Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-2025 YPC Agenda PacketThe meeting will also be recorded and posted on the Y-PAC website. Visit the Yakima Planning Commission webpage for more information, including agenda packets and minutes. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Bill Preston, P.E., Director Trevor Martin, AICP, Manager Planning Division 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone (509) 575-6183 • Fax (509) 575-6105 • Email: ask.planning@yakimawa.gov CITY OF YAKIMA PLANNING COMMISSION Yakima City Hall Council Chambers 129 N 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901 February 12, 2025 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. YPC MEMBERS: Chair Mary Place, Vice-Chair Anne Knapp, Jeff Baker, Charles Hitchcock, Leanne Hughes-Mickel, Colleda Monick, Philip Ostriem, Kevin Rangel, Arthur Salido, Frieda Stephens, and Shelley White City Council Liaison: Rick Glenn, Janice Deccio CITY PLANNING STAFF: Bill Preston (Community Development Director), Lisa Maxey (Admin. Assistant), Trevor Martin (Planning Manager), Eric Crowell (Senior Planner), Connor Kennedy (Associate Planner), Eva Rivera (Planning Technician) AGENDA I.Call to Order II.Roll Call III.Selection of Chair and Vice Chair IV.Staff Announcements V.Approval of Minutes – January 8, 2025 Meeting VI.Public Comment VII.Discussion: Business Licenses VIII.Discussion: Housing Design Standards IX.Commission Meeting Recap X.Adjourn Next Meeting: February 26, 2025 - 1 - 01-08-2025 YPC Minutes City of Yakima Planning Commission (YPC) Meeting Minutes January 8, 2025 Call to Order Chair Place called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. Roll Call YPC Members Present: Chair Mary Place, Jeff Baker, Charles Hitchcock, Leanne Hughes- Mickel, Colleda Monick, Philip Ostriem, Kevin Rangel, Arthur Salido, Frieda Stephens, Shelley White YPC Members Absent: Vice-Chair Anne Knapp (excused) Staff Present: Trevor Martin; Planning Manager, Eric Crowell; Senior Planner, City Council Liaison: Rick Glenn Staff Announcements – Planning Manager Martin announced the following: • The Periodic Update is officially underway. The contract is finalized, and progress is moving forward. A more definitive schedule will be shared with the Commission. Staff will provide the Commission with a schedule and is developing public engagement strategies for the update process. • The Senior Planner position will be reopened for recruitment. Action Items: Item Assigned Status Update YPC Bylaws Trevor Martin In Progress Approval of Minutes from November 13 and December 11, 2024 - It was motioned by Commissioner Hitchcock and seconded by Commissioner Stephens to approve the meeting minutes of November 13 and December 11. The motion carried unanimously. Public Comment – None Public Hearing RZ#005-24, SEPA#016-24 – Lincoln Legacy West – Senior Planner Crowell, began the hearing with a staff report regarding a proposal to rezone six parcels, totaling four acres, from Single-Family Residential (R-1) to Small Convenience Center (SCC). The Community Development Department recommends approval of the non-project rezone. Chair Place opened the hearing and Applicant Leanne Liddicoat was present and agreed with the staff recommendation. Dan Tilley, representing Dorothy Davis provided comment. Angela Gondo, provided public comment. Anna Shay provided public comment. The public hearing was closed, and the commissioners entered into discussion. Motion: To approve the RZ#005-24, SEPA#016-24, a rezone of six parcels Motioned by: Commissioner Monick Seconded by: Commissioner Baker Decision: The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing TXT#003-24, SEPA#014-24 – City Planning YMC Title 15 – Planning Manager Martin began with the staff report for text amendments that include updates to zoning regulations for downtown, including mixed-use buildings, parking requirements, sign standards, and administrative adjustments. The text amendments also include a new section added for downtown-specific regulations, and exemptions clarified for single-family and duplexes. Chair Place open the hearing and then closed it as no one was there for public comment. The commission entered into discussion. - 2 - 01-08-2025 YPC Minutes Motion: To approve TXT#003-24, SEPA#014-24 Motioned by: Commissioner Hitchcock Seconded by: Commissioner Stephens Decision: The motion passed unanimously Commission Meeting Recap • Public Hearings: Both Rezone and Text Amendments were approved and will be forwarded to the Yakima City Council for final recommendations, expected by next month. • Request for regular updates from the Department of Commerce for the Planning Commission. Chair Place requested Martin to provide the commission with a monthly report on completed housing units. Commissioner Hughes-Mickel asked for a copy of the presentation that Byron Gumz delivered during the previous meeting. The commission discussed unit lot subdivisions and compliance with recent legislative changes. Commissioner White shared her thoughts on future legislative changes and how to present new housing laws to the commission for discussion. A motion to adjourn to January 22, 2025, was passed with a unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:01 p.m. Chair Place Date This meeting was filmed by YPAC. Minutes for this meeting submitted by: Eva Rivera, Planning Technician. 