HomeMy WebLinkAboutZD 2025-001 Desert Bloom decisionCITY OF PASCO
LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
IN THE MATTER OF ) RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF
FACT, RECOMMENDED
ZD 2025-001 ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND
Desert Bloom, LLC ) RECOMMENDED DECISION
THIS MATTER having come on for hearing in front of the City of Pasco Hearing Examiner on July 9,
2025, the Hearing Examiner having taken evidence hereby submits the following Recommended Findings
of Fact, Recommended Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Decision as follows:
I. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT
1. APPLICANTS: Desert Bloom LLC; c/o Cody Fielding; 6119 Burden Blvd, Suite C; Pasco, WA
99301
2. REQUEST: Zoning Determination: Recommendation of R-4 zoning to City Council for Desert
Bloom LLC portion of Annexation (ANX2025-001).
3. TIMELINE:
3.1. May 19, 2025: Resolution to set a date to consider the notice of intent to commence annexation.
3.2. June 2, 2025: Resolution to accept the notice of intent to commence annexation proceedings,
providing a determination on the boundary to be annexed which includes a portion of the right-of-
way of Burns Road, whether simultaneous zoning and the assumption of bonded indebtedness will
be required.
3.3. June 27, 2025: Public Hearing Staff Report Published
4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
4.1. Legal: SHORT PLAT 2022-32 LOT 1
4.2. Parcel: 126160173
4.3. General Location: The subject area is located south of Burns Road and east of Shoreline Road in
Section 12, Township 9N, Range 28 E.W.M.
4.4. Property Size: 18.6 acres.
5. ACCESS: The site will have access from Burns Road.
6. UTILITIES: Municipal water is available in Burns Road and Sandifur Parkway and sewer is available
in Sandifur Parkway.
7. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is currently zoned R-T in Franklin County, and the applicant is
requesting R-4 (High Density Residential District) in the City of Pasco (City) upon annexation. A
portion of the site is currently used for agricultural purposes. Surrounding properties are zoned and
developed as follows:
7.1. North: RS-20 Franklin County Suburban Zone/Single Family Dwelling Units
ZD2025-001
Desert Bloom LLC
Page 1 of 9
7.2. East: R-1 Low Density Residential/Single Family Dwelling Units
7.3. South: R-T Franklin County Residential Transition/Agricultural
7.4. West: RS-20 Franklin County Suburban Zone/Agricultural
8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The City's Comprehensive Plan designates the site Medium Density
Residential. Pasco Municipal Code (PMC) 25.215.015, Comprehensive Plan Land Use Density Table,
states that the Medium Density Residential District bears the purpose of accommodating a "[v]ariety
of residential housing at a density of 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre;" and that the accepted zoning
designations within the district are "R-2 through R-4; [and] RP." However, the site is located within the
Broadmoor Overlay District. The Broadmoore Master Plan also designates the site Medium Density
Residential, but that designation carries modified standards in the Broadmoor Overlay District. In
particular, zoning options are limited to R-2, R-3, and R-4, and the maximum allowable density is
increased to 29 dwelling units per acre (the minimum density remains at 6 dwelling units per acre. PMC
25.97.055(1)(b). The provisions of the Broadmoor Overlay District apply in addition to the underlying
zoning regulations and shall take precedence in the event of any conflict. PMC 25.97.030.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City found this proposal to be exempt from SEPA
review under Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11-800(6)(c) and did not demand further
review. The City's conclusion suggests findings that (i) the site is located in an urban growth area in a
city or county planning under RCW 36.70A.040, (ii) the proposed annexation and zoning determination
is consistent with and does not require amendment to the comprehensive plan, and (iii) the applicable
comprehensive plan was previously subjected to environmental review and analysis through an EIS
under the requirements of this chapter prior to adoption, and the EIS adequately addressed the
environmental impacts of the zoning determination.
10. Adjacent Zoning, Comprehensive Plan Designation, and Annexation History
10.1. North: Adjacent properties to the north remain unannexed but are within the Urban Growth
Area (UGA) and designated as Low Density Residential in the City's Comprehensive Plan. These
parcels are primarily developed with single-family homes on half -acre lots.
10.2. East: Properties to the east were annexed in 1998 via Ordinance No. 3305 and have since
been developed with single-family residential housing. These areas are also designated Low
Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan.
10.3. South: Parcel 126160174, located directly south, remains unannexed and is currently in
agricultural use. Further south, however, are annexed properties developed with a concrete batch
plant. The Comprehensive Plan designates these southern properties as Mixed
Residential/Commercial and Medium Density Residential.
