Special Planning Commission Meeting

City of Prosser PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Council Chambers, 1002 Dudley Avenue, Prosser WA 99350 Thursday, March 27, 2025 @ 6:00 PM Per Ordinance No. 22-3175, Planning Commission meetings will be held in-person at location listed above and virtually. To join the meeting, please click the following link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/590067637 You can also dial in using your phone. +1 (646) 749-3112 Access Code:590-067-637 Page 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. BOARD ACTION a. Approval of 2.27.2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 2-3 02.27.2025 Mtg Mins 4. BOARD DISCUSSION a. Proposed Planned Area Developments (PAD) Moratorium Continued 4-6 Discussion. Infill Matrix Review, discuss and provide Staff direction regarding the recommended path for the repeal and replace of the current PAD Ordinance. 5. ADJOURNMENT Hearing Type: Quasi-Judicial Statement: This is a quasi-judicial hearing. This means that the hearing must not only be fair but appear to be fair. If you have had any ex parte contact with the applicant or anyone, other than City Staff, then you must disclose that contact and the nature of that contact. In the event that you have already made up your mind regarding the subject of this hearing and cannot rely on the evidence presented to make that decision, then you must disclose that fact. In the event that conflicts would prevent a quorum from making a decision in this matter, then, under the doctrine of necessity, you would be able to hear this matter notwithstanding any conflicts. Do you have any conflicts? Does any member of the public believe that any member has a conflict? Page 1 of 6  CITY OF PROSSER SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING THURSDAY FEBRUARY 27, 2025 CITY HALL PROSSER, WASHINGTON AND VIRTUALLY ON GOTOMEETING CALL TO ORDER: The special meeting of the Prosser Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. on February 27, 2025, by Chair, Trevor Day. The meeting was also held virtually on GOTOMEETING. ROLL CALL: Commissioners present: Michele Villarreal (virtually), Nancy Martinez, Aaron Williams, and Trevor Day. Don Howell was absent. City Staff present were: Howard Saxton, City Attorney/Secretary and Rachel Shaw, Deputy City Administrator/City Clerk. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Aaron Williams moved and Michele Villarreal seconded that the December 19, 2025 meeting of the Planning Commission be approved as drafted. All voted in favor of approval, motion carried. BOARD DISCUSSION REGARDING PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENTS: Rachel Shaw introduced the City’s contract planner, Ryan Hughes from Nexus Planning, to the Commission. Mr. Hughes appeared virtually and provided the following information to the Commission: the Moratorium gives the City time to address changes to Planned Area Development Ordinance; he has prepared updates for the location of the PAD; open space requirements, road requirements and connectivity; the purpose and definitions sections are the same; he wondered whether minimum PAD size of two and one-half acres is too big; the size may need to be decreased; where PADs may locate would be determined by a PAD Zoning overlay; open space now has no deductions from the required twenty-five percent, but can include critical areas; streets are all to be public and use the existing public road standards; the streets must connect to the street network; there must be pedestrian connectivity and connectivity to other parts of the City; there are three options for the overlay zone; the proposed options for the maps use a quarter mile as being the walkable distance; option 1 shows only lots totally encompassed within one quarter mile being in the overlay zone; option 2 includes properties where any portion of the parcel is within one quarter mile; option 3 is that same as option 2 but excludes certain zones that may not be appropriate for residential growth. The Commission discussed PAD’s. Mr. Hughes indicated that option 3 only excludes the airport and other inappropriate zones and he pointed out that option 2 includes a lot more lots than option 1. 1 Page 2 of 6 Christy Batayola, an engineer, made the following comments: she did the River Road Residences and she is working on a new PAD; she has issues with some of the changes; the area she is working on is only included in option 2; the twenty-five percent open space requirement reduces the number of lots that can be developed and results in the loss of units; the result of the change is to make each unit smaller to get to the same number of lots; the open space makes it impractable; the existing codes did not make sense; the open space results in smaller yards and housing units being smushed together; on sheet three of the code changes, it mentions critical areas and she is not clear whether the off-site open space only applies to critical areas; the twenty-six feet streets with no parking is not consistent with the required fifty feet of right of way dedication in the City’s standards; pedestrian connectivity could be clearer. Cindy Bluemel made the following comments. She thinks connectivity means that each neighborhood connects to other neighborhoods. Stan Nuxoll made the following comments: he has worked in all of the Tri-Cities all of which have amended their codes to allow zero-lot line developments; the open space requirement makes the projects not feasible; he suggests looking at what other cities have done; the consumer wants affordable zero lot line housing; if the open space is twenty-five percent, then the lots will be seventeen feet wide and will degenerate over time; other cities allow zero-lot line developments with no open space requirements, but require the payment of a park fee. Ms. Batayola clarified that other cities have minimum widths and minimum lot size and without open space, the yards are bigger. The Commissioners asked for some other options for open space requirements at the next Planning Commission meeting. Michele Villarreal asked for examples of required open space from smaller jurisdictions. The Commissioners also asked for options on the road standards and to clarify when off-site open space is allowed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was ADJOURNED at 6:56 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ______________________________________ HOWARD M. SAXTON, III, Secretary 2 Page 3 of 6  CITY OF PROSSER, WASHINGTON AGENDA BILL Agenda Title: Meeting Date: Proposed Planned Area Developments (PAD) March 27, 2025 Moratorium Continued Discussion. Special Planning Commission Meeting Item Type: Discussion Department: Director: Contact Person: Phone Number: Planning Rachel Shaw Howard Saxton 509-786-8218 Commission Cost of Proposal: Fund Name and Number: N/A N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Reviewed by Finance Department: N/A Attachments to Agenda Packet Item: 1. Infill Matrix Summary Statement: At the September 24, 2024, City Council meeting, Council adopted Ordinance No. 24- 3254, enacting a moratorium on applications related to Planned Are Developments (PAD) for a six-month period of time. That moratorium was set to expire on March 24, 2025, but was extended an additional six months on March 11, 2025, by Ordinance No. 25-3273. Per the Planning Commission's direction at the November 14, 2024, Special Planning Commission meeting, Staff along with the City's contract Planners at Nexus Planning Services, have worked on difference PAD options to reach a final decision. The first iteration of edits was addressing Planning Commission/City Council concerns regarding street width, open space, low-income housing, and pedestrian connectivity. The second iteration of edits refined language further and showed potential PAD overlay zones over the Downtown Commercial and Thoroughfare Commercial zones. At the February 27, 2025, Special Planning Commission Meeting, the Commissioners Page 4 of 6 directed Staff, along with the City’s contract Planners at Nexus Planning Services, to present different options for a potential “repeal and replace” of the current PAD ordinance. The alternatives before the Planning Commission to review are three options for a potential change in PAD Ordinance: 1. Continue with PAD Regulation Update a. Refine PAD regulations to achieve goals and address concerns founded in the Moratorium. b. Establish open space requirements while also updating and clarifying other questions based on the last PC meeting. 2. Repeal PAD and Replace: Zero Lot Line a. Replace PAD regulations and code with allowances for zero lot line development in desired residential zones. 3. Repeal PAD and Replace: Infill Ordinance a. Switch to working on an Infill/Middle Housing Ordinance based on recent comments at PC meeting as well as past meetings. b. Create a new Infill Ordinance that is focused on spurring new development throughout the city, especially with Middle Housing types. Staff recommends the Commissioners review, discuss and provide Staff direction on how to move forward with a proposed “repeal and replace” of the current PAD ordinance. Consistent with Council Goal: Goal #1: Livability & Quality of Life Recommended Action/Suggested Motion: Review, discuss and provide Staff direction regarding the recommended path for the repeal and replace of the current PAD Ordinance. Reviewed by Department Reviewed by City Attorney: Approved by City Director: Administrator: Rachel Shaw Howard Saxton Rachel Shaw Date: Mar 24, 2025 Date: Mar 24, 2025 Date: Mar 24, 2025 Page 5 of 6  Infill / Middle Housing Development Regulations (e.g. Codes) Open Affordable Traffic Comparison Analysis Space Housing Connectivity Calming Infill Characteristics Prosser Kennewick Sunnyside Walla Walla “UR” (URBAN RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT Medium and High density "A zero lot line development for single-family and No codes found. allows zero-lot-line with CU permit. residential zones have zero lot line multifamily dwellings may be permitted in the R-2 (18.35.040) Can't find this district provisions for townhomes. Medium Density Residential district." Purpose: anywhere on zoning map though. (18.12.010). "promote efficient land use, permit a more energy- efficient arrangement of structures, protect Zero-Lot-Line environmentally sensitive areas, or provide more X usable private or community open space." (17.16.070) 2 spaces are general for most residential 2 spaces for single, duplex and None found in R-2 code. Off street requirements: zones. townhomes. (18.36) Single= 2 spaces, Duplex= 2 spaces, Multi-family= 1.5 Parking Requirements spaces. (20.127.010) X No lot coverage designations found for No lot coverage designations R-2 Maximum land coverage: 55 percent "RN": "maximum of fifty Medium density, though there are found for Medium density, though (17.16.030) percent of the lot." (20.50.020) Lot Coverage minimums for lot frontage. there are minimums for lot X frontage. "The maximum permitted number of Medium density is gross area R-2: "one to nine dwelling units per acre". RN: "up to four dwelling units lots/dwelling units for any development in divided by 43,560 and multiplied (17.16.010) per lot." (20.50.020) the RM zone is determined by dividing the by 13. (18.12.010) gross area of the parcel in square feet by Density forty-three thousand five hundred sixty square feet, multiplied by the allowed X X maximum density of six." (18.27.040) Medium Density allowed: A. One single- "Medium density single and Single family, two-family, ADU's, and multifamily (RN) Neighborhood family dwelling per lot or one duplex per multiple-family residential and apartments that meet density standards. (sq Residential: "single-family, lot; buildings" (18.03.040). feet/43,560 x 16) (17.16.020) duplexes, triplexes, B. Accessory apartments (Section fourplexes, townhomes, 18.60.140); cottage housing, tiny homes, Housing Types C. Family day care homes (Section stacked flats, and accessory X X 18.60.190); and dwelling units." (20.50.020) D. Accessory uses and structures related to a permitted use. " Each development of five lots or more The City uses Design Standards on A. Minimum lot areas: 4,300 square feet; B. Building Height. No building must provide for usable common open file within the Community Minimum width: 50 feet; C. Maximum building shall exceed thirty-five feet. space or a public park in an amount Planning Department. (18.75) height: two full stories, not to exceed 35 feet; D. (20.50.020) Design Standards determined through review pursuant to Maximum land coverage: 55 percent; E. Minimum X Chapter 16.04" (18.27.040) floor area: 600 square feet each per dwelling unit in a duplex, and 864 square feet per single-family dwelling unit. (17.16.030) Page 6 of 6