Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

To begin tonight's meeting, I'd like to ask the clerk to call the roll.

Rosa Torres, excused. Austin Crawford, present. Pat Jones, present. Kim Letterman, excused. Rob Waits, excused. Dana Crutchfield, here. Jay Hendler, present. Jerry Cochran, present. Mr. Chair, there are five members present. We do have a quorum.

Excellent. Thank you. The Planning Commission is an advisory board made up of volunteers appointed by city council. The purpose of the Planning Commission is 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 the community, livability, economic opportunity, housing affordability, public services and the environment. I'd like to remind the audience that tonight's proceedings are being broadcast live on the City of Pasco's Facebook page on Spectrum Charter Cable PSE 191, Channel 191, and will be rebroadcast several times during the next month. The meeting is also recorded so you can watch on the City of Pasco's website, which is pasco-wa.gov. You can click on the video on demand and choose the meeting you would like to watch there. There are copies of the meeting agenda on the back table, so you may follow along with the meeting. And at this time, I'd like to ask everyone that you silence your cell phones to prevent any interruptions during the meeting. For those present this evening, when you're given the opportunity to address the Commission, please come to the podium and speak clearly into the microphone and turn on the microphone. State your name and just city of address for our records. Before we begin tonight's meeting, I need to remind the audience that the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission that Washington State law requires public meetings like the one being held this evening not only to 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 a 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. First, are there any Planning Commission members who have a declaration at this time regarding any of the items on the agenda? And I think we established, Director Matson, that we, even if we live in the district, we can discuss and vote on this issue.

Yes, that's correct because this is considered a citywide legislative change. If it were a project-specific action and you were like a neighbor to that action and commenting, I think we'd want to have a chat beforehand. But since it's citywide and planning commissioners and city council live in the city, we wouldn't get anything done otherwise. So you are safe to vote on this.

Excellent. Thank you for that. So there's no declarations at this time for commissioners. Second, is there anyone in the audience this evening who would object to any planning commission member hearing any of the items on the agenda? Let the record also show that there were none declared. We as the Planning Commission need and value your input. It helps us understand the issues more clearly and make better recommendations to City Council. Furthermore, in many cases, your input here at this Planning Commission meeting is your only opportunity to get your facts and opinions placed into the official record the City Council will use to make its decision. I encourage you to take full advantage of this opportunity. The first item or next item on the agenda tonight is the approval of the meeting minutes from November 20th, 2025. Those meeting minutes were mailed out or provided to the commissioners ahead of time. I trust you had the opportunity to take a look at them. I would entertain either a discussion if there's any questions or issues or else a motion to approve the minutes.

Mr. Chair, I'll move to approve the minutes.

Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Jones. Do I have a second? I second. Oh, it's been seconded by Commissioner Hendler. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Let the record show that the meeting minutes were unanimously approved. All right, so the first, we have no old business on the agenda, so we'll move right into the public hearing phase. We have two items for public hearing tonight. The first one is CPA 2025-001, which is the emergency comp plan amendment for the Pasco School District number one capital facilities plan adoption. So I think I'd turn it over to Mr. Raymond for that. Awesome, thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and commissioners, good evening. I don't think, since we did introduce this item last month, I don't think I'm going to have a whole lot of new information for you this evening, but we are conducting the public hearing as we said we would. With that, just to explain for anybody in the audience or watching online, this is an emergency comp plan amendment. Now, what makes it an emergency, it's not panic, it's not anything like that. It's just the fact that it's an out-of-cycle comp plan amendment. And we really don't have the ability or the luxury to wait for either the normal annual cycle or... Since, in this case, this year we're literally in the midst of a comp plan major update, we can't do a normal amendment. So that's what makes an emergency. So the basic steps for this, of course, the city council did on November 17th pass Resolution 4679 that initiated this process. So this was definitely a council action that... know instigated the project we have already provided 60-day notice to the Department of Commerce as required we are holding the public hearing this evening and we are asking that the Planning Commission will make a motion and make a formal recommendation to the City Council who will follow up in a future meeting within 60 days to take final action on this proposal And that will be basically consistently the same with the next agenda item for the other comp plan amendment. So for the school district, as we talked about last month, for this updated plan, there were six elements that were critical to being inclusive in the plan. a standard of service that they expect, inventory of facilities, capacity by grade span, six-year enrollment forecast, facility needs and costs, finance plan and calculation of the school impact fees. We did include the capital facilities plan that they adopted back in March in your packet. So if you really want to see some of the highlights or the changes, and there are some substantial changes, Because as you see, there's a couple of new high schools coming online this year and some other projects as well. And so there's a lot of change in focus for the school district. And that is really what led to the pretty dramatic change. impact fee changes, the City Council did on June 15th of this year adopt Ordinance 4774 that revised the impact fees. Single-family dwelling impact fees were completely eliminated, and multifamily fees changed from $4,525 per unit down to $2,595 per unit, which is a pretty dramatic decrease. So obviously there are some people dancing in the streets as a result of that. but as you know there still continues to be needs for future facilities in the plan so with that being said i i'm here for any questions you have but there's a recommended motion for the planning commission to act on this evening if you agree thank you

Excellent. Thank you. And can you remind me, the impact fees are something that the developer pays if they build a multifamily? Is that the correct?

Typically, anyone obtaining a building permit. It could be a developer. It could be a homeowner. But yes, that's correct. That's when they're paid.

Great. Commissioners, are there questions or clarification on this? I just have a question.

On the impact fees, what was the reason behind them being lowered so much? Is there more money available in other sources to do what the impact fees were getting done? Or what was the impetus for that?

I think just basically recognition. I mean, obviously they do have a number of funding sources. Impact fees is one. Bonds, levies are another. But really, they just completed some really major projects. And so now the focus for... The upcoming facility needs is just really in a different direction and obviously they didn't need the same level of impact fee funding that had been provided to get the projects that we're just seeing completed now. So that's the reason why the impact fees were decreased.

There also has to be a direct nexus between new student population that's coming forward. So it doesn't, you know, they're not looking at it for the whole city's population. It has to be the new student population that new development is bringing on. So they have very strict rules at the state level, you know, how much they can add. If they want a new high school, they can't just up fees for new developers and say, hey, you're going to take on the full burden of this new high school that maybe is provided for existing deficiencies. It has to be directly related to new development coming in at the state level.

And I seem to recall last time, too, that we talked about last month on this, that it was also the issue that if you look at the growth projections, they're going to start leveling out, but the most growth is in middle school, and that's where they need a middle school, and then there's also the determination that I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the general sense is that middle school populations tend to be more multifamily, less single family, and so there was just some demographics and statistics that they're able to determine why it's for multifamily versus single family and where that population Needs to go and if you look at the properly population projections, they start to flatten out at 19,000 for a number of years So that makes total sense.

So yeah and and all of that being said even the multi-family impact fee decreasing to the extent that it is is clearly a sign that the funding the situation is just changing so Any other questions from the commissioners?

Okay, then I'd like to open the public hearing. And if you're here to speak on this item, please go ahead and come to the podium and state your name and city of address. Anyone here for this item for public hearing? I think you guys are here for the other one. A second time, make a second call for anyone here for this item. And we have nobody online, correct? That's correct. right final call and we will close the public hearing on this item and so commissioners if there are no further questions or comments I'd entertain a motion it's it's on your page four or I think you got a question no I was going to go ahead mr. chair I move that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council

Approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA 2025-001, incorporating the Pasco School District 2025 Pasco School District Capital Facilities Plan into the City of Pasco 2018 Comprehensive Plan by addendum.

Thank you. Commissioner Jones, do I have a second?

I second.

Okay, you beat him to the punch. We have a second by Commissioner Hendler. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Yeah, we have to take action within 60 days of this evening, so we'll get that on the soonest possible City Council agenda for action. Thank you very much.

Next item on the public hearing agenda is CPA 2025-002, Emergency Comp Plan Amendment, the Residential Density Amendment. Again, we talked about this a little last month, but this is the public hearing, so I'll go ahead and turn it over to it looks like Director Mattson for a refresher, and then we'll have our conversation. We'll open up this for the public hearing.

