HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-20-2021 Planning Commission Meeting Packet
AGENDA
Planning Commission
6:30 PM - Thursday, May 20, 2021
City Council Chambers
Page
1. REMOTE MEETING INSTRUCTIONS - Governor Inslee's Heathy
Washington - Roadmap to Recovery, Phase 2 made in response to the
COVID-19 emergency, currently allows for partial "in -person" meetings.
Members of the public wishing to attend Planning Commission meetings in -
person will need to follow the Governor's protocol outlined in Proclamation
No. 20-28.14.
Individuals, who would like to provide public comment remotely, may continue
to do so by filling out the online form via the City’s website (www.pasco-
wa.gov/publiccomment) to obtain access information to comment. Requests
to comment in meetings must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of each
meeting.
2. CALL TO ORDER
3. ROLL CALL
4. WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3 - 7 (a)
6. OLD BUSINESS
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. WORKSHOP
8 - 13 (a) Code Amendment- Accessory Dwelling Units (HB 1923)
(MF# CA2020-003)
Page 1 of 22
14 - 22 (b) Code Amendment- Car Washes in C-3 Zoning Districts within 300
Ft of Residential Zoning Districts (MF# CA2021-007)
9. OTHER BUSINESS
10. ADJOURNMENT
11. ADDITIONAL NOTES
(a) Meetings are broadcast live on PSC-TV Channel 191 on
Charter/Spectrum Cable in Pasco and Richland and streamed at
www.pasco-wa.gov/psctvlive and on the City’s Facebook page at
www.facebook.com/cityofPasco.
(b) Please Silence Your Cell Phones.
Page 2 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
City Hall - Council Chambers
525 North Third Avenue
Pasco, Washington
THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2021
6:30 PM
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 April 15, 2021
CALL TO ORDER
City of Pasco Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., by Chair Tanya Bowers. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Tanya Bowers, Jay Hendler Telephone: Jerry Cochran, Paul Mendez, Kim Lehrman, Abel Campos and Isaac Myhrum, , a quorum was declared. Commissioners Absent: Joe Campos and Rachel Teel Staff Present: Community & Economic Development Director Rick White, Senior Planner Jacob Gonzalez, Administrative Assistant II Kristin Webb. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Tanya Bowers led the Pledge of Allegiance.
WELCOME AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Bowers explained the Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers
appointed by City Council.
She 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 Bowers 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.
She 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 Bowers stated copies of the meeting agenda were available on the back table.
She 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 Bowers 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.
She asked if there were any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time
regarding any of the items on the agenda.
Page 3 of 22
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 April 15, 2021
There were no declarations.
Chair Bowers asked if anyone in the audience objected to any Planning Commission member hearing
any of the items on the agenda.
There were no declarations.
Chair Bowers 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.
She encouraged those present to take full advantage of this opportunity.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Hendler moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting Minutes of
March 18, 2021. Commissioner Lehrman seconded and the motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
Code Amendment- House Bill 1923- Duplex, Triplex, and Courtyard Apartments
(MF# CA2021-001)- Jacob Gonzalez stated the public hearing was closed at the March 2021 Planning
Commission meeting, a few slides summarizing some of the information we've shared with in the past
regarding the intent of House Bill 1923 in the authorization by the state legislature in 2018. Pasco's award
from the Department of Commerce for the grant funding program, a part of the House bill 1923 and again,
action one. Tonight's item which staff is recommending to the Planning Commission for approval. It is likely,
I think, summarize the intent of this effort here. It's likely, based on our analysis and forecasting, that
without changes to the municipal code specifically title 25 we will not meet the intended target within our
anticipated urban growth area. Staff would like to also emphasize that tonight's proposal are not
requirements. Rather, they offer an array of options to property owners, developers, real estate
stakeholders and those in need of more housing with an array of options available to them. So this is simply
an optional effort, an option for folks here.
Commissioner Campos stated I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco
City Council the proposed amendment to the Pasco Municipal Code addressing affordable
housing and increasing residential building capacities as contained in the April 15, 2021
Planning Commission staff report. Commissioner Campos seconded the motion and
motion carried.
Code Amendment- Lots without Public Street Frontage- (MF# CA2021-005) – Jacob Gonzales
stated members of the planning commission again the proposal, that staff would update and refine the
existing regulations necessary to comply with city council goals, comprehensive plan growth management
strategies and alignment with existing regulations. On the next slide, you'll see a breakdown of the key
changes. They include pavement, pavement with increase removal of the RS-20 zoning districts to comply
with growth management strategies, direct reference to the design and construction standards and
specifications, and clarify the applicable application requirements on the next slide. We have examples that
were shown at the March meeting and we were able to obtain some photos of the two existing or in
Page 4 of 22
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 April 15, 2021
developing lots without public frontage sites here in the city of Pasco.
