HomeMy WebLinkAboutHE Recommendation Z 2019-009 Rezone YESMAR Concomitant Agreement CITY OF PASCO HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,AND RECOMMENDATION
Rezone MF# Z 2019-009,YESMAR Properties LLC
Concomitant Zoning Agreement Amendment
September 25, 2019
1. FINDINGS OF FACT
1.1 Proposal. Request to amend a Concomitant Zoning Agreement on a 3.13 acre
parcel to allow a wider range of uses. The Agreement rezoned the site a few months ago from C-
1 to C-3, with restrictions. The restrictions were developed to ensure compatibility between the
more intensive commercial zoning being adopted and surrounding residential uses. The
Applicant now requests that the restrictions be lifted.'
1.2 Applicant/Property Owner and Location:
Applicant/Property Owner: YESMAR Properties LLC/John Ramsey, P.O. Box 2384,
Pasco, WA 99302.
Location: 8425 Chapel Hill Boulevard. Northwest Corner of Road 84 and Chapel Hill
Boulevard. Lovissa Farms II Phase 6 Tract "A" (Parcel No. 118-010-147).
1.3 Site Use/Zoning. The parcel is occupied by two commercial buildings and is
zoned C-3 (General Business)with a restrictive Concomitant Zoning Agreement.
1.4 Land Use Designations/Site and Surrounding Area. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the site Commercial. Surrounding land uses include:
North: C-1 zoning, RV Park
East: R-3 zoning, vacant
South: R-1 zoning, single family homes
West: R-1 zoning, single family homes
1.5 Evidence Reviewed. The Examiner admitted the Staff Report, which attached
the Concomitant Zoning Agreement, photographs of the site and area, and documented
surrounding zoning. Also admitted were the application, SEPA Checklist, SEPA determination,
and comment from the Applicant, which was submitted after the hearing. The Examiner
conducted a site visit before the hearing.
1.6 SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21C RCW). The City of Pasco
issued a Determination of Non-Significance, which was not appealed. SEPA review is complete.
1 Application(Petition for Zone Change).
City of Pasco Hearing Examiner Page 1 of 4
Recommendation,YESMAR Concomitant Agreement,Rezone MF#Z 2019-009
1.7 Hearing. A properly noticed hearing was held on September 11, 2019.2 The
Community Development Department identified key points from the Staff Report. Following
the Department summary, the Applicant, through Mr. Ramsey and Mr. Ellsworth, further
addressed the proposal, describing the factual circumstances behind the request, including
development of the current Concomitant Zoning Agreement. The site now has two buildings on
it, which though approved by the City, do not comply with the Concomitant Zoning Agreement.
Mr. Ramsey and Mr. Ellsworth explained that much of this new space will soon be
leased. Current leases are to a micro-brewery, salmon, and gym, with a fourth lease soon to be
executed allowing for an indoor recreational use (ax-throwing). Mr. Ellsworth explained that the
buildings are about half rented, and with the recreational use, will be 60-70% rented. The
requested revisions would allow the new buildings to appeal to wider range of tenants and allow
for development of a third building on the remainder of the site.
No person from the public indicated a wish to testify. The record was kept open for two
days, through September 13, to allow the Applicant to submit written comment.
1.8 Public Comment/Written. No written public comment was received.
1.9 Utilities. Water and sewer are available on Chapel Hill Boulevard. Irrigation is
located along the full length of the north property line.
1.10 Access. The parcel has access from Chapel Hill Boulevard.
1.11 Rezone Considerations. The June 2019 Concomitant Zoning Agreement
allowed a full range of uses, coupled with design standards addressing use compatibility. The
property owner agreed:
1. Uses shall be restricted to the following:
a. All uses allowed in the "O", C-1, and C-2 Zoning district
b. Retail/wholesale Business uses with I-182-compatible retail storefronts
intended for small-scale retail/wholesale sales and distribution, including
i. Microbreweries; and
ii. Warehouse uses limited to recreational/indoor sports uses;
2. Any and all future improvements shall comply with the development regulations
contained in PMC 25.130 "I-182 Corridor Overlay District."
3. Any and all business vehicles shall be stored inside building or off-site.
4. Single user not to exceed 10,500 sf.
z Public notice was mailed to nearby property owners and published in the Tri-City Herald.
City of Pasco Hearing Examiner Page 2 of 4
Recommendation,YESMAR Concomitant Agreement, Rezone MF#Z 2019-009
5. Under no conditions will lay down yard, fenced storage or any type of
exterior/open air storage be allowed.3
The property owner developed buildings inconsistent with these requirements, with
multiple loading bays directly facing Chapel Hill Boulevard. Having built non-conforming
structures,4 the Applicant now seeks to amend the Agreement. The Applicant requests revisions
which would allow "a wider range of lessees" and "exterior parking of business vehicles....i5
Particularly given present non-conformities, there are a number of issues, including code
compliance concerns, the Applicant did not address. The I-182 Corridor Overlay District does
not allow for street-facing loading bays, and PMC 25.180.040(1)(a) and (c) do not allow
unscreened outdoor storage adjacent or across from residential neighborhoods or adjacent to
Chapel Hill Boulevard. Also, the changes would allow parking of business vehicles in view of
Chapel Hill Boulevard. The Applicant did not adequately identify mitigation, such as
landscaping design, setbacks, parking location, building design, and other measures to address
rezone impacts, including use compatibility issues. The requested use expansion would
exacerbate the present compliance concerns and presents compatibility issues with the
surrounding residential uses. The Staff Report provides further detail, and is incorporated.
2. CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner may issue a rezone recommendation based on whether:
(a) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan;
(b) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will be materially
detrimental;
(c) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole;
(d) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse
impacts from the proposal;
(e) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the
petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.6
As the Findings detail, including at ¶ 1.11, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the
requested amendments avoid material detriment to the surrounding residential uses or have
community merit and value. The Applicant has not shown how code requirements would be
met, how present compliance concerns would not be exacerbated, or how the use compatibility
issues the June 2019 Concomitant Zoning Agreement addressed, would be resolved.
3 Concomitant Zoning Agreement(June 2019).
4 Building design was approved in error. The term legal non-conformity is not used here as the term typically refers
to a use or structure which conformed with code when built,but became non-conforming due to code revision.
5 Application.
6 PMC 25.210.060;PMC 2.50.080; Staff Report,pgs. 9-11.
City of Pasco Hearing Examiner Page 3 of 4
Recommendation,YESMAR Concomitant Agreement,Rezone MF#Z 2019-009
RECOMMENDATION
The Hearing Examiner recommends denial of the rezone request to amend the June 2019
Concomitant Zoning Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION entered Septemb 2019.
i of Pasco He ' g Examiner
Susan Elizabeth Drummond
City of Pasco Hearing Examiner Page 4 of 4
Recommendation,YEWAR Concomitant Agreement, Rezone MF#Z 2019-009