Thank you chair and good evening planning commission. Tonight before you, you are being asked to hold a public hearing to consider a comprehensive plan amendment, a companion rezone and the associated text amendments for the packet in front of you. And the main purpose of this change is to correct an inconsistency between the city's comprehensive plan density requirements in the existing RS 20 zoning standards, which have effectively prevented subdivision and development in this area for the last, um, actually ever since the low density or ever since the, the yeah, low residential density, um, comp plan designation was established to three to six units, I think back in 2024 or late 23. And so this action would restore, um, the two to five dwelling units per acre land use designation. that replaces the RS-20 zone. And the RS-20 zone, which previously allowed two units per acre, would be revised to a new zone called R-9, low density residential district. And those standards would be compatible with the land use designation of two to five units per acre. So as I stated before, it was actually in 2023, the city had amended its comprehensive plan That required 36 units per acre in low density residential areas. And that covers a huge area of the city. So everything shown in yellow here is the land use map, also referred to as the comprehensive plan map for the city. So all the yellow areas, kind of the darker yellow, not the light yellow, that I'll show on the next slide. is called low density residential. And in 2023, the city council voted to change all of this to three to six units per acre citywide. So the proposed change before you tonight will not change this citywide. It will only change it. And it's, again, a little hard to see, but down in the Riverview area, you can see where the dark yellow has now changed to light yellow. That pale yellow is where we're proposing to change the low density residential designation to a new designation called low density residential Riverview. and that would be two to five units per acre the two units was suggested for this area because there are extensive areas within the riverview area that are far away from city sewer services so it's not easy for a developer a property owner to you know make money off their property and develop because they're so far from sewer it would be way too expensive to say hey, do you have a couple million dollars laying around to extend sewer? So the two units per acre is a pretty low density for inside an urban environment, but that would allow applicants to utilize low density and use septic systems that are allowed. not ideal from a city infrastructure standpoint if you want everything perfectly connected to all city utilities but it's a good interim solution in my opinion to allow some development low density development and then the two to five units per acre is just a lower range for the riverview area to reflect the larger lot size and bigger lots and then the zone change behind it to r9 would allow for that full range two to five units per acre i'm so continuing on with the Presentation, the RS zone would still allow for 20,000 square foot lots and currently in many properties rely on septic as I touched and there's a regulatory framework. So what this proposal does is the comprehensive plan amendment restores the two to five dwelling units per acre only in these portions of the city that I'm showing. And then there's a new zone, as I mentioned. And this new zone, it's easier just to show on this map, so I'm going to leave this map up. This is technically the land use map, but for zoning, it'll be the same area in light yellow, changed from RS-20 to RS-9. And it's just hard to see. Everything's green down there between the zones, so this is why I'm leaving this one up. The new zone that has been proposed by staff is allowing for a minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet, and that allows for five units per acre. There's some rounding that we did just to make clean numbers, but that essentially allows up to five units per acre, which is a big change for this area. It was previously two units, but if you'll recall in 2023, the intent was citywide 36 units. It's just... That zone wasn't fixed concurrently with it, and whether it was a mistake or there was an intention to do it later, I haven't quite figured that out yet. But the intent was to allow 3D6 citywide, which rendered RS-20, you know, not compliant with that decision at the time. So 8,700 square feet is the minimum lot size, and there is one issue related to development standards that I wanted to call to your attention tonight that wasn't discussed previously. at the workshop and it's shown here on the screen and these are the development standards for the lots and since the lots are going from 20,000 to down to 8,700 square feet now granted you can do more than 8,700 square feet you can do up to half an acre in size. Looking at the setbacks I proposed a very moderate change to the setbacks or a slight change in my opinion allowing first a maximum lot coverage of up to 40 Oh, hang on a second. Yeah, 40. I can't see that far. 45%. So before it was 40%, which means the buildings on the lot couldn't cover more than 40% of the lot. So it's more of an aesthetic, you know, control so that lots aren't just completely covered by buildings. So I upped that by which I felt like was pretty slight modification, so that more of the lot can be covered by building coverage. If the Planning Commission wishes to revert it back to 40%, that's fine with me. I just think that, you know, just keep in mind these are smaller lots. In some instances, and I thought with a smaller lot, maybe allowing for, you know, there's provisions for larger garages in this area, maybe 45% would be more acceptable, but 40% is fine with me as well. Front setback was 25 feet from the road, and I've reduced that down to 20 feet, which is more of a standard front setback that you see in lane use designations. That's from the street, so I didn't feel that would be a huge impact to neighbors or existing residences. Again, if the Planning Commission wishes to revert back to 25 feet, that is fine. The rear setback is the backyard of a property. So the setback to your neighbor's property. Sometimes you're facing the other backyard of a neighbor or you're facing their side yard. So the setback currently in that zone is 25 feet. So I've reduced it by... five feet. And again, if we'd like to maintain those existing setbacks as is, that's fine. It's just those setbacks were pretty large or larger lots. And knowing that we have, you know, a range of lot sizes proposed, I felt like kind of chipping away at the front and the back was fair. And we did maintain the side setback of 10 feet just because I don't want, you know, to impede too much on the existing neighbors in the area and just leave 10 feet on the side so there's enough breathing room between the lots. So that is an area that the Planning Commission can provide feedback on. If we do change that, we'll just modify the motion slightly at the end and say with the setbacks as approved and I can help you through that. So that's the setback issue that I wanted to bring to you. And then just two more minutes here. We did look at the compatibility and infrastructure and growth management related to this change. and we believe that with this change still it maintains a low density residential character in the area two to five does sound like a lot just for an area that's used to two units but in the scheme of things it's actually pretty low density for an urban environment um this allows transition through the setbacks and design and landscaping because we've maintained pretty big setbacks for this zone still. And then the zoning that is proposed 2-5 as opposed to 3-6 citywide, I believe aligns a lot better with the actual sewer and septic limitations. And then this also positions PASCO for state housing law compliance. We are going to be looking at density citywide. And I did spend a lot of time at the workshop prior talking about missing middle housing, which is housing between single family units and apartments that the state will require cities to have everywhere. I'm hoping we don't focus the conversation too much on that tonight because that's not what is being approved right now. The middle housing implications will be thoroughly covered with this group I would say by Q1 next year where I will explain the state is requiring this and there's really not a lot of ways out of it unfortunately so I would like to focus on this as a step one. And then we can deal with the second issue when that comes. So tonight there's a public hearing. This is getting pretty technical, but we have like two different applications at bay tonight. One is a comprehensive plan amendment to the land use map. One is a zoning amendment to the zoning map. And I guess the third that I've bundled with the zoning amendment is the text amendment. So with that, I'm requesting two motions at the end. one for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and one for the Text Amendment. And I was not as polite as Mr. Raymond and did not include it in the PowerPoint, but it is included at the end of this staff report, and I can help walk you through it. So with that, I'm happy to answer technical questions, not political positions on it at this point, but technical questions prior to opening the public hearing.

Great. Thanks for that description. Commissioners?

Commissioner? Just to clarify, you said that the text modification, that's the modification of the setbacks. Is that right?

Yes, that is. And there's more text amendments attached to the whole code. I needed to go through the municipal code and clean out wherever it said RS-20 and change it to R-9. That was the bulk of it. There were some other minor tweaks that just had to be done that didn't make sense anymore. But the bulk of the changes was me going through you know, the 100 chapters in the code and changing RS-20 to R-9, and then the development regulations that I showed you on the screen as part of that code change text amendment. Got you. Just confirming.

Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Crutchfield.

I missed last meeting, so I've had a lot of reading to do and note-taking here. So, for notification purposes, Since you're calling this renaming, but to me it actually seems like a code change, then does the code require noticed property owners so that they know before a public hearing so they have the opportunity to see how this will affect them? This is a significant change. I think it deserves full consideration of the effects, not just for the development community, but for the residents and the property owners within this area. So I don't know if the code requires that. I know in the past when this was done, and it was done in the, a while ago, but actually the city did mail out to the property owners comprehensive plan details, and so forth. It's probably even easier to do now with computer and being able to get those notifications out. That's a long question. Sorry.

No, that's a great question, and it was discussed pretty thoroughly internally. So this is considered a citywide rezone. We do not directly notice all the property owners within the area. So when we change the zone from, like, the whole city from a designation of 2 to 5 to 3 to 6, we don't mail every single person in the city. So with citywide changes... like this or an entire zone that's changing, we don't directly mail the property owners within that zone. It's not required by code. And my suggestion is if we don't like how that code operates, you know, and I'm sure council will have input on this too, then we need to change the code so that we're consistent and not picking who gets notification for what. Because our past practices, these area-wide rezones, we have not mailed everybody. So I think if we were to change course and be inconsistent in some areas and not others. I just don't think that's a good practice. So I would recommend if we do have an issue with it, we fix it at a later point. And I do have a consultant helping with fixing the code next year. And I've already flagged this as like a question. And I know that, you know, it's something I dealt with at the last video is that you can go either way, but are you mailing property owners for every change every time then people start ignoring notices? You know, I...