10.4. West: Parcel 126160129, located immediately west, is being annexed in conjunction with
the subject property. A zoning designation of R-3 (Medium Density Residential) is being requested
for this parcel, consistent with its Medium Density Residential land use designation. It is currently
used for agriculture. Farther west, additional properties remain unannexed and are designated
Mixed Residential/Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. These properties support a mix of
agricultural and single-family residential uses. Additionally, a parcel southwest of the proposed
annexation area is designated for Open Space/Parks.
11. The site is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
12. Pursuant to PMC 25.220.020(1)(a), The City Council accepted the 10 percent petition through
Resolution No. 4606 on June 2, 2025.
ZD2025-001
Desert Bloom LLC
Page 2 of 9
13. Pursuant to PMC 25.220.020(b), Public notice for this hearing was published in the Tri-City Herald on
June 22 and July 2, 2025, in compliance with this requirement.
14. Pursuant to PMC 25.220.020(c), public notice was mailed on June 19, 2025, to property owners in the
annexation area, Franklin County and some, but not all, property owners within 300 feet of the proposed
annexation area.
15. An open record public hearing was held, on July 9, 2025. Due to evidence that some property owners
within 300 feet of the proposed annexation area were not mailed notice, the hearing was continued to
August 13, 2025, to cure the notice deficiency and receive further public comment and the applicant's
final rebuttal.
16. The open record public hearing was completed on August 13, 2025, and the evidentiary record closed.
17. APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY:
17.1. Appearing and testifying on behalf of the Applicant was Cody Fielding. Mr. Fielding
testified that he was an agent authorized to appear and speak on behalf of the property owner and
Applicant.
17.2. Mr. Fielding testified that he agreed with the representations set forth within the staff report,
that he adopted the same and the representations made in the application materials, and he had no
objection to their being received into evidence.
17.3. Mr. Fielding testified that the developer's intent was to build only single-family homes on
the site. He stated that R-4 zoning, per the application, would allow the greatest flexibility for
developing the lot for single-family homes.
18. No member of the public appeared to testify in favor of the proposal.
19. The following members of the public appeared and testified in opposition to the proposal:
19.1.
Corrine Anderson, 12302 Blackfoot Dr.;
19.2.
Tony Bachart, 7013 Kohler Rd.;
19.3.
Piper Barton, 12004 Norfolk Dr.;
19.4.
Mary Bauman, 12429 Jayleen Way;
19.5.
Sid Bauman, 12429 Jayleen Way;
19.6.
Diana Burns, 7827 Byers Rd.;
19.7.
Dana Crutchfield, 9814 Whipple Ave.;
19.8.
Robin Dillsworth, 6204 Road 122;
19.9.
Michael Duncan, 6110 Road 122;
19.10.
Nathan Grimm, 12103 Blackfoot Dr.;
19.11.
Tracy Heidelberg, 12612 Rickey Rd.;
19.12.
Brad Johnson, 7001 Kohler Rd.;
19.13.
Roger Jones, 12805 Willettas Pl.;
19.14.
Susan Klemin, 12016 Norfolk Dr.;
19.15.
Marshall Matthew, 6512 Gallatin Rd.;
ZD2025-001
Desert Bloom LLC
Page 3 of 9
19.16. Wes McCart, 502 Boeing St.;
19.17. Cynthia Muse, 10820 West Court St.;
19.18. Tamra Ochoa, 12412 Blackfoot Dr.;
19.19.
Mary O'Day, 12702 Whiskey River Rd.;
19.20.
Trevor Pisinger, 12515 Blackfoot Dr.;
19.21.
Jenny Rieke, 9104 Pooler Rd.;
19.22.
Dana Siegel, 12816 Willettas Pl.;
19.23.
Darrell Sowards, 6500 Gallatin Rd.;
19.24.
David Todak, 12442 Jayleen Way;
19.25.
Amanda Wilson, 12114 Blackfoot Dr.
20. Sixty (60) written comments were submitted by members of the public and admitted into the record.
Some interested parties submitted more than one comment. Many comments were cosigned by more
than one person, often spouses. Of the comments, only one (1) was in support of this application; fifty-
nine (59) were opposed. Two (2) documents presented as petitions opposing this application, bearing
numerous signatures, were received as attachments to comments submitted by Corrine Anderson and
Marshall Mathews, respectively. The larger of the two petitions contained 722 names.
