avenue in. 14th Avenue n. 20th Avenue o. Road 28 p. Road 36 2. The Design Standards shall apply to all new commercial development and all remodels or expansions where the cumulative cost of remodeling and/or expansion within the last 5 years is equal to or exceeds 50% of the current assessed value of the structure as determined by the City's building official. 25.59.030 USE IN COMBINATION. This chapter shall be used in addition to and in combination with the districts identified in Section 25.59.020 and development regulations contained in this Title as they apply to the lands described in Section 25.59.020. The requirements of this chapter shall take precedence over any requirements of the underlying district regulations. 25.59.040 PLAN REQUIRED. Prior to issuance of building permits, one full set of building elevations shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review for consistency with the provisions of this chapter. The elevations must be drawn to scale. 25.59.050 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. Upon receipt of a completed building permit application the elevations shall be forwarded to the Planning Office for review and approval. 25.59.060 DESIGN STANDARDS. The following design standards shall apply to all buildings in the Commercial Corridors Overlay District. 1) Mandatory standards: a) Solid blank facades must be avoided on the front or street facing sides of the building. They must be treated with windows, entrances, canopies, cornices, and by articulating the fagade and/or screening with landscaping. b) Screening of Electrical and Mechanical Equipment i) Rooftop electrical and mechanical equipment shall be obscured from view (i.e. by use of an architecturally integrated screen or parapet). Page 19 of 29 ii) Mechanical equipment when placed on the ground shall be obscured from view by use of an architecturally integrated screen. iii) Wall -mounted electrical and mechanical equipment shall be located on the less visible side of the building and obscured from public view. c) Rear of Building i) Rear of the building and service areas must not be located facing a public street, as identified in 25.59.020. In cases where there are no other options, the service areas and rear located facing the street must be screened from public view with landscaping, grading and/or fencing. ii) Fencing shall be consistent with the building design. iii) On parcels abutting or across a public way from residential zones the sides and rear of the building adjacent or across a public way from residential zones shall be consistent with the street -facing fagade(s) of the building in terms of design style, building material and architectural themes. 2) In addition to mandatory building standards, buildings on parcels abutting residential zones shall incorporate on the abutting elevation(s) at least one of the optional standards listed below: a) Elevations more than 50 feet long shall be treated with the following: i) Change in the roof or wall plane (4 ft. minimum) ii) Projecting or recessed elements iii) Varying rooflines (4 ft. minimum) b) Entrance to the building made visible and prominent by using large entry doors, porches, protruding, or recessed entrances. c) Light poles, signage and similar accessories which are coordinated so that the view and accessibility to the entrance are not obstructed. d) Windows which help create a visual connection between the indoor and outdoor environment in order to make businesses more attractive. e) Additional architectural features such as porches, canopies, and display windows. 25.59.140 RELIEF. Where relief is sought from the provisions of this chapter, application shall be made in the form of a letter explaining the relief sought and the reasons therefore, accompanied by a scaled site plan and a $100.00 dollar fee. The complete application shall be filed with the Economic & Community Development Director. Within fifteen working days from the date of receipt of a complete application, the Economic & Community Development Director shall issue a written decision to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the request for relief. Any decision of the Economic & Community Development Director may be appealed to the City Council if written notice of appeal, which shall include all and exclusive reasons for said appeal, is filed with the Economic & Community Development Director within ten working days from the date of the decision. In the event a written decision is not issued by the Economic & Community Development Director within the required time period, the application for relief shall automatically constitute a qualified and properly filed notice of appeal and shall be Page 20 of 29 considered by the City Council in accordance with this section. The City Council, within thirty calendar days from the date of filing of the appeal, shall consider the appeal 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 Economic & Community Development Director and the reasons therefore. The City Council may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Economic & Community Development Director. 25.59.150 PENALTY AND ENFORCEMENT Enforcement of the provisions of this Title will occur through the use of the Code Enforcement Board procedures contained in Title 11. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after passage and publication as required by law. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, at its regular meeting of October 2015. Matt Watkins Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Debra L. Clark, City Clerk Leland B. Kerr, City Attorney Page 21 of 29 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 5/21/2015 A. Code Amendment Arterial Corridor Commercial Design Standards (MF# CA 2015-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the code amendment for arterial corridor commercial design standards. During the April meeting the Planning Commission discussed possible design standards outside of the I-182 Corridor. The City has design standards for the north and west sections of Pasco, however, nowhere in other commercial corridors in the City. Design standards would be a positive advantage for development within the City and Staff would like direction as to whether the I-182 Corridor standards should be extended or if new standards should be developed. Commissioner Bowers asked what Staff recommends. Mr. White responded that they don't particularly have a recommendation but would prefer to develop unique design standards for other parts of town, different from the I-182 Corridor standards. Chairman Cruz responded that he is in favor of seeing specific standards and perhaps pick targeted areas to start with. It would be difficult to use the I-182 Corridor standards everywhere else. Commissioner Bowers asked why there haven't been design standards set before. Mr. White answered that it was easier and more feasible to apply the standards as the community developed from the ground up, as opposed to going back on additions and remodels in established areas of town. Commissioner Bowers asked how much it would cost to make the new design standards. Mr. White responded that it is just staff time. As for cost to the recipients of the new regulations, until he knows what the standards are he could not answer. Commissioner Mendez asked if this would apply to the downtown area that has different design standards. Mr. White answered that those questions will be brought back to the Commission at a future meeting, such as if it applies to a building should a remodel occur or an addition. Chairman Cruz added that typically when there is a remodel to 50% or more of the structure then the new design standards would have to apply but the Planning Commission could make specific conditions for specific areas in the City as long as there is consistency. -1- Page 22 of 29 Commissioner Portugal asked what option staff is recommending. Mr. White responded that option three is what staff recommends. Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification on the costs. Mr. White responded that it will not be costly for staff time. Commissioner Bowers suggested a map be supplied to make it easier to see the areas proposed for code amendments. Mr. White responded that there are many options depending on the areas that the Planning Commission would like to review. Visuals will be brought to the Planning Commission at a later meeting. Chairman Cruz added that when it comes back to the Commission there will likely be options with arterial and non -arterial streets and existing versus new development but as of now there are only design standards for the I-182 Corridor. There were no further comments. -2- Page 23 of 29 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 6/18/2015 A. Code Amendment Arterial Corridor Commercial Design Standards (MF# CA 2015-003) Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the proposed code amendment of arterial corridor commercial design standards. During the last discussion on this item, the Planning Commission posed some questions that staff has tried to answer in the first part of the staff report. Mr. White asked for feedback from the Planning Commission on the following questions: (1) Should the new standards apply only to new buildings and if so, is 50% the correct threshold? Chairman Cruz responded that in the past, 50% has been the threshold and he is in support of that number. The Commissioners were all in agreement. (2) If the standards apply to all buildings - what is the threshold (percentage of a remodel or addition) for triggering compliance with the new standards? Mr. White stated that question was already answered. (3) Will the standards apply to all zoning districts? Mr. White stated that staff is looking at areas outside of the I-182 Corridor. Many of Pasco's Commercial District's east of Highway 395 are not meant for retail sales but for very heavy commercial and/or industrial types of uses. Staff recommends the design standards would only apply to the Office "O" Zone and the Retail Business "C-1" Zone and only along specific corridors. Chairman Cruz asked the Commissioners if they wished to push the applicability beyond office or retail. Commissioner Khan asked for clarification on C-2 Zoning. Mr. White answered that C-2 is Downtown. C-1 is the zoning typically along Court Street or Road 68. Commissioner Bachart asked what the zoning was for the building that triggered the need for this code amendment. Mr. White responded that it was zoned C-1. Commissioner Bowers