15.04.120 Home occupations. A. Purpose. The conduct of an accessory business within an existing dwelling may be permitted under the provisions of this section. It is the intent of this section to: 1. Ensure the compatibility of home occupations with other uses permitted in the underlying zone; and 2. Preserve the existing dwelling as the primary use of the structure or property; and 3. Maintain and preserve the character of residential neighborhoods; and 4. Promote the efficient use of public services and facilities by assuring these services are provided to the residential population for which they were planned and constructed, rather than commercial uses. B. Table of Permitted Home Occupations. Table 4-2 titled “Table of Permitted Home Occupations” is incorporated as a part of this section. Each permitted home occupation listed in Table 4-2 is designated as a Class (1), (2) or (3) use for a particular zoning district. Proposed home occupations in existing dwellings in the commercial and industrial zoning districts shall follow the land use requirements of the R-3 zoning district. All permitted home occupations are subject to the standards of this title, including the specific conditions of subsection C of this section and the applicable review procedures of YMC Chapters 15.13, 15.14 and 15.15. Specific uses not permitted as home occupations are listed in subsection H of this section. Table 4-2. Table of Permitted Home Occupations Zoning District SR R-1 R-2 R-3 Barbershop, beauty parlor 2 2 2 2 Business administration*1 1 1 1 Day care, family home*1 1 1 1 Dentist 1 2 2 2 Dog grooming 2 3 3 3 Food preparation*1 1 1 1 Home contractor*1 1 1 1 Home instruction* 1—5 students 1 1 1 1 6—8 students 2 2 2 2 Home office*1 1 1 1 Locksmith and gunsmith 1 1 1 1 The Yakima Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 2024-039, passed December 3, 2024. Yakima Municipal Code 15.04.120 Home occupations.Page 1 of 5 Mas s age therapy /spa*1 1 1 1 Physic ian 1 2 2 2 Produc t as semblage/s erv ice*1 2 2 2 Short term rental*1 1 1 1 Tax ic ab operator*1 1 1 1 Wedding s ervice 2 2 2 2 Unc lassified home oc cupation See YMC 15.04.120(G) NOTES: * Refers to definition in YMC Chapter 15.02. 1 = Type (1) Permitted Home Oc c upation 2 = Type (2) Rev iew and Approval by the Administrative Offic ial Required 3 = Type (3) Rev iew, Public Hearing and Approval by the Hearing Examiner Required = Not Permitted C. Necessary Conditions. Home oc cupations are permitted as an ac ces s ory use to the residential use of a property only when all the following conditions are met: 1. The home occupation is conducted inside a s truc ture within property on which is es tablis hed the primary res idenc e of the practitioner(s ). For the purpos e of adminis tering this s ection, “primary residence” shall be defined as the residence where a person or persons resides for the majority of the c alendar y ear; 2. The home occupation is incidental and subordinate to the residential func tions of the property . No ac tion related to the home occupation shall be permitted that impairs reasonable residential use of the dwelling; 3. There are no external alterations to the building which change its character from a dwelling; 4. The portion of the struc ture or facilities in whic h a home occupation is to be sited must be so des igned that it may be readily converted to s erv e res idential us es; 5. The bus iness is c onducted in a manner that will not alter the normal residential c harac ter of the premises by the us e of c olor, materials, lighting and signs , or the emission of noise, vibration, dus t, glare, The Yakima Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 2024-039, passed December 3, 2024. Yakima Municipal Code 15.04.120 Home occupations.Page 2 of 5 heat, smoke or odors; 6. The home occupation does not generate materially greater traffic v olumes than would normally be ex pected in the res idential neighborhood; the frequency of deliv eries s hould be comparable to that of a single-family home without a home busines s ; 7. There is no outs ide s torage or display of any k ind related to the home occ upation; 8. The home occupation does not require the us e of electrical or mec hanic al equipment that would c hange the fire rating of the struc ture; 9. The home occupation does not require the us e of electrical equipment that exceeds FCC standards for res idential us e; 10. The home occ upation does not inc rease water or s ewer use so that the combined total use for the dwelling and home occ upation is significantly more than the average for res idenc es in the neighborhood; 11. A bus ines s license is purc has ed where required; 12. The home occ upation is conduc ted only by immediate family members residing in the dwelling; 13. All stock in trade k ept for sale on the premises is produc ed on s ite by hand without the use of automated or production line equipment. In granting approv al for a home