It's just our code doesn't require is though is the legacy so we did not the answer to my question the code did not require it Okay, I have more questions Jerry, but um So You mentioned that this didn't appear to be a significant change to an urban area But I feel like it pretty much is quite a change when you're talking about the ability to place like a triplex in existing neighborhoods, existing neighborhoods of people who have invested properties with a certain expectation. And when the city annexed these areas, that was a great concern to many of the people, most of the people that lived in Riverview. In fact, there was a huge public hearing up at TRAC. And the city really assured them that those things were going to be taken into consideration. The preservation of that way of life so that you don't just come into neighborhoods that are already established, maybe there's a vacant lot, without any notification to those homeowners, property owners, a developer, you know, pops in a triplex. I have a question, too, about the law, I guess, from the state. So is this like a... Is it a mandate that if you have a piece of property, you have to do what the recommendation you're suggesting? Or could a person still put a single family home if they so chose? Or do they have to meet that criteria?

All very good questions. And I will just clarify, you know, I did state that for an urban setting, I didn't think two to five was, you know, a huge, huge density increase. To clarify for this area, it is a big change. Two units per acre going to two to five, that's over doubling it. So I, you know, I would like to refine what I said. And I think you make a good point. It is a huge change for the Riverview area. What I was trying to relay is that City Council prior had adopted three to six units citywide. So that to me was there's an assumption that at least that area would be three units or so and the current zoning didn't match that. But yeah, this is a huge change for For the area and the range at the comp plan level that I'm proposing be adopted is 2 to 5. So, in theory, this zone could still just allow. 2 units or 3 units or 4 units or 5 units. So this was direction I received from city council to move forward with 2 to 5. I know the development community and some property owners, not all, but the property owners who want to develop feel like they can't do. anything with their property and don't have property rights to fully develop it. So it's just one of those things where not everyone will agree on it. But yeah, I agree it is a big change. For your comment related to triplexes, those are not allowed in the zone right now. This zone is a single family zone. So currently, minimum lot area is 8,700 to 20,000 square feet. And as you can see on the screen, development standards, permitted uses is one dwelling unit per lot where we're going to see the triplex requirement is the missing middle housing later on and i almost regret alluding to that at the previous meeting but i do like to be transparent that that is coming and it's city-wide in all residential zones in all cities in Washington. So it's called a ban on single family zoning. And that was a very, it was HB 1110. So that's, it doesn't, it's not as new to me because I came from the west side and already dealt with this. So I need to be a little more, I guess, aware of that, that it's just a newer concept here in Pasco and not brush over it. But, you know, we, I came from a city that was wanting to look for ways to prevent it and ban it. And the state has built it where there's no loopholes. Like there is a safeguard, provision in the code that I've been asked to look at by a council member, and I do plan to look at that with the consultant. If there is a safeguard that PASCO can use for a certain area, I will 100% bring that forward and offer my opinion. If you do safeguard a certain area, that means you're pushing density somewhere else, which people who are getting the density are super happy about that. But for now, triplexes are not allowed. It's only... two to five units per acre, one home per lot. And then there's some accessory dwelling unit provisions that PASCO allows, but no triplexes are allowed currently.

And so there's no minimum. In other words, if you have a piece of property and the state law says you can put two or three or four, whatever, but the person wants to put only a single-family home on that. Yes, they can. They want to put one. They've got an acre of water.

Yeah, the state is saying that's the max. So you can… You can develop it. Yeah, when the state says you can have middle housing up to 46 units per lot, that means you can have 46 per lot. That doesn't mean you can't have one. Like, the ban on single-family zoning means the city can't say you can only have single-family The city can say you can have single family plus the XYZ. So that's what I mean by ban on single family zoning. But that is something we'll cover next year.

Just to clarify, it's an option, not a requirement as far as the state?

Yes, it's optional.

Right.

It's optional for the person who owns the property. It's not optional for the neighbors if the property owner next to them wants to do it.

Thank you. I think hearing from a council member prior at a meeting quite a while ago, he asked, What if the city just elects not to do this? I mean, I know that it's been said that they're going to have maybe less grants or that kind of thing. I mean, I know that if it's under $25,000, they're not going to be required to do this. But I know Chair Cochran, in reading some of the minutes from the meeting, there's a lot of frustration in the state mandating what we can do here in that regard.

I think this conversation might be a little more appropriate outside of what's going on here because this is related to missing middle housing and what the state is requiring that we do. I appreciate your question and I'll say it now and I'll say it later when we talk about it. I don't recommend that approach just from a fiscal standpoint because I think I haven't seen, I would love to see one city do it just to see what happens to them but not us, but I have not seen a city go against the state with this mandate yet. I don't think anybody has done it or found a loophole. And there's, there's probably a lot of cities that are concerned about this. I just haven't seen anyone. So I would, you know, you just don't want to be the poster child with that kind of thing. If Pasco did, I would just assume it's a risk and I'm risk averse as far as like, you know, I don't want to lose money for our residents or a city or infrastructure. So that's my opinion. But I'm one person and I'm the CED director. I'm not the city manager or councilor voted in or anything. But just my initial thoughts is I'm thinking it's probably not a good idea. And if you just look at the myriad of state bills coming through, it's all reducing parking, you know, allowing more housing. It's just there's multiple bills going at this. So I just think it would be an uphill battle, honestly. But I'm happy to address that in more detail next year when we talk about missing middle housing.

One of the last things I wanted just to say really quick on this since I did miss, I was thinking about river view and higher density. So I wrote this down and I felt maybe it's better accomplished where the site is unplatted and it's larger than a lot or two. Then you can have design measure providing some degree of separation. One really good example is ivy glades. Ivy glades is pretty, you know, it's higher density. but how it was planned, and it fits. It doesn't look like it's just plopped down in the midst of neighborhoods. So some of the lots along the river here that would be affected, and there are several empty lots. If what you're proposing, then, person could put a duplex there is that is that correct or yeah I mean I own a lot there so I know I would never do that but I would be if I were the neighbor I would be most upset that you know that's it's urban it's not like we're way out on the blocks with thirty forty acres and cows and so forth but it still has a different flavor and people have invested in that I just I feel that this deserves a lot more a lot more consideration and talking and also letting the property owners in the area know Because they don't, there really was no way, they're just a little newspaper ad. I know you're not bound to do that by code, but this is a significant change. So anyway, I'm sorry I've dominated the conversation. That was a few things, I still have more. You didn't get to talk about it last time.

Any other council, Commissioner Handler, I know you were going to say some things on this too, right?

You know, I did Ivy Glades. I developed Ivy Glades. There was no sewer out there when we first started, and we knew what we were getting into. Just a matter of information there. I believe tonight's meeting is about trying to bring into alignment the comprehensive plan and the zoning, which right now they... or two ships passing in the night, they both have different requirements. And that's the basis for tonight's conversation. That's how I read it, and I read the whole thing here. And I think that the, I'm curious, So I don't have a problem with the density as it's being suggested in this conversation tonight. There will be, in my opinion, substantial conversation with what the state wants to do. And we'll talk about that later. And I'm... I will have my ducks in a row when that conversation is appropriate because I'm going to have a real problem with it, much for the same reasons that you're talking about. As I understand it, if you want to do a sewer, as I understand the code requires a minimum of 20,000 feet, and you have to be you can't be within 200 feet of a sewer system. Is that correct? Is that going to remain?

Yes, I believe 200 feet.

Huh?

Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean by 20,000.

20,000 square foot lot.

Oh, lot size per septic is half acre or more, but we wouldn't do more than half acre because that would be lower than two units per acre. Yeah, 20,000 feet, that's half acre. Yes, yes, so if you have a bigger lot, 20,000 square feet, you are able to use... septic per the Ben Franklin County Health District.

So did I say something wrong? 20,000 foot minimum if you want to use septic.

That's correct. Yes, minimum 20,000.

I don't need to get into details, but is that basically the hip shot?

Yeah. So two units per acre is why we started solo is so you can utilize septic. If you get to three units per acre, you're not allowed to use septic.

Right. I can do the math. I understand that.

Okay, great.