21. The chief concerns that emerged from the public comments received (including oral testimony) were,
in summary:
21.1. Traffic Impact: Overwhelmingly, the comments asserted that Burns Road, which borders
and serves the subject property, is already insufficient in capacity for existing traffic patterns,
attributed to recent residential developments nearby, and would be further overburdened by new
development consistent with the proposed R-4 zoning. Comments asserted that present traffic on
Burns Road is already unsafe due to congestion, speeds, and poor condition of the roadway. Those
problems, it was said, would be exacerbated if the subject property was to be developed at the
density allowed in the R-4 district. One commenter ventured an estimate that R-4 zoning would
increase traffic on Burns Road by 5,000 trips per day. Some asserted that Burns Road could not
even be expanded to accommodate increased traffic as development progressed, citing
topographical features as irreconcilable barriers and noting that the north side of Burns Road
would remain outside of City limits, under County jurisdiction, following annexation. Kohler Road
and Sandifur Parkway were also mentioned as needing improvements to accommodate
development.
21.2. Diminished Property Values: Many commenters feared a loss of value to their
neighboring properties in the event the subject property is developed at the density allowed in the
R-4 district. Those commenters generally maintained that the unobstructed views and "rural
character" of the area were valuable features of their neighboring properties, which would be lost
if the subject property were developed into denser housing. Several commenters testified that they
left their former homes in one place or another, and moved to the vicinity of the subject property
specifically in search of lower population density or rural atmosphere. Some commenters indicated
they reviewed the zoning of the surrounding area, and even the City's Comprehensive Plan, prior
to buying their homes, and in fact would not have bought their homes had they known property
nearby would soon be designated R-4. Some comments referenced various studies purporting to
show that property values tend to decline adjacent to high -density developments. The full texts of
these studies were not offered as exhibits by any commenter.
ZD2025-001
Desert Bloom LLC
Page 4 of 9
21.3. Loss of Privacy: Several commenters feared a loss of privacy in their homes and yards
should multi -story apartment buildings be constructed on the subject property. Some would not
feel safe —or that their children were safe —with new neighbors looking down from apartment
windows and balconies above. One commenter stated that even a development of "tiny homes"
would lead to the same problem.
21.4. Increased Crime: Several commenters were concerned that denser housing in the area
would lead to higher crime. This concern was supported by general references to history or data
showing such a pattern, and by local anecdotal example.
21.5. Lack of School Capacity: Amanda Wilson testified that she is the Principal of Columbia
River Elementary School, and that the school is already at full capacity and cannot receive new
students generated by further housing developments in the area. Ms. Wilson expressed specific
concerns about the possibility of apartment complexes and insufficient tax revenues from such
properties. Several commenters shared Ms. Wilson's concern about the lack of school capacity.
21.6. Environmental Concerns: Several commenters indicated that the subject property
provides wildlife habitat (or at least, doesn't interfere with nearby habitat) in its present form.
Concerns were raised that deer, eagles, and other wildlife would be displaced by development of
the property. Some commenters disputed the staff determination that this application is
categorically exempt from SEPA and wished to see further environmental review prior to zoning
the site R-4.
21.7. Franklin County Jurisdiction: Wes McCart testified that he is the Franklin County
Planning & Building Director, and that on behalf of the Franklin County Commission, Franklin
County Assessor, and Franklin County Treasurer, he objected to this zoning determination hearing
occurring prior to the completed annexation of the site. Mr. McCart's concern was that the public
would be misled or confused should this be the only opportunity for public comment, when the
property is not yet within City jurisdiction. A few other commenters echoed this concern.
22. The following exhibits were admitted into the record:
22.1. Ex. A Staff Report;
22.2. Ex. B Remainder of Planning Staff File;
22.3. Ex. C Compiled Public Comments.
23. FINDINGS ON ULTIMATE ISSUES:
23.1. The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
23.1.1. The applicant has requested, and staff has recommended, R-4 zoning for the site.
23.1.2. PMC 25.20.010, and several other places in the Municipal Code, describe the R-4 district
as a "High -Density Residential District." In contrast, the R-2 and R-3 districts are described
as "Medium -Density Residential Districts." Notwithstanding the titles given to these districts,
the classification of "Medium Density Residential" as used in PMC 25.215.015 an elsewhere
in the Comprehensive Plan, is inclusive of R-2, R-3, R-4, and RP districts. The
Comprehensive Plan happens to also recognize a land use classification of "High Density
Residential," which only accepts the R-4 district, but it was clearly the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan to also allow areas of R-4 "High -Density Residential District" within
what is otherwise broadly painted as the medium density residential classification.