So this is the Habitat Cedar Project, located just south of East Lewis Street. And you can see that there is a
home and you see the extended driveway. That's 20 foot frontage that's private, although it allows for
more units to be placed in the back. And on the next slide, you'll see an overview of the of what this looks
like. This is Joel's edition of Sylvester and Road 56, I believe, 18 lots. Without these public street frontage
these lot on public frontage, there would have been less lots buildable lots on this particular site here.
Just to clarify and refine the regulation as requested by council back during adoption. So outside of that, no
other information from staff.
Commissioner Myhrum stated I move the Planning Commission recommend to the Pasco
City Council the proposed amendments to the Lots without Public Street Frontage
ordinance as contained in the April 15, 2021 Planning Commission staff report.
Commissioner Mendez seconded the motion and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Code Amendment- Mini Storage in C-1; CR Zoning Districts (MF# CA2021-003)- Rick White
stated as you mentioned this is a continuation of the public hearing that started actually two months
ago. I can dispense with the preamble, but it might be best if we can turn to the second page of the staff
report and focus perhaps on the summary of the last conversation, the bulleted items that staffs take on
the high points of the discussion that occurred last month. And the last paragraph underneath those bullets
talks about the conclusions that the majority of the commission expressed feelings about not utilizing our
commercial, at least our retail commercial spaces for the mini storage kinds of uses that we've been
discussing and then following that conclusion, the motion for a recommendation to City Council to adopt
the attached proposed code amendment to disallowing mini-storage uses in C-1 and CR zoning districts, as
contained in the April 15, 2021 Planning Commission staff report.
Commissioner Campos stated it seems like disallowing, but it will allow a special permit in certain
circumstances. Ok, so we’re completely elimination in these two zones. Commissioner Myhrum stated
I think in a previous meeting I was open to considering some of the alternative approaches, such as site
screening and building barriers. But I agree with these conclusions that preserving retail space, particularly
in those keys, is a major priority. I would note on Broadmoor, you know, that there's been a lot of
discussion about some really big upcoming developments in that area. So I think it's just imprecise for me
over this last month, the importance of preserving that space. Commissioner Hendler stated I support what
you’re doing here and the intent of it, even and around residential areas, is not a good idea. So to the
extent that you can control and limit this use around these important uses is a great idea. We should, you
know, monitor that very carefully and make it not easy to do. There’s plenty of places to build.
Commissioner Myhrum stated I move the Planning Commission recommend the Pasco
City Council adopt the proposed code amendment disallowing mini-storage uses in C-1,
and CR zoning districts, as contained in the April 15, 2021 Planning Commission staff
report. Commissioner Hendler seconded the motion and motion carried.
Page 5 of 22
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 April 15, 2021
WORKSHOP
OTHER BUSINESS- Jacob Gonzalez staff just wants to provide the planning commissioner with a
general overview of several of the major planning efforts currently in progress or soon to begin by the
department. That includes the transportation system masterplan, the downtown Pasco master plan and
the housing needs assessment and study. Many of these are actually all of these are derived from council
goals and are important to the implementation of the comprehensive plan policies. So these are more
specific efforts aimed at addressing these three particular topics. And I’ve got a few slides that are excerpts
from a recent presentation to the Pasco City Council from our transportation system, master plan
consultant and associates. I don't believe we've actually shared this yet with the Planning Commission. So is
just in general overview of the scope of what the master plan is studying or is evaluating a series of existing
conditions, trends, targets, priorities based on our local visioning council goals, performance measures, et
cetera.
And that third box, you'll see, is going to be critically important to us. And that's our investment strategy,
our implementation of a variety of strategies that will come out of the master planning effort. And this is a
slide that you may have seen before in a prior amendment proposal by staff. And this shows the safety
issues and connectivity and congestion issues here in the city of Pasco. There's a pretty significant and
refined transportation modeling effort that's a part of this entire project. And it's evaluated some
significant challenges in various parts of the city that will be addressed in the final adoption of the plan. It
also includes some of the recommendations. This is one that you saw a few months ago, too, with
connectivity and spacing standards regarding how to and this actually comes into play with our
comprehensive plans of functional classification system to help the city better identify which streets and
roadways have specific classifications as required by the Ben Franklin Council of Governments and the
Washington State Department of Transportation.