Okay. So anyway, I'm going to vote yay for tonight's motion. But I reserve my comments for the meeting we'll have coming up after the state sticks their two cents into this thing, because I'm going to have a real problem with that for a small community like Pasco. So anyway, thank you.

Chair, point of order. At this point, before we open the public hearing, I appreciate it if we just have technical questions and discussions. I believe if you're stating your stance, which it's fine. Since this is such a political topic, I want to make sure we follow the rules.

I think to Commissioner Handler's point is we're here to discuss the misalignment issue.

Yes.

and not the politics of the state, and I think it's good that we've deferred that. But I do think even in the misalignment issue, I think it's not clear to me, to me it feels like the minimum we need to do to create alignment is not well understood. It seems like it's just three units per acre.

Yeah, so we are changing it to two to five units per acre at the comprehensive plan level. We could leave it at three to six if we'd like, and then... revise the zoning to meet the low density residential requirement of 3D6. The reason I've proposed two to five is to allow the use of septic for those lots that are way far away from sewer services. So option one would be to keep it at 3D6, which is what's citywide shown on this map. You can just leave everything at 3D6, but then we solve the problem of the RS20 zone only allowing two units per lot, which does not comply with the 3D6. So we can keep it 3D6 and change the zone to three, four, five, or six units. We can do a range three to six, or we can just say three units, period. There are going to be some property owners not happy with that because they're far away from sewer and they believe they should be able to develop their property and have an interim option. Or we can change it to two to five at the comprehensive plan level and match the zoning, and matching the zoning could be two units, per acre, period. We could just do that if we want to keep it at that. Or three units, four units, or two to five. Like I'm suggesting two to five as the most flexible range. I know it's been requested by several property owners. I'm sure there's property owners who don't want that either. So it's just, that's what we've proposed. And I guess my point of clarification earlier was just like stating your position on the matter before the public hearing was held. I don't know if I'm getting too technical there, but you know technical questions and then you guys can discuss yeah we shouldn't be stating we don't need to discuss how we're going to vote because we're not there yet but yeah and it's it's it's such a minor thing i just wanted to bring it up if we're going to keep discussing the technical questions beforehand thank you okay go ahead are you done no corey sorry um

This is a minor thing, too, but you use the word, I reduced it from 25 to 20. It's more than just you doing this, right? This should be a we. You have a team that's making all these decisions, aren't you?

Yes, I'm not carrying the weight of the world on my back. I'm just, I don't know, being selfish tonight.

I'm not trying to be too grammatically pure. But when I hear somebody say, I changed it from 25 to 20.

I mean, I did actually make the physical change in the document. But, yeah, I'm collaborating with, you know, the staff here. Yep. in City Council, too. I was advised from City Council. And it was a different group a few months ago, mind you. We've had a lot of new council members, so I just wanted to point that out. The advice I got from council was several months ago, so it was a different group.

Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Jones. We'll get to you.

Thank you. And I believe these are the kind of technical questions you want us to ask, so I'll try to stay right on that, because I heard all my grievances last month. The page that talks about off-street parking, is that impacted at all by the new parking restrictions that the state is trying to put into place coming down the road?

Yes, that will be revised when the state regulations come forward. I believe that there are just reductions coming at the state level, you know, zero-to-one spaces for most uses. off-street parking requirements I don't believe will be required at the state level.

Until then, everything that we have in place now will be what is in place?

Yes, I made minimal changes to the zone, knowing that there will be a citywide change to parking and missing middle housing coming up soon, next year.

Thank you. And then on the page before that where it talked about the development standards, does the City of Pasco adopt the Unified Building Code as... for their rules and things for how they build or how do they, what rules, what rule book do they follow?

International building codes. International residential codes and state specific energy codes.

So do those setbacks and those kinds of things you talked about, do they fall into those guidelines?

The parking, ADA accessible spaces fall under the IBC, but like...

Okay, I'm not talking about parking now. You answered my parking question. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Where you said the maximum lot coverage, you changed to 45%. the setbacks you changed from 25 to 20 feet and so on. Do those still fit?

Yes. You can have buildings touching if you have enough firewalls and specifics in there. I think without a firewall, you can be like 10 feet away, like five feet between each building. But those setbacks are dictated by the city and the lot coverage. So if we want to change those at the city level, we can. If we do get down to teeny enough setbacks that won't happen here in this situation, I'm sure of it. We'll let you know if we're conflicting with the IBC codes or if we need to modify it. But they're compliant with the building codes and fire codes as presented. Thank you.

Good. Pardon my, you know, you asked us not to be too technical in this meeting. You handed us this document here, and it's full of technicalities, and I spent like a couple hours reading it, and there's a lot of technical issues in here, so that's I think that's part of our conversation. So I beg your pardon if I'm stepping out of line, but this whole thing is about technical issues, in my opinion.

Yep, and please be as technical as you'd like. I think I was just being picky about the order of procedure, and I apologize for that. It's just your opinions on it and how you're going to vote usually happens after the public hearing when you've had a chance to hear from the public. So I apologize for the confusion, and I'll let the chair weigh in on that from now on. Sure, yeah.

myself out of that okay good Commissioner question um this kind of is technical so it's not I don't think it's political but well it was years ago but since the Franklin County I wanted to know if the property owners within the Franklin County the doughnut hole area since they're part of the urban growth are they subject to these changes as well it's the area between Argent and court I'm sure you know where it is so they're not subject to it or they are

They are not subject to it. And this screen shows those areas a little better. They're like in gray. So you see mostly green zoning there. And then those like gray, the non-colored areas, those are the county donut halls. They're not subject to it, but it's likely that if those areas do annex into the city, they'll retain the adjacent zoning to them. Or maybe we do want a different zoning, just a donut zoning or whatever we want to call it. But They could be subject to the RS or the R9 zoning when they annex in, but currently they're not affected because they're outside of city limits.

Thank you. And the one last thing, you had mentioned that right now we're specifically going for Riverview, that it will be citywide at some point driven by the state. Is that right? But now you're talking about Riverview. Yes.

Not necessarily. The citywide is three to six units right now, and there's different zones citywide, like R1, R2, R3, R4.

But the R20 basically is Riverview now.

The R20. That we're talking about. Shown in light yellow. Change. I'm proposing to move it to R9 zoning, so that won't necessarily be citywide.

No, that's specific. So this isn't really technical, but I want to get this on record.

That's okay. You guys can talk political and technical. I just meant like your position on how you're voting. That was the only thing. Everything else, just go ahead. I'm not going to call you out on things. I was being too nitpicky. I apologize. Just say what you're going to say.

I feel like I'm reiterating about what I see as a drastic change. And when we're talking about citywide, a relatively small area, citywide, that we're focusing on right now, again, I feel that the least... If the city is committed to pursuit of this, I feel the least that they could have done or should do is give written notice to the property owner. I know you talked about not having to notify everybody in the city. I understand that. But to this particular, to at least notify the property owners for a public hearing before so they have an opportunity to know before they're met with this without being able to do anything. That, I think, is more important than responding to what did we say, that the development community was looking towards getting an answer by the end of the year. That may be important, they want to do that, but I think the people, the property owners that have invested should have at least that much consideration. Understood. Absolutely.

Yeah, it is for property owners, too, and the development community. So there's several property owners who would like to develop that feel very hamstringed right now. But I hear what you're saying. If the whole group wants to go that route as far as noticing, we can talk about that. It's just not required by code, but if that's something the group wants us to do for this, I mean, we can talk about what that looks like if the whole group is feeling that way. But I hear you, and I understand what your feedback is.

It is a separate issue, yeah.

Anything else, Commissioner Fisher?

No.

Okay. Not now.