occupation, the reviewing offic ial may attach additional conditions to ensure the home occupation will be in harmony with, and not detrimental to, the character of the res idential neighborhood. Any home occupation authoriz ed under the prov is ions of this title shall be open to ins pec tion and review at all reasonable times by the building and enforc ement offic ial for purposes of verifying complianc e with the conditions of approval and other prov isions of this title. D. Materials and Storage. The storage of equipment, materials, or goods shall be permitted in connection with a home oc c upation provided s uch storage complies with the following standards : 1. All equipment, materials, or goods s hall be stored completely within the s pac e designated for home oc cupation activities and not v is ible from the public right-of-way . 2. Only those materials or goods that are utilized or produc ed in connec tion with the home oc cupation may be s tored within the dwelling unit or acces sory building. 3. All flammable or combus tible compounds , produc ts, or materials s hall be maintained and utiliz ed in compliance with fire code. The Yakima Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 2024-039, passed December 3, 2024. Yakima Municipal Code 15.04.120 Home occupations.Page 3 of 5 4. The frequenc y of home deliv eries s hould be comparable to that of a single-family home without a home oc cupation ass ociated with the res idenc e. E. Nameplates . Only one nameplate s hall be allowed. It may dis play the name of the oc c upant and/or the name of the home occ upation (e.g., J ohn Jones, Accountant). The nameplate s hall be attac hed to the dwelling, but shall not exc eed two s quare feet in area or be illuminated. F. Application Fee and Review Period. Applic ation for a home occupation s hall be made in accordance with the provisions of YMC Chapter 15.11, exc ept as noted, and shall be acc ompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The administrative official may acc ept an aerial photo of the s ite in lieu of a s ite plan when the aerial photo c learly shows all structures and parking areas and no new construc tion or s ite modifications are propos ed. G. Unc lass ified Home Occupation—Review by the Hearing Examiner. Home oc c upations not listed in Table 4- 2 s hall be rev iewed by the hearing examiner in ac cordance with the provis ions of YMC Chapter 15.22; prov ided, any unc lassified home oc cupation permitted after review and decision by the hearing examiner in a particular district shall be allowed only as a Clas s (2) or (3) us e. H. Home Oc cupations Not Permitted. The following uses , by the nature of their operation or inves tment, have a pronounced tendency, once s tarted, to increase beyond the limits permitted for home oc cupations and impair the use and value of a residentially zoned area for res idential purposes. Therefore, the uses listed below shall not be permitted as home occ upations: 1. Auto repair; 2. Antique shop or gift s hop; 3. Kennel; 4. Veterinary clinic or hospital; 5. Painting of vehicles, trailers or boats; 6. Large applianc e repair inc luding stoves , refrigerators , was hers and dryers ; 7. Uphols tering; 8. Machine and s heet metal shops; 9. Martial arts school; 10. Tax idermis t; The Yakima Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 2024-039, passed December 3, 2024. Yakima Municipal Code 15.04.120 Home occupations.Page 4 of 5 11. Two-way radio and mobile telephone system sales and s ervice; 12. Vehicle sign painting (except for the applic ation of dec als). I. Denial of Application for a Home Oc cupation. An application for a home occupation s hall be denied if the administrative official finds that either the applic ation or record fails to establish complianc e with the provisions of this chapter. When any applic ation is denied, the administrative officer shall s tate the spec ific reasons and cite the specific prov is ions and sec tions of this title on which the denial is bas ed. J. Parking. The adminis trativ e official shall determine park ing requirements for home occ upations , as prov ided by YMC 15.06.040(B). This determination may be guided by , but not restric ted by , the s tandards of YMC Chapter 15.06. (Ord. 2023-026 § 1 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 2020-001 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2020: Ord. 2019-044 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2019: Ord. 2018-047 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2018: Ord. 2016-029 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2016: Ord. 2015-036 § 4, 2015: Ord. 2008-46 § 1 (part), 2008: Ord. 93-81 § 19, 1993: Ord. 3245 § 6, 1990; Ord. 3019 §§ 15—17, 1987; Ord. 2947 § 1 (part), 1986. Formerly 15.04.090). The Yakima Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 2024-039, passed December 3, 2024. Yakima Municipal Code 15.04.120 Home occupations.Page 5 of 5 Home >Explore Topics >Planning & Growth Management >Design Review Design Review This page provides an overview of design review programs for cities and counties in Washington State, including their uses and legality, local