And that comes into play when the city is out looking for grants or additional funding based on a particular
road classification. And I wanted to point this out because I know that many years ago, the city adopted, I
believe, the 2011 bicycle and pedestrian master plan. So this will take a look at our existing non-motorized
modes here in the city, and provide a few suggestions for different kinds of bicycle, not motorized
pathways. You can see the two examples along with the map showing the priority bicycle network. And the
implementation steps to improve variety of transportation, transportation components from the city of
Pasco, specifically on safety and accessibility, steps to try to make an improved effort at addressing those
challenges at the review level and also will look for to implementation of the master plan upon adoption by
the Pasco City Council later this summer. So this has been about a year and a half to two years in the
making. We've got significant of this already completed, I would say close to seven years.
Seventy five percent. There's also been significant public outreach that occurred last spring and early
summer. I believe there was over 600 specific comments on the initial draft plan. And within the next week
or so, staff hopes to have the actual documents and chapters of the plan online, where the public will be
able to provide additional comments on the actual plan itself. So we're looking forward to putting that up
online and then sharing the results with what the Planning Commission and city council. So next is one with
a lot of attention and activity, and this would be a downtown Pasco masterplan. There's quite a bit of
infrastructure and funding allocated towards the downtown area. The scope of this plan was issued that
the proposal was issued earlier this month. We expect to have a selection early this spring. And there is a
scope. You can see the bulleted items there with identifying a variety of components that staff based on
Page 6 of 22
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 April 15, 2021
council and public input believes would be important to developing a downtown Pasco master plan of
looking at everything from the transportation network. Significant public involvement and engagement will
be a component of this. The built environment and urban design standards, including signage which has
been brought up before. And also, I think something that would be important to us is looking at the market
feasibility and the analysis that goes into looking at incentives to bring more growth downtown. So we'll be
looking forward to this. It's still very early on in this process as the RFP is still out and we'll provide planning
commission with updates throughout this process.
And the next is the housing needs assessment. So this really is going to take what was just adopted or
recommended for approval by the planning commission and take it a step further by looking at how was
the city of Pasco can address the housing shortages here locally in the city. You can see that the
tremendous growth rate, along with the lack of housing today. We expect to do a more refined, basically a
continuation of what we've done with the House bill 1923 effort. All the data is already being collected and
aggregated. So that allows whoever selected for this particular item to dig a little bit deeper into the
market and feasibility aspect of what kind of housing is needed here in the city of Pasco for the community
members that live and work here today and also those here in the future. So we're looking at a significant
plan out of this as well. Again, this group has not yet been released, but we expect to have that by the end
of the month and then begin soon after later this spring, early summer.
7:16 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kristin Webb, Administrative Assistant II
Community & Economic Development Department
Page 7 of 22
MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue – Council Chambers
DATE: THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2021
6:30 PM
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jacob B. Gonzalez, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CA2020-003 –Accessory Dwelling Units (HB 1923)
Background
The City of Pasco, along with 51 other communities received funding from the Washington State
Department of Commerce to address housing affordability and supply in their communities. The
funding was made available through the passage of House Bill 1923, approved by the Washington
State Legislature during the 2018-2019 session.
The purpose of this staff report is to provide information on proposed Action #3 which would
allow attached and detached accessory dwelling units in Pasco.
• Authorize attached and detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on all parcels
containing single-family homes
With the rising cost of housing becoming more of a local challenge for residents, the City of Pasco
is exploring potential revisions to the Pasco Municipal Code to comply with House Bill 1923.
Across the United States, communities are experiencing challenges in building the housing they
need to maintain affordability and accommodate future growth. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs),
or separate small dwellings are an effective solution due to their low cost and immediate
feasibility
What Are Accessory Dwelling Units?
An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a small, self-contained residential unit located on the same
lot as an existing single-family home. An ADU provides all of the same basic functions and facilities
as typical homes necessary for daily living, but are independent of the main home. ADUs are
generally defined to be smaller in size and prominence than the main residence and are
historically embedded in many low density single-family neighborhoods across the county.
The Pasco Municipal Code (PMC 25.15.030) defines accessory dwelling units as a second and
subordinate dwelling unit added to or created within a single-family dwelling that provides basic
requirements for living, sleeping, cooking and sanitation. Pasco last updated its regulations on
accessory dwellings in 1999 (Ordinance No 3354) as part of larger update to the Zoning title.