Well, it is a complicated issue, and it is politically charged. I know that as I, I'm smack dab in the middle of one of those new light yellow areas, and I know as I talk to my neighbors, they're like, hell no. And part of it is is because there are, There is a mix of really nice invested-in homes and a really poor set of junky homes. And the poor set of junky homes tend to get bought by developers with two-acre lots, and then they'll come in and put ten houses. And so that's the thing that the homeowners are afraid of. I would err on the side in terms of how I would meet the, and obviously the council's made a decision. We need to align with the council's decision. Now, I would propose that we align with the council's decision in a minimalistic way that we say, well, how can we get to minimum alignment? That's three houses per acre, right? That's what it looks like to me. And to me, that is the least impact on, it's a balance. It allows developers and property owners who want to develop to go a little further. It aligns with the city, but it also protects the people that are trying to keep that experience of West Pasco and Riverview. And I think that's what the homeowners want. As I did some doorbelling with my neighbors, that's what they want. Because there's a couple houses that are really close to us. I'm in that riverfront section, and there's a couple of Poor old houses that are kind of junky but they're on two acre lot and they're prime developer targets and none of us wants to see ten houses on those two acres and it would ruin the whole look of West Pasco. And I think that's what most of the property owners, the majority, not the ones that are opportunistically trying to make money on their property, the ones that want to live there, that's what they're going to say. And so I think if there were options that you could propose, and again, we'll hear from the public hearing, so thanks for your patience, guys. But I think if there were options that meet the council's mandate, because we're here to do that, they've made a decision, we're not going to go against that, but allow us to strike a better balance to what the homeowners and people that enjoy the style of living, as well as allowing some more flexibility for people who do want to build, I think that would be a better option. And things like 8700 square foot lot, I lived on an 8700 square foot lot in Seattle and it's not fun. And it's tiny. And so I just don't think that's what, that's not the West Pasco Riverview experience that people are looking for. So we gotta find a better way of balancing that in my opinion. So I don't know if you have any ideas But I think that would be a better way of meeting kind of what we're trying to do here. Because we've got a line with the councils three to six. And if a way of doing that is moving it up to three, then that'll do it. So that would be my thought.

and yeah council in 2023 established 36 citywide but then i received direction mid-year this year to change it to two to five density range for low dense for the comprehensive plan designation the zone could be two to three to still be compliant under that umbrella so two to five is an umbrella and then you can fit different zones underneath. And just keep in mind, Planning Commission is making a recommendation to City Council for approval. So, you know, we like it when usually the decisions align at both levels, but if they would like to do two to five or revert back to three to six, you know, I mean, this is a pretty big dynamic discussion, so I appreciate all the feedback. But yeah, we could do, I would say if we did three, then just keep in mind property owners wouldn't have the option to utilize septic so they would either have to connect to sewer or wait for it to come or have millions of dollars to get sewer to them so you know two to three would be a lot of those lots sewers really not that far away

I like that idea. I mean, I think, and we'll hear from some developers here. I like the idea of maybe a more conservative approach with two to three or whatever, because I think that would be a better balance for what the property owners, their majority of them are looking for and still meet. And again, we are a recommendation to the council. They can completely ignore us and overrule like they have done on occasion. And that's their prerogative because they're the elected officials. But I do think if you want a recommendation out of this body, you're going to have to come up with a more moderated approach from my, as I read us. From the commissioners. Go ahead.

Just that I totally agree with what Commissioner, Chair Cochran said. I've lived here for, it's hard to say how many decades, but a long, long time, decades. And I've seen some of this kind of discussion before. And I think respecting some of the people that have invested, and as you mentioned, is really, really important, rather than just having them surprised by, you know, some development that is going to really be detrimental to them. And we could talk about all the things like the off-street parking and how, you know, you're going to have cars parking all over the street. And it's different than Seattle. It's different than that climate. We are different. And most of us don't want to go back or don't want to go to that. And all the things that go along with it potentially. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Crutchfield. Did you have anything else to add?

I agree in the notion of less density here in this area. I lived in the city for years and I understand the dynamics, the planning dynamics in the cities. They're increasing every way they can to get more people in those cities. You know, eliminating parking requirements, eliminating all kinds of development standards that restrict development. We don't have those problems here yet. And I'm just saying, I agree, we need to work on not becoming too dense here, making it a livable, fun place like it is. Anyway, I'll shut up.

No, thank you, and thank you, and I guess everybody, this is a passionate topic, and I think we are going to now open it up to public hearing, because I know we will have some more passionate opinions on this, and we'll open up, so we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. If you're here to speak on this item, please come to the podium, turn on the microphone, and state your name and city of address for the records. Anyone? You just came here to watch? Okay. Well, I will offer a second time, if you're here to speak on this item, please come forward. All right, the third time. Hey, we will close the public hearing. Here, I thought you guys were here to talk on this item. Darn. I think that, I guess I'm not sure on next steps. If there is a motion, if there was one of the commissioners that is willing to make a motion to move this forward, we will entertain that motion. If there's not, then I think we'll need staff to come and refactor this. So I will open it up. Is there a motion to move this forward based on the recommendation? And I think you have a recommendation or a motion text here somewhere I couldn't find. But we'll go ahead and you can help us with that if we have somebody that would like to make a motion.

I'd like to make a motion.

Okay, go ahead and make your motion.

I'd like to make a motion to us to revisit this, I guess, for staff to give us, put down in writing some of the things that we've talked about and potential changes or what have you. but at least to do a little bit more research and discussion on this before there's any recommendation from us this evening.

Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Crutchfield that we send this back to staff for revision and reconsideration. Do I have a second?

Second. I was going to ask a question first.

Yeah, go ahead. Do you have a question? Yes, a question for Haley. Haley, what does that process look like if this goes back as far as what consideration is I guess expanded upon other than what's been spoken to here. As you understand, there's opinions amongst people in this committee and also of developers or people who want people who own properties and they're who feel that they have basically no recourse to do anything, then leave it as it is. You'd mentioned reducing it down to less than 20,000 leaves you basically between, or less than three an acre, three or less, leaves you between septic or trying to drag sewer somewhere. I'm just thinking what is the process that this goes back to and what additional information comes out of it to help us understand what,

that's a good question because I, yep, I have heard, um, lots of different opinions tonight. I think what I would like, what I would appreciate more direction on is like first the noticing issue. I've, I've heard one planning commissioner ringing up a couple of times. Um, would like to know input from the group on that so i can have direction on on how we go but before we talk about that yeah if we don't do anything at this point then development is still not allowed in the rs20 zone right now so we have people waiting so to me that's where there's a sense of urgency but you know i wouldn't rush it just because of that let's get it right so i would hope you know we can just keep talking about this each month until we move it forward um there's two moving parts the first is changing the the comprehensive plan designation from three to six units, which is applied citywide, as you can see on this map, and changing it just for the Riverview area to two to five units. So that's the designation, the overarching umbrella, changing it two to five. And I would recommend keeping it at that range, either leaving it at 3d6 or bringing it down one notch on each side, 2d5, sounds like the most contention from the group is what it zoned as. So we can still have a range of 2d5, but that doesn't mean these zones have to have that. If the playing commission is comfortable with 2d3 or 2d4, I can easily revise staff report to propose a range of two to three and then just revise the lots. That's just some simple math. I mean, if we were fancy, we could even do that at the meeting now and make a motion and move this forward. But I'm happy to bring it back to the Planning Commission and I can say that, you know, here's option One for the land use is, or the two options is three to six. I don't, it doesn't sound like there's too much issue with leaving them at two to five for the overall range. I think the zone is where I could bring options. I would suggest two to three or two to four.

Yeah, that's what my guidance would be is we could even vote on the land use designation tonight to align with what we need, and then we could come back with a zoning of two to three or something like that. Would that be doable?

Yes, you could make a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment portion of it. approves the designation of what i'm showing on the screen from this to this so if you make a motion we've held the public hearing for that component and then i suppose next month we can hold the public hearing for the zoning part because there are two different applications we're looking at right now they do go nicely together i think if we did vote on the land use designation tonight um if you change your minds at the next meeting then we're just going to put it another month so we can hear them both at the next meeting or tonight if you'd like to make a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment as proposed from 3 to 6 to designating low-density residential Riverview, then that's off your plate, and we just know, okay, that's the new range. Now, which zone is going to be bundled under this range for the Riverview? We could do that, or you can hear both of them next meeting.

But we do have a motion before us, and it's been seconded. So we can modify that motion and make it just about one thing, or we could vote on that motion, which sends everything back, I think is what Commissioner Crutchfield moved, which was send everything back. So I guess what I would say is, first of all, Commissioner Crutchfield, would you like to modify the motion? And the modification might be to accommodate what Director Matson said, which was let's get the land use, comprehensive land thing done tonight and then go back on the zoning.

what you it's a complicated issue that's correct i think sending it all back might just be easier to be honest just because then we're not like just i don't see what it does time wise other than it just knocks one thing on your checklist but if you guys want to keep to that i think i'll just move forward with commissioner yeah to answer your question i'd rather not modify because i feel like it is so important and if if you can give you no option

One, two, like you mentioned before, there are some details that you can come back to us with and we can share with our neighbors and so forth. I think that, you know, that that is a good thing to do. It doesn't mean that development will not go forward at some point for someone, a developer that wants to do something. It may take a little bit of time. We'll move through it conservatively.

patiently all right so I don't I that's perfect thank you we have a motion to send the package back to staff for rework based on some recommendations we've made it's been seconded move my commercial threshold seconded by Commissioner Jones all those in favor aye Any opposed? All right, the motion passes. I know it's complicated. I'm sorry that you have to do more work, but I think it's the right move for us to take our time, and I think the developers can wait, and property owners can wait, and I think it's in the best interest of a balanced approach.