examples, and other resources. For a general overview of comprehensive plans, see our page Comprehensive Planning. New Legislation: Effective June 6, 2024: SSB 6015 requires cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act to follow specified requirements when enforcing land use regulations regarding parking, with exceptions. On this Page [hide] Overview Why Design Review? Creating Design Standards/Guidelines Evaluating Design Review Standards and Procedures Legality of Design Review and Selected Court Decisions Examples of Multifamily and Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines Examples of Downtown and Subarea Development Design Standards/Guidelines Examples of Single-Family and Duplex Design Standards/Guidelines Examples of the Design Review Process 2/6/25, 3:10 PM MRSC - Design Review https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/zoning/design-review#top 1/9 Examples of Design Elements in Comprehensive Plans Recommended Resources Overview Design review is the local government practice of examining public and private projects for their aesthetic, architectural, or urban design quality and compatibility with nearby development. Design review focuses on the appearance of new construction, site planning, and such concerns as landscaping, signage, and other aesthetic issues. Design review typically involves reviewing development projects for their consistency with a community's adopted standards or criteria addressing community character and aesthetic quality. In 2023, the Growth Management Act (Ch. 36.70A RCW) was amended to include RCW 36.70A.630, which provides a definition of “design review” and establishes that: Only clear and objective development regulations governing the exterior design of a new development are allowed in design review. The standards must have at least one ascertainable guideline, standard, or criterion by which an applicant can determine whether a given design is permissible. The design guidelines may not reduce density, height, bulk, or scale beyond the underlying zone. Design review must be conducted concurrently with consolidated project review and may not include more than one public meeting. Cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act must comply with the requirements beginning six months after their next periodic update under the GMA . Design review is common for commercial and multifamily development, downtown development, development in historic districts, and for projects within certain transportation corridors. In many communities, design review is conducted by an appointed design review board of volunteers that include architects, landscape architects, urban designers, and other design professionals as well as general citizen representatives. Some communities 2/6/25, 3:10 PM MRSC - Design Review https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/zoning/design-review#top 2/9 have administrative design review that is handled by city staff, typically planning or urban design staff. In addition, a design element is an optional element of a comprehensive plan (WAC 365-196-445). Many communities have included urban or community design elements in their comprehensive plans. Jurisdictions use a variety of names for their design elements, including "guidelines," "standards," and "criteria." Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, design “standards” and “criteria” are typically mandatory elements that must be present in order for the project to approved, while “guidelines” are typically used to present suggested design elements that are not necessarily mandatory. Some jurisdictions have created design review boards to evaluate projects. Members often have design backgrounds in architecture, urban design and planning. Other jurisdictions rely on staff/administrative review to evaluate designs. A third option is a “hybrid” process, in which some project designs are approved administratively, while others are approved by a design review board. Image credit: C ity of Redmond Why Design Review? There are many reasons why communities enact design review programs. Design review can help to enhance desirable pedestrian characteristics and the aesthetic quality of the streetscape and avoid monotony in new construction. Design review is sometimes used to create an identity or a 2/6/25, 3:10 PM MRSC - Design Review https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/zoning/design-review#top 3/9 special physical character in an area of new development. In some older established communities, the interest is in ensuring the compatibility of new development with existing character. Creating Design Standards/Guidelines Since design standards/guidelines are often created to preserve or enhance the character of a community, the creation of the guidelines is typically the result of a public input or planning process. One way that jurisdictions have done this is by utilizing V isual Preference Surveys and design illustrations to spark public conversation and quantify what design elements are important to residents. Finding and Creating Illustrations of Good Design Illustrations of successful examples of