ADU Quick Facts:
• An ADU is a small residence that shares a single-family lot with a larger, primary dwelling
Page 8 of 22
2
• As an independent living space, an ADU is self-contained, with its own kitchen or kitchenette,
bathroom and sleeping area
• An ADU can be located within, attached to or detached from the main residence
• An ADU can be converted from an existing structure (such as a garage) or built anew
• ADUs can be found in cities, in suburbs and in rural areas, yet are often invisible from view
because they’re positioned behind or are indistinct from the main house
• An ADU can provide rental income to homeowners and an affordable way for renters to live
in single-family neighborhoods
• An ADU can enable family members to live on the same property while having their
own living spaces — or provide housing for a hired caregiver
• ADUs are compact and provide a more practical option for individuals, couples and families
seeking small, affordable housing
• For homeowners looking to downsize, an ADU can be a more appealing option than moving
into an apartment or, if older, an age-restricted community ADUs can help older residents
remain in their community and “age in place”
Common ADU Descriptions and Examples:
Discussions on accessory dwellings often become challenging due to the variety of names,
options and designs they are given or known by. The list below is meant to provide references to
the most used names given to accessory dwellings:
• Accessory apartment / suite
• Ancillary unit
• Backyard cottage
• Garden suite / cottage
• Granny flat
• Mother in law / unit
• Multi-generational home
• Secondary suite / unit
Pasco Municipal Code and House Bill 1923 Compliance
At the December 2020 Planning Commission meeting, staff provided a comparison between the
Pasco Municipal Code and the requirements of House Bill 1923. Staff was notified by Washington
State Department of Commerce that through House Bill 2343 (enacted July 2020), additional
flexibility has been provided to jurisdictions.
A table is provided below to demonstrate key differences:
Regulation Pasco House Bill 1923 House Bill 2343
Detached ADUS Not permitted Must be allowed Optional
Page 9 of 22
3
Off-Street Parking Required Not allowed Optional
Owner-Occupancy
Requirement
Required (at least 8 months) Not allowed Optional
Size 800 sqft 1,000 sqft Optional
The difference between HB 1923 and HB 2343 is that the latter allows jurisdictions to select at
least one of the regulations whereas the original legislation (HB 1923) required jurisdictions to
select all.
Background on Regulations
The following section is meant to provide the Planning Commission with the regulations to
evaluate as part of the accessory dwelling unit conversation. The following also addresses what
are likely the biggest obstacles to ADU developments. Burdensome regulations will weaken
practicability of ADU production even when the zoning code allows for them.
Attached, Detached and Interior
Depending on their location relative to the primary dwelling unit, ADUs can be classified into
three categories: interior, attached, and detached. Interior ADUs are located within the primary
dwelling, and are typically built through conversion of existing space, such as an attic or
basement.
Attached ADUs are living spaces that are added on to the primary dwelling. The additional unit
can be located to the side or rear of the primary structure but can also be constructed on top of
an attached garage.
Detached ADUs are structurally separate from the primary dwelling. They can be constructed
over existing accessory structures, such as a detached garage, or they can be built as units that
are separate from accessory and residential structures.
Currently, the Pasco Municipal Code restricts the construction of detached accessory dwellings.
Figure 1 depicts examples of each type of ADU type:
Figure 1 AARP "The ABCs of ADUs"
Page 10 of 22
4
Some cities have limited ADUs to attached units to reduce the perceived visual impact and
“character” of neighborhoods. When made a part of the main house an attached unit is kept as
a subordinate use and does not give the impression of two separate houses on a single-family
lot.
Detached units are less frequently allowed in zoning codes and are generally more expensive to
build than an attached unit. While they are more visible as detached units, where they are
permitted, they are usually required to be in the rear yard area to minimize the visual impact of
two separate residences. In many cases, a detached residence may provide a better living
arrangement for those who want an ADU but who do not wish to have someone else living in the
same physical structure. Even on relatively small lots, a unit may be successfully installed in a
previously existing detached garage or similar structure.
Staff suggestion: Allow one detached accessory dwelling on all lots if lot coverage and
set back regulations of the underlying zoning district can be achieved.
Parking Requirements
The potential for parking problems generated by the installation of ADUs can raise concerns from
nearby and adjacent residents. Many communities have addressed this issue by requiring a
certain number of off-street parking spaces for homes with ADUs. The City of Pasco requires one
off-street parking spaces per accessory dwelling (PMC 25.185.170). Provisions of House Bill 1923
require that cities do not place minimum off-street parking requirements, whereas through
House Bill 2343, that is not an optional regulation to adopt.
Nationally, ADU households typically own fewer vehicles and have lower household sizes. Almost
30% (29.6%) of occupied housing units in Pasco have one or less vehicles. Requiring the same
amount of off-street parking can deter or severely limit construction of ADUs due to the cost and
space required.
Staff suggestion: Keep off-street parking requirements to one space per ADU.
Identify if additional circumstances exist for additional reductions or considerations
for off-street parking. This could be whether an accessory dwelling is part of the
primary residency (AADU), is within proximity to public transit or if tandem parking
can be utilized on single-family and two-family dwellings per PMC 25.185.070(4).
Owner-Occupancy Requirements
As noted in the staff report, the City of Pasco currently requires all accessory dwelling units to be
limited to owner-occupied, for at least eight months of the year. Staff research into this specific
regulation did not yield any reasoning, justification, concern or otherwise for its in inclusion. The
owner occupancy requirement reduces the flexibility of future uses of the property, which may
also likely be a discouragement to development.
