HomeMy WebLinkAboutHE Recommendation Z 2021-016 Velicanin CITY OF PASCO HEARING EXAMINER
IN THE MATTER OF ) RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF
FACT,RECOMMENDED
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
AND RECOMMENDED DECISION
Z 2021-016 )
Velicanin )
THIS MATTER having come on for hearing in front of the City of Pasco Hearing Examiner on
January 12, 2022, 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. PROPERTY/APPLICATION DESCRIPTION:
1.1 Legal: Lot 1,Block 2,Lakeview Addition, located in Section 20,Township 9 North,
Range 29 East, W.M.,Records of Franklin County, Washington(Parcel 118331010),
1.2 General Location: 8812 West Court Street; located on the southwest corner of Road
88 and West Court Street in Pasco, WA.
1.3 Property Size: .6 Acres (26,050.64 Square feet).
1.4 Applicant: Sabira Velicanin, 8812 West Court Street,Pasco,WA 99301
1.5 Request: Rezone Velicanin RS-20 to either RS-12 or RS-1.
2. ACCESS: The parcel has access from West Court Street and Road 88.
3. UTILITIES: Municipal water and sewer services are located in both West Court Street and
Road 88.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is currently zoned RS-20 (Low-Density
Residential). The site is developed with a Single-Family Dwelling Unit(SFDU)and a shed.
Surrounding zoning and land uses are likewise zoned RS-20 and developed with SFDUs.
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designates the area
"Low-Density Residential;"the"Low-Density Residential"designation allows for single
family residential development at a density of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. Allowable
zoning for the"Low-Density Residential"land use designation includes the RS-20,RS-12,
RS-1, R-1,R-1-A, and R-1 A-2 zones. There has been no recent change in the
Comprehensive Plan to support a finding of changed conditions.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency for this
project. Based on the State Environmental Policy Act("SEPA")checklist, Comprehensive
Plan, applicable regulations, and other information, a threshold determination resulting in a
Z 2021 016
Velicanin
Page 1 of 5
Determination of Non-Significance(DNS)was issued on 22 December 2021 for this project
under WAC 197-11-158.
7. REQUEST: Sabira Velicanin, has submitted an application to rezone Parcel 118331010,
located along the south side of West Court Street and Road 88, from RS-20 (Low-Density
Residential) to RS-12 (Low-Density Residential) or RS-1 (Low-Density Residential). The
Applicant wishes to create a 2-lot subdivision on the .6-Acre site.
8. SITE: The site comprises .6 Acres (26,050.64 square feet) and has frontage access on West
Court Street and Road 88. The Comprehensive Plan designates the lot "Low-Density
Residential." The "Low-Density Residential" designation allows for RS-20, RS-12, RS-1, R-
1, R-1-A, and R-1 A-2 zoning and may be developed with Single family residential uses.
Residential density may range from 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre in the "Low-Density
Residential" designated area. The RS-12 and R-1 zones are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designation.
9. HISTORY: The site was annexed into the City in 2002 (Ordinance#3532) and assigned RS-
20 (Low-Density Residential) zoning (Ordinance #3533) in conjunction with the annexation.
The site has not been rezoned since. In support of their petition, Applicant has noted one
duplex three houses down located at 8904 West Court Street which was developed in 1970,
as well as two houses built on 12,000-square-foot lots on the corner of West Court Street and
road 92, also built nearly 50 years ago. These units were all built under old Franklin County
regulations over 30 years prior to annexation. Those regulations no longer apply.
10. REZONE CRITERIA: The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are
explained in PMC 25.210.030. The Applicant has the burden of proof as to all criteria. The
criteria are listed below as follows:
10.1 The date the existing zone became effective:
10.1.1 The site was assigned RS-20 (Low-Density Residential) zoning in
conjunction with the 2002 annexation. Zoning for the site has not changed
since then.
10.2 The changed conditions, which are alleged to warrant other or additional zoning:
10.2.1 City Council has recently approved an update to the Comprehensive Plan;
however there have been no substantial changes in the designated area.
10.2.2 The Applicant submitted no evidence of changed conditions to support this
criteria.
10.3 Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health, safety and
general welfare:
10.3.1 The existing RS-20 (Low-Density Residential) zoning is intended to allow
for suburban densities within the Urban Growth Area(UGA).
10.3.2 While the rezone application is consistent with the Pasco Comprehensive
Plan, the Applicant submitted no evidence demonstrating compliance with
this criteria.