development projects can be helpful in encouraging good design. The American Planning Association maintains an Image Library accessible to members. Diagrams and illustrations can also be helpful if included as a part of the code provision and standards/guidelines. Digital visualizations tools like SketchUp or Streetmix can be used to create images that can illustrate the effects of design standards/guidelines on new buildings and development sites. Streetmix is free and SketchUp offers a free version. Image credit: Streetmix V isual Preference Surveys The V isual Preference Survey (VPS) was developed by architect Anton Nelessen and is an effective tool for educating and involving community members in land use planning. The process involves members of the community in ranking images of a community or region, including photographs of streets, houses, stores, office buildings, parks, open space, 2/6/25, 3:10 PM MRSC - Design Review https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/zoning/design-review#top 4/9 and other key civic features. The results of the VPS are useful in developing land use plans and transportation planning projects.  Institute for Public Administration: V isual Preference Survey Overview Presentation Evaluating Design Review Standards and Procedures Periodic review can help to make the design review process more efficient and ensure that specific design outcomes are being achieved. Communities with more established design review often go through processes of evaluating and updating their standards and procedures. The examples below rely on a combination of case studies from other cities, public input, and analysis of past projects to recommend changes to the design review process and standards: Seattle Design Review Program Improvements For Public Review (2016) Portland (OR) Design Overlay Zone Assessment (2017) Legality of Design Review and Selected Court Decisions Until 1993, there were no Washington appellate cases ruling on the validity of design review ordinances. That year, the Washington State Court of Appeals decided in Anderson v. Issaquah (1993) that Issaquah's design review regulations were invalid due to vagueness. However, the issue of how far a city may go in regulating design is far from settled, and it is important for communities to develop meaningful design standards. In light of the Issaquah case, MRSC strongly advises cities, towns, and counties to review their proposed design review programs and criteria with their attorney's office. The following are selected court decisions addressing design review: Anderson v. Issaquah (1993) – The court ruled that Issaquah's design review regulations were invalid due to vagueness. It found the guidelines deficient because they did not give meaningful guidance to the applicant or the design review board. The court affirmed the legitimacy of design review by stating that aesthetic standards are an appropriate component of land use governance. 2/6/25, 3:10 PM MRSC - Design Review https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/zoning/design-review#top 5/9 Swoboda v. Town of La Conner (1999) – In a challenge to the constitutionality of the town's historic preservation ordinance, the court determined that the ordinance contained ascertainable standards to protect against arbitrary and discretionary enforcement and defined prohibited or required conduct with sufficient definiteness, and therefore was not unconstitutional as applied. The town's preservation ordinance involves design review within the historic district. Examples of Multifamily and Commercial Design Standards/Guidelines The following are examples of general design review manuals and standards/guidelines for commercial, mixed-use, and multifamily development, including some code provisions and design review processes. Gig Harbor Municipal Code Ch. 17.99 – Comprehensive guidelines outlines specific requirements need for administrative approval and general requirements used by design review board to assess projects Municipal Code Ch. 17.98 – Process for using design manual Kennewick Municipal Code Ch. 18.75 – Residential Design Standards Municipal Code Ch. 18.78 – Commercial Design Standards K irkland Design Guidelines for Pedestrian-Oriented Business Districts (2018) – Establishes design guidelines used by design review board to evaluate projects Zoning Code Ch. 92 – Applies design regulations to development in design districts including downtown and other business districts Lake Stevens Design Guidelines (2019)–Provides both flexible and mandatory guidelines supplementing development standards Olympia Municipal Code Ch. 18.100 – Design Review Municipal Code Ch. 18.110 – Basic Commercial Design Criteria Redmond Zoning Code Article III – Design Standards 2/6/25, 3:10 PM MRSC - Design Review https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/zoning/design-review#top 6/9 Examples of Downtown and Subarea Development Design Standards/Guidelines Quite a few cities have developed specific design standards/guidelines for their downtowns and subareas. Many of the standards focus on integrating transportation option into the designs. Below are