Page 11 of 22
5
Regionally (Kennewick-Pasco-Richland Urbanized Area), 24% of all occupied housing units are
one-person households. In Pasco, 30% of all households are renter occupied homes, compared
with 32% regionally.
Limiting the construction and permitting of ADUs to owner-occupancy restricts the availability of
housing available for our rapidly growing community, it also limits the financial incentives for
existing homeowners who may benefit from renting an ADU on their lot.
Removing the owner occupancy restriction will eliminate a barrier that is limiting one of the
largest proportions of likely ADU hosts who most likely have the financial means and skills to
construct ADUs (homeowners). Owner-occupancy requirements are not a requirement of any
existing residential zone.
Staff suggestion: Eliminate owner-occupancy requirements
Size Regulations
The City of Pasco currently limits the size of accessory dwellings to 40% of the primary homes
total floor area, with a total maximum size of 800 sqft. Historically, size limitations may have been
prescribed to limit the number of occupants, density, or visual impact. Limiting the size of an ADU
based on a ratio between the primary home and the ADU should be small enough to keep ADUs
smaller than the primary unit, but not so small as to require a large house to establish a viable
ADU. Since house size and income are often related, a minimum home size requirement that is
too restrictive could eliminate some property owners who might benefit most from the
opportunity to install an ADU (70% of homes in Pasco are owner occupied).
Staff suggestion(s):
o The size of the detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 1,000 square
feet or 55% of the total square footage of the primary residence
Lot coverage regulations are still applicable to the size regulations of
an ADU
Additional Considerations
Many cities across the State of Washington have completed or are currently recommending
changes to their respective accessory dwelling regulations. Staff has reviewed these changes and
would like to ensure the Planning Commission has an overview of what has been proposed
elsewhere:
• Site Standards
o The City of Pasco prescribes residential design standards in PMC 25.165.100,
applicable to all newly or newly placed dwellings in any of our residential zoning
districts. Staff recommends additional site standards be put in place to ensure
compatibility within the residential lot itself. Examples of this can include the
following:
Page 12 of 22
6
Placement of the dwelling shall sit behind the rear wall of the primary
residence and at least 5 feet away from any lot line
Additional criteria for design standards of the dwelling itself such as the
number of front facing doors, entrances exterior stair placement and
height
Next Steps:
Staff is seeking comments or questions from the Planning Commission. A draft ordinance will be
prepared for the June 17, 2021 and the scheduling of a public hearing on the item.
Page 13 of 22
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
City Hall – 525 North Third Avenue
THURSDAY, May 20, 2021
6:30 PM
1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
Subject: Code Amendment: Car Washes in C-3 Zoning Districts Within 300 Ft of Residential Zoning
Districts (CA 2021-007)
Request
In March of 2021, the city received a request to amend Title 25.100 of the Pasco Municipal Code.
The request, submitted by Richard Simon, asks that the PMC be amended to allow for car wash facilities to
be located within 300 Ft of residential zoning districts in a C-3 zoning district, and sections be added to
regulate those facilities.
Briefly, the argument is that the code amendments would both be good for car wash businesses and benefit
a growing population of car owners in Pasco.
City Codes
Pasco Municipal Code (PMC)
The current Pasco Municipal Code provisions for car wash facilities are very brief, and read as follows:
25.85.020 Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the C-1 district:
(14) Car washes provided they are located more than 300 feet from a residential district.
All uses allowed in the C-1 Zoning District are also allowed in the C-3 Zoning District, under the same
provisions as noted above. As such, car wash facilities would be allowed in C-3 zoning districts provided they
are at least 300’ from a residential zoning district.
Staff has identified 12 car wash facilities in the City of Pasco as follows:
Zoning Company Address Residential w/in 300'
C-1 All Seasons Professional Cleaning 1304 N 4th Ave No
C-1 Bulldog Car Wash 204 N 11th Ave Yes
C-1 Washworks Tri Cities Ii Llc 1015 West B St Yes
C-3 A1 Truck Wash 3802 N Commercial Ave No
C-3 Blue Banner Truck Wash Llc 3604 North Commercial Ave. No
C-3 A1 Truck Wash Tri-Cities 2216 E Hillsboro Rd Ste J No
C-3 Oregon Ave Car Wash 1010 N Oregon Ave No
C-1 Liberty Car Wash 4903 Convention Dr No
C-1 Washworks Tri Cities Iv, Llc 2405 W Lewis St No
C-1 Bush Car Wash 3810 W Court St Yes
C-1 Bear Wash 320 N 20th Ave Yes
C-1 Bush Car Wash 7200 Burden Blvd Yes
Page 14 of 22
2
As noted, 4 of 12 are within 300’ of residential areas, and as such, are nonconforming uses according to PMC
25.85.020.