23.1.3. The medium density residential classification under the Comprehensive Plan is intended to
accommodate housing at a density of 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre. PMC 25.215.015. The
ZD2025-001
Desert Bloom LLC
Page 5 of 9
public comments received suggest that neighbors would widely regard 20 dwelling units per
acre as quite dense, in casual vernacular, and contrary to their hopes and expectations for the
neighborhood. Nevertheless, such development is considered "medium density" under the
Comprehensive Plan, and the R-4 district is an allowable corresponding zoning to facilitate
such development under the Plan.
23.1.4. While the Comprehensive Plan medium density residential classification is already rather
broad, the Broadmoor Master Plan pushes the upper density limit even further. The site is
within the Broadmoor Overlay District. It is within an area classified as "Medium Density
Residential" under the Broadmoor Master Plan. Like in the Comprehensive Plan, the medium
density residential classification is inclusive of R-4 zoning. PCM 25.97.055. Moreover, the
Broadmoor Master Plan supersedes the Comprehensive Plan's maximum density, prescribing
up to 29 dwelling units per acre in the medium density residential classification. PMC
25.97.055(1). R-4 zoning is clearly suited to achieving the Broadmoor Master Plan density
range of 6 to 29 dwelling units per acre.
23.1.5. Land Use Policy LU-2-A: Maintain sufficient land designated to accommodate
residential uses proximate to appropriate transportation and utility infrastructure: This
site will be served by City utility services, which are planned to be extended through a future
utility easement to be established during subsequent development. This will enable a feasible
connection to municipal water and sewer infrastructure. Burns Road, which currently fronts
the site, is already largely improved with a paved roadway. Burns Road is not anticipated to
fulfill all future transportation infrastructure needs, as the Broadmoor Master Plan envisions
a future north -south neighborhood collector road. This planned 80-foot-wide corridor will
feature sidewalks, a two-way bike path, landscaped buffers, a center turn lane, and other
pedestrian -friendly improvements —supporting multimodal transportation and enhancing
long-term connectivity throughout the area.
23.2. The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially detrimental.
23.2.1. The proposed zoning change is not anticipated to have a materially detrimental effect on
the immediate vicinity. Annexing and zoning the property will be compatible with
surrounding residential properties, whether they are already within the city limits or remain
part of the county. The request aligns with the Comprehensive Plan's land use designation,
and any future development will be required to meet applicable development standards —
such as setbacks, buffering, and traffic mitigation —which are designed to minimize impacts
on adjacent uses.
23.2.2. Findings relevant to public comments:
23.2.2.1. Public comments related to the present traffic burden on Burns Road and feared
future traffic increase were not persuasive to the Hearing Examiner, insofar as
evaluating potential materially detrimental effects of this propose zoning determination.
The Hearing Examiner accepts that those commenters perceive, in good faith, that
traffic on Burns Road is excessive; however, if a problem already exists, it cannot be
attributed to this pending proposal. Moreover, future development that may occur on
the subject property can be expected to coincide with future infrastructure
improvements anticipated under the Broadmoor Master Plan.
23.2.2.2. Public comments related to potential loss of property values were not persuasive
to the Hearing Examiner. In evaluating the potential for materially detrimental effects
on the immediate vicinity, the Hearing Examiner weighs the objective impact on current
and suitable uses of land in the surrounding area more heavily than the preferences of
ZD2025-001
Desert Bloom LLC
Page 6 of 9
present landowners —even when many commenting members of the public share the
same preferences. The comments opposed to this proposal overwhelmingly came from
residents —homeowners —in the surrounding vicinity. There was no evidence that any
of the nearby residential properties would become unusable as family homes. Bridget
Gallant, President of Horrigan Farms, Inc., the owner of the agricultural land to the
south of the subject property, commented in favor of the proposal. Comments predicting
a loss of property values were speculative, as they presupposed certain types of
development on the subject property, which the Applicant has not indicated are
currently planned. Further, even the most pessimistic projections, taken at face value,
indicate that a market for these nearby homes will remain. The Pasco Municipal Code
does not require that zoning determinations or changes have no adverse impact on
surrounding property values.
23.2.2.3. Public comments related to loss of privacy for nearby landowners were not
persuasive to the Hearing Examiner. Those comments were speculative, and unique to
the priorities or preferences of particular individuals. The surrounding residential lands
will continue to be suitable for their present uses, and planned uses under the Pasco
Municipal Code.