Sure, yeah, and I don't mind doing more work. It all pays the same, and we want to get it done. Get it right. I would appreciate, I don't think this needs a motion or anything, but direction on the noticing, just so we don't get hung up on this again. I'm worried about setting precedent about just changing the process. I believe change the codes, but it's probably going to be asked by council too, so I could go either way. If we do a massive mailing noticing. For this, I would just be a little nervous that any time we do any citywide change, we're noticing the whole city.

I don't like inconsistency either. And if its code doesn't require it, we shouldn't require it. It'd be great, but we need to take that up in the code, not here in this issue.

I believe that, and maybe Ivan can correct me, that there is an option if we wish to, right? Is that specifically listed in the code, not to put you on the spot? Okay. Okay. Yeah, it's definitely not required and it's not what we've done in the past. So if we want to specifically notice everyone, I'm always happy to include public input.

Would it be fair that with the next time you come back, say in January, would you come back for another public hearing?

Yes, absolutely. Okay.

So maybe what we do is we just make sure that the notice of that public hearing and we can do our part or send our neighbors if we're living in that area to make sure that the public hearing is heard. I actually talked to a couple of my neighbors, but it was too late to notice to come to the public hearing. I think that's a fair notification. I mean, honestly, we make the same point to developers. Hey, it's not our fault if you're not paying attention to public hearing notices, right? And it's the same for citizens, right? If citizens are not paying attention to If the code doesn't require a mailing, we probably shouldn't. And honestly, mailings are also not cheap.

yeah and if you send i found if you send notices for everything and all just gets tossed in the trash so there's no good answer for it i mean i'd like it is sad to see you know not a lot of people here i mean that is not good i think staff would always appreciate as much input as possible so i do have it on our list to talk about public noticing and processes between planning commission and council and all sorts of fun things next year with the planning commission so we will have a busy year so be ready to come to every meeting next year and then some for extra credit and we have just a lot of really important work to do together next year.

I appreciate your work on this and yeah let's take I think we should take it up in the noticing and I'm looking forward to you know maybe a moderated balanced approach so we can come back and do a public hearing and get this on its way for you. Thank you, everybody, for the discussion. We will now move into the public hearings are complete. We'll move into the workshop agenda items. The first one is the CA-2025-002 sandwich board signs within right-of-way. That ought to be a fun one. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Ivan Baragon, and I am here to present the potential allowance of sandwich board signs within the right-of-way. The current proposal directed by City Council applies only to the downtown overlay district and a 300 foot buffer around it. The 300 foot buffer is shown in pink and it would be applicable to that area within as well. The intent is to allow these signs along business frontages, ideally in the area between the building or parcel and the curb, within the sidewalk or in an unimproved area where no sidewalk exists. A depiction of this concept is displayed on the screen. So the blue outlined area indicated where it'd be permitted, for example, 415 West Lewis Street. Currently, private sign placement within the right way is strictly prohibited under PMC 17.15.0403. By code, these temporary signs are currently allowed up to six square feet in size and up to four feet in height. On the screen, you can see how placement on a corner lot would work at the proposed furthest point from the intersection. While this may seem restrictive, there are two important considerations. The closer a sign is to an intersection, the greater the potential for impaired sight lines, and placement near ramps introduces additional challenges. Signalized intersections versus stop-controlled intersections differ, but the code does not have a one-size-fits-all approach, which is why the standard is proposed. As we are in the early stages, these requirements can be adjusted as recommended. The proposed changes also include provision for removal of signs found in violation and clarify where these proposed signs are strictly prohibited, such as within travel lanes, medians, and roundabouts. While some of this may seem obvious, enforcement can be difficult without clear code guidance, and even with it, compliance can be challenging. Included in your packet is a summary of how other cities regulate sandwich board sites, including Poulsbo, Redmond, Warding, Puyallup, Snoqualmie, Everett, and others. Our goal is to present this proposal to the Planning Commission before you for a public hearing in January and to City Council for final action in February. However, recent communication received today may slightly delay the timeline for City Council consideration, of course, depending on how you want to move forward as well. Key benefits of this proposal may include providing flexibility for downtown businesses, establishing a regulatory mechanism for oversight of site placement, and allowing consideration of site distance differences between signalized intersections and stop-controlled intersections. Alternatives to this proposal include one, taking no action, two, allowing signs in the right-of-way without regulation, which is not recommended, or three, expanding the allowance citywide. At this time, staff recommends the Planning Commission provide input or ask questions regarding the proposal and schedule a public hearing for formal consideration at the next Planning Commission meeting on January 15, 2026. Suggested motion is included at the bottom of your report, third page. I hope you can find that. Thank you.

Thank you. I didn't know we make motions at workshops, but that's okay. I think we can, right? I thought you guys just do it.

Yeah, that was my mistake. I added that to Ivan's staff report, and I was in public hearing mode, so you can ignore that motion, and please forgive me.

Go ahead, Commissioner Gill.

Thank you very much. It's interesting that we're talking about this now during my time on city council in Rapid City. we did the same thing. So it's kind of fun to be diving into it again. Maybe that was a sign that I was supposed to be here. Sorry. So the thing that we kept coming back to and back to was the impact of signs on ADA and sidewalk width and accessibility. Consistent sidewalk width throughout downtown and wherever they're at may or may not be the same throughout everywhere. And creating an ordinance for these has to be enforceable, as you stated early on. So I would ask, who would be responsible for enforcing this? And how would they approach it? Would it be based on a complaint basis? Would they be driving around looking for signs that are in violation? There are a lot of different philosophies on how to approach it. So if I could get some clarification on that, then I'd like to follow up, if I may, with a couple other questions. Thank you. Of course.

So it'd likely be code enforcement that would be enforcing it. And given the limited capacity that they are currently working with, I doubt they'd be driving around, but likely complaint-based enforcement.

Thank you, and it was interesting to read in here that it's been illegal since 2006, but obviously they've been in use a lot all over town. So is the effort here just to clean it up a little bit and allow businesses to be in compliance and find a better, safer way to do this? Is that kind of the goal?

I believe that's why city council direction came to be. Okay.

In the document that you gave us, there's a page, I don't know what page it is. It's the last page of the, or it's one of the pages of the draft. It has 17 different things that I don't know if they are exemptions to things or what. It's right before 17.15.040. and they're numbered things. One is the area within a continuous perimeter, blah, blah, blah. Two is height measured from the average finish grade. And I couldn't find anything that they referenced to or attached to. Can you help me with that? Yeah, of course.

Yeah, so they're part of the table. That long table that's about, I don't know, five pages. At the bottom of that, well, within that table, you have numbers. that point to you to this numbering sequence, like one through 18 now. And then as under temporary signs, If you go down to commercial zones, I've included number 18 because they're currently required to be five feet away from neighboring properties, for example.

So any of those little numbers in those boxes, the legend for those is this back page here. Would that be correct? Within the table. Okay. All right. Thank you. That helps. And then the last thing, and this is... just a spoonful of silliness, but I think it needs to be said. The city of Redmond, in their example, said that festoons are prohibited. And I had never in my life heard of a festoon. And so I looked it up, and I'd like to share with all my colleagues what a festoon is. You know what a festoon is? Okay. A festoon is a decorative hanging or garland of chains, flowers, or leaves, fabric draped in a curve between two points. And so don't you dare be in the city of Redmond and hang up a festoon, or you'll be in big trouble. Festoons.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it. Go ahead, Commissioner Crutchfield.

Ivan, I have a question about, so we're just talking about this particular area in the pink right now as far as the signage.

That is the current proposal.