A glance at 1999 Ordinance 3354 reveals that car wash facilities are not explicitly mentioned in the code (See:
Ord. 3354 § 2, 1999). The explicit provision for car wash facilities first appears in Ordinance 4110 approved
by City Council in 2013, as follows:
25.42.020 PERMITTED USES. The following uses shall be permitted in the C-1 district:
14) Carwashes provided they are located more than 300 feet from a residential district.
(See: Ord. 4110 § 18, 2013).
This language is eliminated in Ordinance 4121 (§ 2, 2013) and reintroduced in 2014 with Ordinance 4197 (§
1, 2014)
Code 1970 § 25.42.020.
Applicant wishes to remove the 300’ buffer as it applies to car wash facilities in C-3 zoning districts.
The Kennewick Municipal Code is far more extensive, as follows:
Kennewick Municipal Code (KMC)
18.12.055: - Car Washes, Vehicular Access/Circulation/Fencing/Operation.
In CN zones, car washes shall be subject to the following:
(1) The total number of bays shall be limited to three.
(2) Noise:
(a) Manufacturer's specifications clearly indicating level of noise submitted to City for review.
(b) Noise shall be measured at receiving property in dBA to be conducted and approved by qualified
professional acceptable to City.
(c) Abutting residential property shall receive noise level not to exceed 57 dBA (KMC 9.52).
(d) Noise generated by all associated equipment on site including vacuums must be designed,
oriented and soundproofed to the extent that noise does not exceed that allowed in KMC 9.52.
(3) Vehicular Access and Circulation:
(a) The business must front an arterial or collector street. The same access shall be used for the
convenience store and the car wash.
(b) Stacking length shall provide at least two vehicle spaces per wash line. All maneuvering area,
stacking lanes, and exit aprons shall be located within the car wash parcel itself. Public streets and
alleys shall not be used for maneuvering or parking by vehicles to be serviced by the car wash.
(4) Fencing (when abutting residential property):
(a) Minimum six-foot tall sight obscuring fence is required in conjunction with solid (visual) screen
Page 15 of 22
3
landscaping.
(b) The "Solid Screen" must be on the car wash side of the fence.
(c) The fence shall be constructed of masonry, wood, or tight-boards with the support on the car
wash (site) side of the fence.
(d) The fence, solid landscape screen and other landscaping shall be permanently maintained and
shall be kept structurally sound and safe.
(5) Operation: Business hours shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m., except if automated
and unmanned, a car wash would be available at all times.
(6) All other applicable site planning standards and as required by the Kennewick Municipal Code shall apply.
The City of Richland Municipal Code is similarly complex, as follows:
Richland Municipal Code (RMC)
23.42.270 Self-service and automatic car washes.
When permitted in a use district, car washes shall be designed and constructed to meet the following
requirements:
A. Vehicular Access and Circulation. Design plans shall provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles
entering, using and exiting the site;
B. Sight and Sound Buffers and Landscaping. Design plans shall include the following provisions for sight and
sound buffering and landscaping as appropriate:
1. The minimum landscaping required shall be as set forth in RMC 23.54.140, Landscaping of parking
facilities, except that no interior coverage is required;
2. To help assure compatibility with adjoining uses, sight and sound buffers may be required as
specified by the administrative official. Where a proposed car wash has interior property lines
adjoining a residential district or use, a minimum six-foot-high fence, constructed of masonry, wood,
or wood slatted wire mesh, shall be constructed along said interior property lines, provided such
fences shall comply with any required setbacks from adjoining streets;
C. Building Design. Building design plans shall demonstrate to the administrative official’s satisfaction the
following:
1. That the building design, including a type and color of exterior materials, will be compatible and
consistent with the architectural character of the surrounding area;
2. That the height-to-width relationship/mass of a proposed building will be compatible and
consistent with the surrounding area.
Applicant has proposed to allow car wash facilities in C-3 zoning districts with the following conditions:
(a) The business must front on a minor arterial or arterial street;
(b) Stacking length for vehicles waiting to enter the car wash shall occur entirely on the car wash parcel
itself and shall provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles entering, using and exiting the site;
(c) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. daily;
Page 16 of 22
4
(d) All equipment associated with the operation of the car wash facility, including vacuums shall be
located a minimum of 100 feet from the nearest property boundary abutting a residential district, unless said
equipment is placed within an enclosed building;
(e) Where a proposed car wash has interior property lines adjoining a residential district, a minimum six-
foot-high, sight-obscuring fence, constructed of masonry, vinyl or wood, shall be constructed along said
interior property lines, provided such fences shall comply with any required setbacks from adjoining streets.