23.2.2.4. Public comments that voiced fears of increased crime were not persuasive to the
Hearing Examiner, primarily because speculative. Moreover, if increased crime
necessarily follows increased population density, then it is an inevitable result of the
Comprehensive Plan in its totality, not this particular zoning determination.
23.2.2.5. Public comments regarding insufficient capacity in public schools were not
persuasive to the Hearing Examiner. Similar to the issue of traffic, if a problem already
exists, it cannot be attributed to this pending proposal. Further, the duty to ensure
provision of adequate school facilities rests on other arms of government, and is beyond
the scope of this zoning determination. For purposes of these findings, it is assumed
that over time, the City will build or expand schools to keep pace with population
change.
23.2.2.6. Public comments regarding SEPA procedural and other environmental concerns
were not persuasive to the Hearing Examiner. Some of those comments expressed
individuals' desires about what should happen with the nearby riverbank. Since the
subject property is not on the shoreline, some of those statements were of marginal
relevance. Loss of wildlife habitat, if it in fact presently exists on the subject property,
is an inevitable result of planned development under the Pasco Municipal Code.
Designating this site R-4 (as opposed to, say, R-2) does not precipitate that effect. As
for those who disputed the City's finding that this proposal was categorically exempt
from SEPA review, that concern is beyond the scope of this hearing. The Hearing
Examiner has no authority to second-guess the earlier determination of SEPA
exemption. That issue is not before the Hearing Examiner and has not been developed
on this record. Finally, the findings the City would necessarily have made to determine
this categorical exemption suggest that environmental impacts of development
consistent with R-4 zoning at this site have already been reviewed and analyzed
concurrent with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
23.3. There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
23.3.1. There is merit and value in following the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan when
assigning zoning to properties within the community. It is assumed that merit and value for
ZD2025-001
Desert Bloom LLC
Page 7 of 9
the community as a whole were considered during the conception and passage of the
Comprehensive Plan and Broadmoor Master Plan. The Plan has indicated that this property
should be classified Medium Density Residential and zoned R-2, R-3, or R-4. Assigning R-4
zoning aligns with this guidance and will lead to additional housing opportunities. Moreover,
the proposal supports planned residential growth, facilitates the efficient extension of City
infrastructure and services, promotes orderly development within the Urban Growth Area,
and contributes to the availability of diverse housing options. These benefits collectively
support long-term community goals and enhance overall livability.
23.4. No conditions need be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse impacts
from the proposal.
23.4.1. No conditions are necessary, as the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and surrounding development patterns. Any future development on the site will be
subject to the City's development regulations, which are designed to mitigate potential
adverse impacts related to traffic, infrastructure, environmental protection, and neighborhood
compatibility. Therefore, no additional conditions are necessary at this stage.
23.5. No concomitant agreement need be entered between the City and the petitioner.
23.5.1. A concomitant agreement is not necessary for this proposal. The project meets all
applicable standards and requirements without the need for additional agreements. Therefore,
no terms or conditions related to such an agreement are recommended.
24. The City of Pasco Hearing Examiner considered all evidence within the record in rendering this
decision.
25. Any Conclusion of Law that is more correctly a Finding of Fact is hereby incorporated as such by this
reference.
IL RECOMMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Hearing Examiner has been granted the authority to render this decision.
2. Pursuant to PMC 25.220.020(d), the Hearing Examiner's zoning determination recommendation must
be forwarded to the City Council at or near the time the Council holds a public hearing on the 60 percent
annexation petition. Following the adoption of an ordinance annexing the property into the City, the
Council is required to adopt a separate ordinance to establish zoning for the annexed area.
3. Pursuant to PMC 25.220.030, the establishment of zoning for annexation areas shall be guided by the
land use designations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed R-4 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and aligns with the
designated land use for the subject area.
5. Notwithstanding the procedural objection voiced by the Franklin County Planning & Building Director,
the proceedings on this application have thus far been consistent with the annexation procedure
established in Chapter 25.220 PMC. There is no authority for altering the sequence of these events.
6. This proposal is consistent with the Pasco Comprehensive Plan and Pasco Municipal Code.
7. Any Finding of Fact that is more correctly a Conclusion of Law is hereby incorporated as such by this
reference.
ZD2025-001
Desert Bloom LLC
Page 8 of 9
III. RECOMMENDED DECISION
Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, ZD 2025-001 is hereby recommended for
APPROVAL.
Dated this day of August, 2025
CITY OF PASCO HEARING EXAMINER
Jay D. Eyestone
This recommendation is subject to a timely filed appeal pursuant to PMC 25.210.070
ZD2025-001
Desert Bloom LLC
Page 9 of 9