asked for examples that didn't follow design standards of what isn't desired in a C-1 Zone. -1- Page 24 of 29 Mr. White couldn't think of another example other than the building directly west of the Gesa Credit Union on Sylvester Street. Chairman Cruz added that the goal is to uphold consistent curb appeal without overly impugning property owners. Commissioner Polk stated that the reason the particular building in question seems so out of place is because it doesn't match the surrounding buildings and character of the neighborhood, so she wouldn't mind language in the code addressing the style and character of the existing neighborhood. Chairman Cruz responded it gets touchy. The Planning Commission should address areas because for example, Lowe's doesn't have to match Walmart but they both have to be presentable. Mr. White added that in further discussion, Commissioner Polk's concern might get addressed. (4) Should the standards apply to only certain street corridors? Mr. White reminded the Commissioners that it would only pertain to the "O" and "C-1" Zones in these corridors. The staff report contained a list of suggested corridors. Commissioner Bowers stated that there should be caution in terms of "standards" because different communities have different ideas as to what works for them and what is attractive and the City should be as inclusive as possible. Chairman Cruz responded that the staff report addresses those issues. It isn't about making every building look the same, but rather, eliminating huge blighted buildings that don't fit the neighborhood. Commissioner Polk said that was her earlier point in that the building in question didn't remotely match the character of the neighborhood. She would like the building to match the neighborhood but not a specific design. Commissioner Mendez asked about the Downtown Area. Mr. White clarified that the Downtown Area is zoned C-2 and is common -wall construction so the same concerns won't apply. There are some C-1 stand-alone buildings along those streets. Mr. White asked if the standards were imposed, would they only apply to the part of the building or fagade facing the street or would they apply to the sides as well as the street and in some cases, the rear. Staff would recommend the Commissioners only consider the street facing facades for properties that are not adjoining residential properties but that the sides and rear be addresses for properties that do adjoin residential properties. Chairman Cruz agreed with the staff recommendation and the Commissioners were in -2- Page 25 of 29 agreement. Mr. White added that staff would like to require certain baseline items as "Mandatory" and creating a second tier of items where the property owner could choose suggested standards at their discretion, such as: massing and architectural features, prominent entrance, facade transparency, corner treatments, rear of building and screening of electrical and mechanical equipment. Chairman Cruz stated that he would be fine with "faux" features, such as fake windows, for certain structures due to security reasons, etc. Commissioner Polk asked if the pump house structure that went before the Planning Commission a while back had fake windows. David McDonald, City Planner, responded that the pump station mainly had brick and a pitched roof and some landscaping. Mr. White responded that what staff is looking for is an approach that establishes the minimum baseline and allows a menu of options to choose for enhancing the baseline or not. Chairman Cruz replied that to Commissioner Bower's previous concerns of design standards, this would offer a lot of flexibility to the property owners. Variety is good, this is just to prevent an eye sore. These standards will help keep the character of the neighborhood yet meet the functional requirements for the property owner. Commissioner Bowers stated that she would like to see an example of the "faux" windows. Mr. McDonald responded that a good example is on the Lowe's building on Road 68. Commissioner Khan asked why Sandifur, Burden and Road 68 weren't listed and if it was because there were already rules that apply to those areas. Chairman Cruz stated those areas fall within the I-182 Overlay District. Commissioner Bowers asked what the process is going to be moving forward. Chairman Cruz answered that staff will draft a final proposed code amendment and bring it back to the Planning Commission where a recommendation will be made to City Council. Commissioner Khan discussed using this as an opportunity to define neighborhoods by a set of characteristics rather than a base, such as how the Downtown has a theme and that theme is matched with facades, roofing and vegetation. Commissioner Polk responded that the Downtown Area is her neighborhood and she hopes that the proposed code amendment will protect her neighborhood from industrial looking buildings. -3- Page 26 of 29 Commissioner Bowers asked if there would be an opportunity for public comment. Mr. White answered that when a more finished draft of the code amendment is ready a public hearing will be held for public comment. Chairman Cruz suggested examples for the next time it is brought back to the Planning Commission. In terms of defining neighborhoods, that would be nice but a