That is. So I was curious because we talked about who the enforcement person would be, code enforcement, and the signs are prohibited now and yet When I drove home from work tonight, there were several that I saw right on the sidewalk. So they're on the right of way for people that are supposed to be walking on the sidewalk, disabled, whomever. One was in front of Jiffy Lube, I believe. So they're not being regulated now. And the other question that I had was when there was a part, it's on 17.15.025, it talks about only one sandwich board sign is allowed per business tenant. So if you have a large business, maybe like Griggs or a building that has more than one tenant, then does that mean each tenant would have a sign? You could have four or five signs without any delineation of space between them. I mean, it could be really cumbersome to the public right-of-way on the sidewalk. There's some other kind of more nitpicky kind of things, like facing them instead of the one that I saw that was actually just completely... taking sidewalk from people that were supposed to be able to use that for access. Those were basically my questions I guess about the number of signage per tenant.

Yeah, so again, given the limited capacity with code enforcement, and as I believe we're all aware that they are being used, and it's unfortunate that we're not able to catch them all, but with this, we'd allow them under certain restrictions, and... To address your tenant question, I did want to provide that flexibility, although, as you mentioned, it might cause visual clutter. But I would just want to give one building one sign. And I'd want to give the opportunity for a building that has five tenants to have that. But as we are in the early stages, you know, we're accepting recommendations and we'd, of course, move forward. in a consensus.

Yes, thank you. And I mean, I'm all for the business being able to advertise their services or their wares and all. Maybe putting their sandwich board up against their business, you know, would be one way, signage in the window, but not obstructing a public right of way. And if you have one sign, okay, maybe like you say, you might have several, might present a problem. beyond just the visual clutter too, but. Understood.

Thank you. So these are being used today, and just to clarify, we're talking sandwich boards like the little fold out things that are, yeah, okay. We're just setting parameters for what people can do with them because today they're currently being used, they're technically not allowed, and so we're trying to throw some rules at the Wild West, if I'm understanding correctly. Yeah, somewhat. Nope, that makes sense. Okay, just clarifying.

Yeah, I think the burning elephant question in the room is, if there's no enforcement of prohibited signs, what makes to think there be any change in enforcement of regulated signs, right? That's really the burning question.

We did enforce on a sign a couple weeks ago that was in a haphazard location. So there is enforcement. It's not like a focus. There's a lot of other like life safety and more important issues, in my opinion, for our two code enforcement officers to be focusing on. But if we get a complaint and, you know, it's causing problems, we'll go out there and take a look. And so there is enforcement. It's just very minimal.

Yeah, and a complaint base, which makes sense. And if people, other businesses or citizens are really upset, they should exercise that complaint mechanism. So yeah, I think it's fair. Any other questions or feedback for staff on this issue? All right, well, no motion needed. You guys can, I guess we'll, will you come back in January then? Yeah, that's the goal for public hearing. Thank you. Last item on the workshop was a comprehensive plan and economic development discussion. And so I will turn it over to Director Matson.

Thank you, Chair. And this should be a lighter topic for discussion. Everything's been a little technical tonight. So we have different elements that make up the city's comprehensive plan. And one of the elements will be the economic development element. And so we have consultants working on it. We've had internal discussions on a lot of the pieces. So I thought each month I'd bring you a workshop item from here till the end of next year to start just discussing your vision. And there's no pressure tonight. Don't feel like you have to have all the answers. I just wanted to share with you the internal meeting we had with some staff that have been here a while and then with our friends at the Port of Pasco, Stephen McFadden. Yes, so he was in the meeting too and then we had some economic development specialists in the meeting and we had a lengthy hour and a half meeting and we're just discussing our dreams for Pasco and this does couple with the comprehensive plan too and our vision for the city, but economic development, this is what the focus is. So I'm going to go through this presentation pretty fast and just hit on the strengths and weaknesses that we hit on for PASCO. And then at the end, I was hoping for your feedback. Did we miss the mark completely? Do you guys want PASCO to be a bedroom community, for example, with no commercial? Or do you want us to go a different direction? So I'm going to go through it. Quickly, and then I would love your feedback. And if I get new feedback from this group, I will relate it to the consultant while we're building the plan. And our plan for the economic development is to set a roadmap to implement it later and not just these aspirational, like we want to be the best in the world. You know, we want to have more specifics that say, know our goal is to develop an implementation strategy for economic development in pasco and something we can just keep building on and using so it's less fluffy and more like concrete and we can use this for pasco So I'll go through the main points that were hit on. Retail and commercial gaps, it's no secret that the other two cities in the Tri-Cities area do have a lot of the retail base and the shopping. If you need a pair of jeans, you're not likely buying that. You don't have a lot of options in Pasco. You're going to go likely to Kennewick or Richland to go buy your pair of jeans or a new work outfit. So there is a limited retail base in Pasco compared to other cities. And then there is a need for And this is a question too, what you guys think of this is for high-end destination retail experiences, it would be great if I'm just looking at it from an economic development standpoint, if we had a key use like a Cabela's or Trader Joe's, not saying any of these are coming, but it just seems to be the things people really want. Cabela's, Trader Joe's, North 40, Crispy Cones, that's actually in Pasco now, but just a unique use that brings people from the other cities to Pasco. So they're not likely driving here to shop at, you know, Walmart because there's a Walmart in Richland and Kennewick. So a unique use that brings people physically into Pasco for that use. And then while they're here, they're probably gassing up, they're grabbing a cup of coffee. So from an economic development standpoint, do we want to try and cater to these high-end uses or you know just fancier like a Nordstrom Rack would be nice and in my personal opinion I don't know about professional but you know just like those kind of stores that would bring people here specifically in Pasco where they maybe wouldn't make the trip otherwise so with that we have an opportunity to expand shopping and dining and entertainment uses that would go around those uses that are bringing people into Pasco that aren't necessarily here. And other uses would be like a Dave & Buster's or like a, you know, family fun center, just something here, you know, bowling alley, just things that people are traveling to Pasco specifically to use. And then we noted some of the challenges, like there are healthcare growth long-term needs, like there's a lot of hospitals in Richland right now. We do see clinics popping up around Road 68, but there's some health care regional needs for this area that would cater better to people on this side of Tri-Cities that I've listed. And then retail market gap, I've already mentioned that. I guess I mentioned it again. And then commercial growth opportunities, just again, like a diverse retail and mixed use. Like we do have a lot of fabulous uses along Road 68 and Broadmoor and in our downtown area. that are fabulous for the community already, but just like a more diverse mix that people could use. And then healthcare, I'm not sure why these are just repeating themselves, but bear with me here. So a need for more trauma-centered hospital in West Pasco is listed. And then here's some more healthcare, you know, different patients seek care in Richland when possible. But if we had a West Pasco area, we could serve that community. And then for workforce, we have a younger workforce with lower average wages. So we're switching from retail to just other economic development topics in Pasco. We have a higher share of immigrant population, and Pasco is, I think, awesome in the fact that we are super diverse. I believe 55% of the community is made up of Hispanic population, which I think is super cool and unique to our city and is a fabulous component to Pasco and makes us unique in that sense. But then there's a need for different facilities like the AIM Center, and that is a big project the Port of Pasco is working on right now that is catering to aerospace manufacturing. Nothing's set in stone yet, but their idea is to advocate for a different... type of economic base. So Hanford over in Richland tends to have more people with PhDs and higher degrees, like higher pay in the community. So we'd like to have our share of like, you know, a range of, we have a great industrial base and a range of wages, but the high end wages is what PASCO is lacking. And if we could tap into the Western market with aerospace industry and maybe take some of those uses from the West side, every area and create a synergetic use here, then PASCO could have its own unique, You know, Hanford, but aerospace style, you know, higher paying jobs. So that's an idea is to get higher paying jobs. And then those people move to the community and then they're spending their money at our local businesses and shopping downtown. So that has the effect, you know, for economic development. So that would be one of the ideas there. And so I blew through that very quickly. But, you know, I guess more retail, we definitely have our fair share of residential uses. But what is your questions tonight without making this too technical? It's just what is your dream for Pasco? What do you think people want to see? And what are your ideas related to economic development and just life here in Pasco?

Thank you. No, I think it's great. Why don't we go down the line? You start, Commissioner Jones, and we'll just work our way down. Thank you very much.

As a new person being here a little over two years, I might have a different look at it than people who have been here a long time. But the thing that I see missing from the city of Pasco is a fine arts venue. the Tri-Cities doesn't offer any kind of a genuine fine arts venue. There's enough people in the area to support it. There's enough upper level employment jobs type people who support those kinds of events. But when all you have is the Toyota Center, no offense, but to offer things like Man I'm Steamroller and those kinds of things, that doesn't cut it. So we have an opportunity there, I think, would fit into that nicely. That's my one thing I'd like to add. Thank you.