Both Kennewick and Richland codes require some sort of sound mitigation; oddly, while a token buffer is
maintained, sound mitigation is conspicuously absent in applicant’s proposal.
Summary and Conclusions
While car wash facilities are in many ways similar to other uses allowed in both C-1 and C-3 zoning districts,
often vehicles are washed and vacuumed out in the open (and stereos are played), all at high volumes. These
noise levels may well exceed City of Pasco noise regulations, and as such, be incompatible with residential
neighborhood standards. Unless the facility can be designed to mitigate for both facility and client excessive
noise levels, eliminating the 300-foot buffer is not a good idea.
Staff recommends either denial or the addition of substantial sound mitigation as part of any proposal to
allow car wash facilities adjacent residential uses.
Page 17 of 22
Ordinance Relating to
Car Wash Facilities in
C-3 Zoning Districts - 1
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASCO,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO ZONING AMENDING TITLE 25 DEALING
WITH THE LOCATION OF CAR WASH FACILITIES IN C-3 ZONING
DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, cities have the responsibility to regulate and control the physical
development within their borders and insure the 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, from time to time, the City Council causes the zoning regulations to be
reviewed to insure they fulfill their intended purposes; and,
WHEREAS, The C-3 general business district is established to provide sites for more
diversified business types, including nonretail commercial and business uses which are primarily
related to automotive rather than pedestrian traffic; and,
WHEREAS, this district is typically located adjacent to major traffic arterials; and,
WHEREAS, A car wash facility is entirely dependent upon automotive traffic and so is
consistent with the purpose of the C-3 district; and,
WHEREAS, a typical residence has two or more vehicles that require occasional cleaning;
and,
WHEREAS, car washes located near residential neighborhoods provide a convenient
location for a needed commercial service and so fit well within the purpose of the C-3 district; and,
WHEREAS, according to Land Use Policy LU-1-D: “Land uses should be permitted
subject to adopted standards designed to mitigate land use impacts on adjacent, less intensive uses,
while preserving constitutionally protected forms of expression;” and,
WHEREAS, the proposed conditions of approval placed on car wash facilities that are
near to existing residential neighborhoods include measures to mitigate the land use impacts of a
commercial operation on a residential neighborhood; and,
WHEREAS, limitations on the hours of operation, fencing, and minimum distance of
automated equipment from residential district boundaries are reasonable and effective measures
that will protect existing residential neighborhoods and still provide reasonable commercial uses
in the C-3 district; and,
Page 18 of 22
Ordinance Relating to
Car Wash Facilities in
C-3 Zoning Districts - 2
WHEREAS, according to Land Use Policy LU-3-C the City should “Ensure all
developments include appropriate landscaping and screening, as required by adopted regulations
and guidelines;” and,
WHEREAS, the proposed conditions of approval placed on car wash facilities adjoining
residential districts would require a minimum of six foot tall, sight-obscuring fencing; and,
WHEREAS, this condition coupled with the City’s existing landscaping requirements of
Chapter 18.25 ensure that any car wash facilities located within the C-3 district would be provided
with appropriate landscaping and screening; and,
WHEREAS, according to Land Use Policy LU-6-A the City should “Encourage
commercial and higher-density residential uses along major corridors and leverage infrastructure
availability; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed conditions of approval would require that car wash facilities be
located along streets that are designated as arterial streets and so would allow an additional
commercial use along major street corridors, helping to implement this land use policy; and,
WHEREAS, according to Land Use Policy LU-6-B the City should “Promote efficient
and functional neighborhood level and major commercial centers to meet community demand;
and,
WHEREAS, every residence typically has two or more vehicles, which need cleaning on
a regular basis, especially given the dust and wind that typify Tri-Cities weather; and,
WHEREAS, locating car wash facilities near residential neighborhoods provides a
conveniently located and needed commercial service and in so doing promotes an efficient and
functional commercial use; and,
WHEREAS, according to Land Use Policy E D-3-A the City should “Enhance
compatibility of commercial and industrial development with residential and mixed-use
neighborhoods with appropriate landscaping, screening, building and design standards;” and,
WHEREAS, the proposed conditions of approval relating to screening and existing
landscaping standards would help to ensure that car wash facilities near residential districts would
be compatible land uses; and,
WHEREAS, there are several uses that are permitted within the C-3 District without
restriction that may have equal or greater impacts to adjoining residential districts than car wash
facilities. For example:
• Service stations are permitted in the C-3 district and typically include convenience
stores. These uses often time operate on a 24-hour basis, can generate a steady flow of traffic and
can produce light and glare on adjacent properties greater than that of a car wash;
• Automobile sales and service uses have a greater need for outdoor lighting and
often produce light and glare on adjoining properties. Larger automobile sales businesses have
Page 19 of 22
Ordinance Relating to
Car Wash Facilities in
C-3 Zoning Districts - 3
their own service departments that may require noisy equipment. Many of these uses have their
own car wash facilities on-site.