some examples. Bellingham Urban V illage Design Review – Includes specific guidelines for historic properties. All standards must be met in order for the project to be approved. Burien Municipal Code Ch. 19.47 – Downtown design standards Kent Midway Design Guidelines (2011) – Guidelines for new transit- oriented development around Sound Transit light rail stations. Menu of design options defines the minimum conditions for approval. K irkland Design Guidelines for Totem Lake Neighborhood (2020) Seattle Design Guidelines – Neighborhood guidelines are listed by district Walla Walla Municipal Code Ch. 20.178 – Design standards for downtown Walla Walla Examples of Single-Family and Duplex Design Standards/Guidelines Single-family and duplex design standards/guidelines are not very common and generally focus on specific situations, such as development on very small lots, neo-traditional development, garage design, steep slopes or unique lot conditions, or transitional areas adjacent to more intensive uses. Below are some examples. Gig Harbor Municipal Code Sec. 17.99.490 – Single-family duplex and housing standards Sumner Single-Family/Duplex Design and Development Guidelines (2013) – Detailed mandatory and voluntary guidelines address many topics, such as roof design and garage setbacks Tumwater C itywide Design Guidelines Chapter 6: Single Family Residences (2016) Wenatchee Residential Design Guidelines (2020) Examples of the Design Review Process Design Review Processes 2/6/25, 3:10 PM MRSC - Design Review https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/zoning/design-review#top 7/9 Gig Harbor Design Review Process – Applicants have the option of seeking administrative approval or review by the design review board K irkland Design Review Process Brochure (2014) – New buildings greater than one story, large additions, and façade renovations are reviewed by the design review board. All others are subject to administrative review. Tumwater Design Review Process – Describes the administrative design review process. Design Review Boards Bellingham Design Review Board – Purpose of board, typical decisions, and membership information  K irkland Design Review Board – Includes rules of procedure and design review process brochure  Langley Design Review Board – Small city example Examples of Design Elements in Comprehensive Plans Bellevue Comprehensive Plan: Urban Design and the Arts (2015) – V isual plan integrating art and design elements, identifies streets and areas that are key to neighborhood identity Bellingham Comprehensive Plan: Community Design Chapter (2016) Bothell Comprehensive Plan: Urban Design Element (2015) Clark County Comprehensive Plan Ch. 11: Community Design Element (2015) – Example of how county has integrated design elements into comprehensive plan Edmonds Comprehensive Plan: Community Culture and Urban Design Element (page 119, 2020) Kennewick Comprehensive Plan: Urban Design Element (page 57, 2017) Oak Harbor Comprehensive Plan: Ch. 4 Urban Design Element (2019) Recommended Resources MRSC: Historic Preservation Puget Sound Regional Council Featured Tool: Design Guidelines – Tools to promote housing affordability – General introduction to design 2/6/25, 3:10 PM MRSC - Design Review https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/zoning/design-review#top 8/9 Disclaimer: MRSC is a statewide resource that provides general legal and policy guidance to support local government entities in Washington State pursuant to chapter 43.110 RCW. MRSC website content is for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice, nor as a substitute for the legal advice of an attorney. You should contact your own legal counsel if you have a question regarding your legal rights or any other legal issue. © 2025 Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC). All rights reserved. Privacy & Terms. guidelines for affordable housing; includes case studies from Washington cities Portland (OR) Design Guidelines – Links to many different design guideline documents San Francisco (CA) Urban Design Guidelines Webpage – Landing page that provides an overview of guidelines and design review process. Their Urban Design Guidelines (2018) make good use of visuals and diagrams to demonstrate each guideline Jim Leggitt/Drawing Shortcuts: V isualizing an Urban Master Plan with SketchUp (2016) – Interesting example of how to use SketchUp and hand drawing to create design visualizations Last Modified: December 06, 2024 2/6/25, 3:10 PM MRSC - Design Review https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/zoning/design-review#top 9/9 (1) (2) (1) (2) CHAPTER 18.80 - URBAN-MIXED USE DESIGN STANDARDS 18.80.010: - Purpose. Design standards for the Urban Mixed-Use district, implement the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan by promoting quality development using the best management practice in design, project review, and construction. This Chapter is to provide clear guidelines for developments in the Urban Mixed-Use district. The standards are intended to offer flexibility and creativity and promote quality development. The underlying principles of the Urban