MR.

Anything to add, Commissioner Handler?

COMMISSIONER HANDLER Well, I'm going to go way back. I think and I know I'm talking against the wind here but I still think we our greatest asset we have forgotten and that's the river we and I've had I've done myself personally plans where 20th Avenue would come down from the airport you'd have hotels there you'd have recreation and business and swimming and water skiing and a harbor there directly across from Clover Island. You know, take that dike down. I know, I've heard everything you can tell me about the Corps of Engineers, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. But I think the greatest asset we have, we've sort of turned our back on. And I used to tell Gary Crutchfield that all the time. Gary, why you got that colored gray? that whole area across the bridge, and he'd shrug his shoulder. But anyway, that's just a little seedling. That's a great point. That was going to be one of mine.

I'll turn it over to Commissioner Crawford.

I think it's all going in the right direction, I would say, more so than like a hope and a want. It's a pretty well necessity at this point for the City of Pasco to pick up more retail, I know. their infrastructure needs are growing pretty exponentially. We're growing pretty quickly as a bedroom community and always have, but those don't really drive much for tax dollars. We're talking about impact fees for schools. I think City of Pasco has one of the highest per capita student populations, which is great. That's a lot of kids, that's a lot of houses, a lot of infrastructure, but if we don't have retail and dollars to feed that, then we're stuck. And so I guess I don't know where this, in the context of this meeting goes, other than like we give them a rah-rah, like yes, go help do more.

Yes, I'm taking notes on your input and we will fold it into the economic development edits and then we'll bring that element to you and say, what did we do? And then you can give more input at that point. But we're going to take the existing element, which is great. It talks about the river too, but we'll make sure and emphasize that more and then we'll bring it to the group and you can read through it and let us know how we did.

then no, I think everything in alignment. Commissioner Crutchfield, do you have anything to add?

Not really. I think those are great ideas. I think just being really aware of our great assets that we have here that make us unique, like the river. I agree with the retail and trying to bring that in, but also making sure that we have the roads and all that too. accommodate all that when you're getting to the store and trying to get there at five o'clock at night and everybody else is going up road 68 you know but I think you know we have the water park different things that you know we're always going to be different than our other communities but if we can kind of work in synergy with what they have and what sets us apart as being different I think we're in good shape

Well, I'll just make a point that it flywheels quite a bit. Like we talk about health care, we talk about new jobs, we talk about higher incomes. Those employers, those retailers, they look at existing and that's housing prices, that's incomes. And Kennewick and Richland beat us every time for that. And so if they're picking one of the three cities, they will pick the one with the highest incomes, the most affordable housing and most access to those things. And the further we fall behind, the harder it is to crawl back.

Right, yeah, no, I'd double down, triple down on the river. I think we have lots of opportunities we've missed on the river, and I don't think it's failures of the city, I think it's just the blockage of the Corps, and we just gotta find a way to break through the Corps. I was just with the Secretary of Energy who did the Ice Harbor Dam with the Corps of Engineers General, and I'm like, Dang, we need to like go beat him up about getting his act together with working with the Corps because we are just so roadblocked with the Corps to do anything in the river. And I think part of it is just maybe we need to make a more concerted effort with council members or citizen groups to just put more pressure on the Corps and the administration, because I think it's blocking us on so many ways on the river. The other one I would add to this, I think you're a great bunch of ideas, is one of the things is bringing in the higher wage jobs, thinking of things that we could specialize in, like the city of Richland, they went after the research district up in North Richland, and it hasn't actually been that successful, but it has been a little bit successful. There's been some big companies like Atkins Realis, and you've got The Lab and some other big researcher, and you've got Wazoo, of course. I think if we pick some specialization areas, like one of the things that comes to mind, I'm in the field, There's a big need for data centers and data center land. If we could take on a special project, I'll tell you, data centers in Richland are a poor proposition because Benton REI and the city of Richland suck at power. They have poor, poor power problems. We don't have those power issues with Frank and POD. and data centers need power. And so I don't think that's the answer, but kind of identifying some special target kind of business or areas that would bring in those high wages might be, you know, that's what some of the other cities have done, like Richland, and it has brought in some of those higher wages. So I don't know what that thing is for us. I don't know that we need to build 100 dairy gold plants and they're not high wages, but I do think some things like that that we could target for strategic kind of targeting and saying, hey, in the example, data center providers, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, whoever, you want to come in, Franklin PUD, it doesn't have the same problems they have across the river with power. Come over here, don't think about Richland. Because Richland, I mean, we're dealing with it at the laboratory, Richland is awful with power. They're out of power, they don't know what to do, and it's creating huge problems over there for development. So those would be our, I think it's great to appreciate you sharing that with us.

Thank you.

All right. So I think that was our last item on the agenda. Other than other business, are there any things from staff or Director Mattson for the future that you want to talk to us about?

Um, I, yeah, next, next month we will be bringing you, um, another workshop topic related to the comprehensive plan and a discussion. And then obviously the public hearing in Ivan's item. Um, so, and then just on a staffing note for CED, we, we did have several vacancies in the department. We now have two left. Oh, three. Well, two. Yeah, two left. We have an incoming senior planner, which will be great, who will help with some of the workload. So we still have a planner two position that's open. So if you know of any planner twos and the, yeah, so that's open. And then a senior plans examiner will be posting next year. But we're getting close to full staff. There's been a lot of transition in the department and a lot of change in our staff. The group we have now is doing a fabulous job and We are doing lots of updates to our permit system. So by the end of next month, we will be able to accept payments online, which will be monumental for the community and the applicants. They can pay for permits from the comfort of their home. And then by mid-year, end of Q1, I'm guessing, we will have all the permits online. So you can do a fillable form. We won't have PDFs to struggle through and fill out. You can just go online, interactive, and do that. So I just wanted to make sure and publicly thank the CED staff for all of their work on that and so we continue to cut down processes and remove red tape in certain areas and you know it's no fault to staff it's just our processes haven't been updated over time if anything I would say that's on CED management or previous management or current management so we're just trying to help staff perform better with better tools and the online system will also provide updates to people so they'll know where the permit is that's a lot of feedback I've received from people is where's my permit and we have a tech who said You know, they're taking four hours of phone calls a day telling people where the permits are and where the system will soon be able to tell them like, you know, Mr. Harpster, you've submitted your application and it's in Ivan's court and he has, you know, 16 days to review it. I don't know how detailed we'll get, but they'll know where their permit is and they'll be able to tell when it's ready to issue. And so I'm really excited about that. That is a big change and we've been able to do it in a very short amount of time. I'd say, you know, when we started this project, it was five months ago. The IT team here is fabulous and we couldn't have done it without them. It is just tricky jumping into a new system. There will be some hiccups. So in first of January, you know, we might be wanting to pull our hair out. But I think after a few weeks after that happens. It will be fabulous. And then after that, we're just going to keep fine-tuning our processes. We're trying to do checklists for every step in the process so everyone's reviewing everything transparently the same. We're trying to eliminate guesswork for applicants and front-load information so that they don't get halfway through the project and say, oh, I need to build a road. We're just trying to get everything a lot more streamlined. And it will take some time, but we are making really good steps in the midst of the comprehensive plan update and then in the midst of next year updating our municipal code. So there's a lot going on. and we have been short staffed and now we have newer staff to train so there's just a lot going on in our department so always appreciate the community's patience and everyone involved but I think we have been making a difference and that is all credit to our fabulous staff and you know they're doing the work and And they're excited about it. And I think we have a very bright future for our department ahead. So that was the update on the department. And then I just wanted to say thank you to this group, your volunteers. And, you know, I haven't worked with you too much. You know, I've been here a few months now, but you guys are very detail oriented and I can just tell all of you are reading. The packets and the questions you have are very on point, and I can tell you care about the community. So I'm just impressed with the group, and I'm not just saying that. I've worked with a lot of public groups before, and I just can tell this group takes it seriously. So I just appreciate all of you very much, and yeah, that's all. Thank you.

Well, thank you. We appreciate you and staff and all the work you do, and on behalf of us citizens and PASCO, so thank you for all you do as well. Well, with that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

Motion second.

Motion moved. Motion second. All right. It's been moved and seconded. The meeting is adjourned at 8-11. Thank you, everybody, and have a happy holiday, Merry Christmas, and whatever you celebrate, and we'll see you in the new year.