little difficult, especially retroactively. Typically those would have to be enforced with restrictive covenants which are either a boost or barrier to people developing. Mr. White responded that the notion of having a menu might allow for what Commissioner Khan was talking about to happen on its own. There was no further discussion. -4- Page 27 of 29 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 9/17/2015 F. Code Amendment Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards (MF# CA 2015-003) Chairwoman Polk read the master file number and asked for comments from staff. Jeff Adams, Associate Planner, discussed the proposed code amendment to arterial corridors and commercial design standards. This item has come before the Planning Commission several times for input. A public notice was sent to owners of commercial properties in question and on the back of the notice was the area map. The modified language is that on parcels abutting or across a public way from residential zones, the sides and rear of the building adjacent or across the public way from residential zones shall be consistent with the street facing facades of the building in terms of design, style, building materials and architectural themes. This goes along with a recommendation in the memo to the Planning Commission stating that the proposed standards should apply only to the street -facing facades for the properties that are not adjoining residential properties and the sides and rear for properties that adjoin residential properties. All other conditions are listed in the staff memo and proposed ordinance. Dave McDonald, City Planner, stated for the benefit of the audience in attendance the reason behind this code amendment. Late last year or early this year a building permit was issued for a building on Sylvester Street. It has been completed and after it was built there were questions raised as to how the City permitted a building that looks as it does. As a result, the Staff and Planning Commission were charged with looking at the zoning code to see if there could be some small changes made to ensure that buildings built within the main corridors along the arterial streets had some standards and appearance so they don't stand out or look unattractive. This would be much like what has been done in the I-182 Corridor. It would require any new building in the proposed area to meet the new standards. Commissioner Khan requested clarification for the "Applicability" in the proposed ordinance that states, "The Design Standards shall apply to all new commercial development and all remodels or expansions where the cumulative cost of remodeling and/or expansion within the last 5 years..." Mr. Adams responded that the "last 5 years" was put in to prevent someone from approaching the threshold with one building permit and then with upgrades later build more upgrades reaching the threshold but bypass the standards. This would create a timeline for these standards to apply. Ford Lane, 2709 W. Sylvester Street, asked for clarification on the proposed changes and how they would affect his mother's home that is on a commercially zoned lot. Mr. Adams replied that the proposed code amendment would not apply to him as long as the property is a home. George Galloway, 221205 E. Bryson Brown, Kennewick, spoke on behalf of Gesa Credit Union. He explained that they built the building that set off the code amendment. The -1- Page 28 of 29 changes will be substantial. He stated that they did their best with the current building to make it look nice and there is a nice visual barrier to block from the neighboring properties and planted landscaping. He wanted to make sure that any substantial improvements down the road won't be affected by this code amendment. Alex Emig, 4902 S. Everett Court, asked for clarification on architectural features pertaining to this code amendment. Mr. Adams referenced PMC 25.59.060 as contained in the staff report that included mandatory standards, electrical and mechanical standards and rear of building standards. Commissioner Bowers added that at a prior meeting it was mentioned that in a previous meeting the Lowe's store was a good example to meeting the design standards as they have faux windows to make the exterior look nicer and not like a box. Commissioner Greenaway asked for clarification for Mr. Galloway of Gesa. Mr. McDonald answered that if they go in just to do electrical work that is handled by L&I so the City wouldn't be involved. If they remodel structurally or create offices or flooring, building new walls, add bathrooms and it meets the 50% threshold then they would have to bring the building to the new standards. If they add generators they will likely have to get a pad from the City but that isn't considered new construction. With no further questions or comments the public hearing closed. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, the Planning Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the September 17, 2015 staff memo on Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt the proposed code amendments for Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards as attached to the September 17, 2015 staff memo to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. -2- Page 29 of 29