Mixed-Use Design Standards are to ensure compatibility with the surrounding character of a neighborhood, promote sustainability, offer flexibility, encourage variety and creativity in design, and provide a safe and pedestrian friendly streetscape for Kennewick. (Ord. 5719 Sec. 1(part), 2017) 18.80.020: - Denitions. Development Standards - Urban Mixed-Use Design Standards District means standards for development in the Urban Mixed-Use district in accord with the Urban Mixed Use Design Standards. (Ord. 5719 Sec. 1(part), 2017) 18.80.030: - General Requirements Standards in this Chapter are applicable to all new and remodeled developments in the City's Urban Mixed -se district when the cost of remodeling and expansion is equal to or exceeds 50 percent of the current assessed value of the structure as determined by the City's building official. These standards shall take precedence in case there is a conflict in the KMC. The Community Planning Director shall have authority to resolve any conflicts in the standards in order to promote the City's objectives and goals. All standards are to be followed throughout design and development. These standards are not intended to prohibit creative design and development solutions by professional designers/developers that might generate a better quality development. (Ord. 5719 Sec. 1 (part), 2017) 18.80.040: - Design Standards. 2/6/25, 3:21 PM Kennewick, WA Code of Ordinances about:blank 1/5 (1) (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (b) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (2) Street Frontage Design Standards: Public streets with the Urban Mixed-Use district are classified as either "A" or "B" streets. Each area designated as UMU shall have a map, prepared by and on file with the City Community Planning Department which shall be made part of this chapter. The differentiation between "A" and "B" streets is created to focus building and site design towards crucial public corridors while understanding other public ways are necessary for circulation purposes, but less important from an aesthetic perspective. "A" Street Frontage Requirements: No vehicular access shall be allowed except at intersections with alleys and private. Parking areas and drive isles must be setback at least 40 feet; Parking areas shall be screened by a wall or fence with materials consistent with the building and/or hedge at least four feet in height and no more than six feet in height. The use of chain link fencing is prohibited. Minimum linear building frontage shall be 75 percent of the right-of-way frontage; At least 25 percent of the lot frontage must have a building facade within 15 feet of the right-of-way line. Measured linear per floor, buildings utilized for non-residential uses shall be designed with doors and windows of at least 100 square feet each spaced at intervals of no more than 20 feet on center along the building frontage; Measured linear per floor, buildings utilized for residential uses shall be designed with doors and windows of at least ten square feet each spaced at intervals of no more than ten feet on center along the building frontage; "B" Street Frontage Requirements: Up to 100 percent of the right-of-way frontage may be utilized for vehicle parking, delivery zones, garage doors and other non-pedestrian oriented element In situations where parking areas abut a "B" Street, 75 percent of the frontage must have an edge treatment including a wall, fence or hedge at least four feet in height and no more than six feet in height together with a street tree spaced no more than every 50 feet; Measured linear per floor, buildings utilized for non-residential uses shall be designed with doors and windows of at least 100 square feet each spaced at intervals of no more than 20 feet on center along the building frontage; Measured linear per floor, buildings utilized for residential uses shall be designed with doors and windows of at least ten square feet each spaced at intervals of no more than ten feet on center along the building frontage. 2/6/25, 3:21 PM Kennewick, WA Code of Ordinances about:blank 2/5 (a) (3) (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (b) (i) (c) (i) (ii) (d) (e) (4) (a) Block Standards: Connectivity throughout the UMU district is a key element to assuring the vibrancy the City intends, therefore maximum block size shall not exceed ten acres. The following requirements are mandatory and apply to any development with the UMU district regardless of frontage on a public "A" or "B" or private street or alley. Boundaries for block size measurement shall be A and B streets as well as the boundary of the UMU district and the boundary of parcels held under separate ownership. Site Design Standards: The following requirements are mandatory and apply to any development with the UMU district regardless of frontage on a public "A" or "B" or private street or alley: Front, side and rear yard building setbacks shall not be required except as necessary to comply with visibility triangles. Front yard area surfaces shall be at least 50 percent hardscape consisting of concrete, pavers, brick, stone, compacted walkable gravel, or