• Uses such as trucking, express and storage yards; heavy machinery sales and
service; landscape gardening and storage; mobile home sales and service and lumber sales are all
permitted in the C-3 district without restriction. All these uses involve significant outdoor storage
and activity, which from an aesthetic perspective, are higher impact than a car wash facility. All
these uses involve the operation of large trucks and or heavy machinery that produce noise and
exhaust that are equal to or greater than that associated with a car wash, especially given the
setback restrictions included in the proposed code amendment. Some of these uses, such as heavy
machinery sales or mobile home sales do not benefit from a location near a residential district, as
these uses would not typically be used by neighborhood residents, as opposed to a car wash facility
which would mostly be used by neighborhood or area residents.
• Stores and shops for the conduct of retail business are permitted in both C-1 and C-
3 districts without restriction on the size of store. Large retail buildings can generate significant
traffic volumes. Some have long hours of operation well in excess of those proposed for car wash
facilities; and,
WHEREAS, given the nature of many permitted uses within the C-3 district, car wash
facilities would be no more impactful to nearby residential districts and, in many cases would be
less impactful than other existing C-3 uses; and
WHEREAS, the restrictions proposed for car washes that would be nearby residential
districts would effectively mitigate any impacts resulting from the operation of a car wash facility;
and,
WHEREAS, the proposed code amendment to allow car washes within the C-3 district
should be approved because:
• the proposed limitations on car washes near residential districts would ensure that
the uses would remain compatible;
• the proposed code amendment would help to implement several Pasco
comprehensive plan policies;
• Car washes are commercial uses that have similar impacts to many other uses that
are permitted within the C-3 district;
• The proposed code amendment would provide an economic benefit to business
owners by permitting additional opportunities for commercial development within the City;
• The proposed code amendment would benefit adjacent residential neighborhoods
with needed conveniently located commercial services; 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, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That PMC 25.100 be amended as follows:
Page 20 of 22
Ordinance Relating to
Car Wash Facilities in
C-3 Zoning Districts - 4
Chapter 25.100 C-3 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Sections:
25.100.010 Purpose.
25.100.020 Permitted uses.
25.100.030 Permitted accessory uses.
25.100.040 Permitted conditional uses.
25.100.050 Development standards.
25.100.010 Purpose.
The C-3 general business district is established to provide sites for more diversified business types,
including nonretail commercial and business uses which are primarily related to automotive rather
than pedestrian traffic. This district is typically located adjacent to major traffic arterials. [Ord.
3354 § 2, 1999; Code 1970 § 25.46.010.]
25.100.020 Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the C-3 district:
(1) All uses permitted in the C-1/C-2 districts;
(2) Service stations;
(3) Laundry;
(4) Trucking, express and storage yards;
(5) Wholesale business;
(6) Heavy machinery sales and service;
(7) Warehouse;
(8) Landscape gardening and storage area for equipment and materials;
(9) Automobile sales and service;
(10) Mobile home and trailer sales and service;
(11) Lumber sales business;
(12) Veterinarian clinics for household pets (including indoor boarding facilities); and
(13) Parking lots within 500 feet of a C-2 district boundary, provided such lots are paved and the
development complies with the landscape and fencing requirements of the C-1 district, as
enumerated in PMC 25.85.020(13);
Page 21 of 22
Ordinance Relating to
Car Wash Facilities in
C-3 Zoning Districts - 5
(14) Contractor’s plant or storage yard, provided such plant or yard is more than 300 feet from a
residential district.
(15) Car washes within 300 feet of a residential district, in accordance with the following
conditions:
(a) The business must front on an arterial street;
(b) Stacking length for vehicles waiting to enter the car wash shall occur entirely on the car
wash parcel itself and shall provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles entering, using
and exiting the site;
(c) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. daily;
(d) All equipment associated with the operation of the car wash facility, including vacuums
shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from the nearest property boundary abutting a residential
district, unless said equipment is placed within an enclosed building;
(e) Where a proposed car wash has interior property lines adjoining a residential district, a
minimum six-foot-high, sight-obscuring fence, constructed of masonry, vinyl or wood, shall be
constructed along said interior property lines, provided such fences shall comply with any required
setbacks from adjoining streets.
Section 4. This ordinance shall take full force and effect five (5) days after its approval,
passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Pasco, this ______ day of __________ 2021.
Saul Martinez
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Debra Barham, CMC Kerr Ferguson Law, PLLC
City Clerk City Attorney
Published: _____________________
Page 22 of 22