similar materials. Maximum of 20 percent non-native planting is permitted in the front yard area. Maximum height of a fence, wall or hedge in the front yard is four feet and a wall or fence materials must be consistent with the building materials. All off-street parking in the UMU district shall not be located between streets and buildings and at least ten feet behind the front line of the building. Parking area lots exceeding 50 spaces shall be broken into smaller areas through use of landscaping pedestrian connections. A landscaped area shall be within 75 feet of any parking stall. Outdoor Lighting. Comply with KMC 18.76. Parking lots must have a minimum illumination of 0.6 foot-candles at ground level. Loading and service areas, and trash receptacles must be located in the rear of the site and trash dumpsters or collectors must be in an enclosed area consistent with the overall architectural and site planning scheme. The use of chain link fencing is prohibited for trash dumpster enclosures. Transit service is one of crucial element alternative transportation components within the UMU district and cohesive connections between buildings, parking areas and the public and private street network to existing and future Ben-Franklin Transit Authority routes and stops must be convenient and ADA compliant. Building Design Standards: The following requirements apply to any development within the UMU district regardless of frontage on a public "A" or "B" or private-street or alley: Building footprint shall not exceed 60,000 square feet. 2/6/25, 3:21 PM Kennewick, WA Code of Ordinances about:blank 3/5 (b) (i) (A) (B) (C) (ii) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (i) (ii) (h) A single architectural style is not required for new or remodeled buildings, but a building's style shall be consistent throughout; Approved building facing materials include: brick, wood, stucco, stone, and metal. The following street front siding materials are prohibited: Plain concrete masonry unit; Unfinished tilt-up concrete slab; or Vinyl or plastic siding. Unpainted brick may not be painted, except for clear graffiti preventing finishes. Building entries shall be located on the street side of the building. Buildings located on street corners shall have additional architectural detailing to emphasize the street corner, which may include, for example: corner entry, balcony, integrated signage, public art, and pedestrian amenities. Buildings or public amenities located on corners shall abut the property line on each side of the corner except when additional sidewalk is provided for outdoor seating or public use. Vestibules, entries, windows, and other architectural features shall provide further visual definition and reduce the visual mass of buildings in excess of 5,000 square feet in floor area. Buildings constructed for non-residential use on the ground must have first floor ceiling heights taller than upper stories. (First floor ceiling heights are a minimum of ten feet to accommodate transom windows.) Awnings may extend four feet over the walkway from the building's face, provided there is no obstruction of street trees and/or street lights as approved by the City. Windows provide a visual entry into a business and the goods and services offered while providing security. Windows in buildings utilized for retail, wholesale, office and service uses shall meet the following standards: No more than 25 percent of the gross square footage of display windows may be used for temporary or permanent signage for advertising, promotion or community service announcements. Windows shall not be permanently darkened by use of applied films at street level. First story windows shall not be covered but shall provide visual access from street and sidewalks. Windows located above the street level may be covered by curtains, shades, or other temporary coverings. Entrance to the building must be made visible and prominent by using large entry doors, porches, protruding, or recessed entrances. Primary pedestrian entrances must face public streets, open spaces or plazas whenever available. 2/6/25, 3:21 PM Kennewick, WA Code of Ordinances about:blank 4/5 (i) (j) (k) (l) Backside of the building and service areas must not be located facing a public street. Backside of the building shall be consistent with the front side of the building in terms of design style, building material and architectural features. Electrical and mechanical equipment when placed on the rooftop shall be obscured from view (i.e. by using parapet). Mechanical equipment when placed on the ground or through a wall shall not be located between the building front line and any public or private street. (Ord. 5719 Sec. 1(part), 2017) 18.80.050: - Conict with Other Statutes. Where a provision of the Kennewick Municipal Code, the Revised Code of Washington, or the United States Code requires, for the purpose of health, welfare, or public safety, a requirement contrary to the provisions of this Chapter, said provision shall prevail over any or all requirements of this Chapter. (Ord. 5719 Sec. 1(part), 2017) 2/6/25, 3:21 PM Kennewick, WA Code of Ordinances about:blank 5/5