10.4 The effect it will have on the value and character of the adjacent property and the
Comprehensive Plan:
Z 2021 016
Velicanin
Page 2 of 5
10.4.1 The area consists primarily of fully developed half-acre lots. If subdivided as
per applicant's plan it would also be the only quarter-acre lot in the
immediate vicinity. While this rezone may feel like "spot-zoning"—one RS-
12 (or RS-1) lot in the middle of an RS-20 zoning district—the classic
definition of spot zoning is "the process of singling out a small parcel of land
for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for
the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other
owners" (See: Anderson's American Law of Zoning, 4th Edition, § 5.12
(1995)). In this instance, RS-12 and RS-1 zoning represent higher density,
but do not necessarily constitute"totally different"land use classifications.
10.4.2 Substantial public testimony, described below, clearly demonstrates that the
requested rezone, and subsequent short plat with extremely small lots with
limited buildable area due to easements and setbacks, renders this rezone
request inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
10.4.3 The rezone application would not be consistent with the character of the
neighborhood.
10.5 The effect on the property owner or owners if the request is not granted:
10.5.1 If the property retains the current RS-20 zoning designation the owners
would still enjoy the same right and privileges as owners of the surrounding
lots. This criteria has not been satisfied.
10.6 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property:
10.6.1 The Land Use Element of the Plan now designates the lot "Low-Density
Residential." The "Low-Density Residential" designation allows for RS-20,
RS-12, RS-1, R-1, R-1-A, and R-1 A-2 zoning and may be developed with
Single family residential development.
10.6.2 Per section 12.36.050 of the Pasco Municipal Code, adequate and proper
right-of-way improvements shall be required at the time of development.
10.6.3 10-feet of ROW dedication needs to be made along Court Street and Road
88. This right-of-way dedication adjacent to W Court Street would reduce lot
size by 1,307.4 sq. ft.to approximately 24,841 sq. ft. This would result in
tight tolerances for short platting into two lots under RS-12 zoning. The rear
setback of the dwelling will severely impact the allowable proximity of a
new lot line near the existing dwelling. Without knowing the height of the
dwelling, it is not possible to determination if a division would be possible if
the property were to be rezoned to RS-12.
11. Public notice of this hearing was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the property and
posted in the Tri-City Herald on December 20, 2021.
12. There have been no substantial changes in the designated area.
13. With RS-12 zoning the 10' ROW dedication adjacent to West Court Street would severely
impact the allowable proximity of a new lot line near the existing dwelling.
14. An open record public hearing after due legal notice was held January 12, 2022 via
videoconference.
Z 2021 016
Velicanin
Page 3 of 5
15. Appearing and testifying on behalf of the Applicant were Amel Velicanin and Sabira
Velicanin. Ms. Velicanin is a co-owner of the home. Amel Velicanin is Sabira Velicanin's
son. Mr. Velicanin testified they wanted to have a short plat so they can build a second home
on the property for the use of his parents, who are elderly. When questioned by the Hearing
Examiner, Mr. Velicanin admitted that they have no evidence for the criteria of a change of
conditions. He did point out the other homes in the area that have multiple residences on one
lot, but agrees that they were built a long time ago.
16. Testifying from the public were the following individuals:
16.1 Dana Crutchfield. Ms. Crutchfield raised concerns regarding notice provided to the
neighborhood. She also testified that the requested rezone and creation of two small
lots would change the character of the neighborhood.
16.2 Gary Crutchfield. Mr. Crutchfield discussed certain segments of the staff report. He
recognized that the Comprehensive Plan uses, along with the actual zoning, has not
changed since annexation. He believed that allowing this rezone to allow the
creation of two very small lots would be to the detriment to the value and character of
the neighborhood. He offered his opinion based upon his observations that because of
RS-12 and R-1 lots are not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr.
Crutchfield questioned page 6, section 2 of the staff report regarding some factual
information that he did not feel was accurate for this project. Staff later agreed that
this information related to a separate project.
16.3 Tom Robinson.Mr. Robinson testified in opposition to the project indicating that this
corner lot has PUD easements and multiple setbacks that will further restrict the size
of buildable areas on each lot.
17. The Hearing Examiner finds that the smaller lots that would be a result of this rezone are not
consistent with the character of the current neighborhood and current lot sizes in the
neighborhood
18. The staff report, application materials, agency comments and the entire file of record were
admitted into the record.
19. Any Conclusion of Law that is more correctly a Finding of Fact is hereby incorporated as
such by this reference.
H.RECOMMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone,the Hearing Examiner must develop findings of
fact from which to draw its conclusions based upon the criteria listed in PMC 25.210.060. The
criteria are as follows:
1. The Hearing Examiner has been granted authority to render this recommended decision.
2. The Applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with all applicable laws,
rules and regulations. The Applicant has not been able to satisfy its burden of proof to show
compliance with all of the applicable criteria set forth within PMC 25.210.030. Therefore,
this rezone application is not consistent with the Pasco Municipal Code.
Z 2021 016
Velicanin
Page 4 of 5
3. Any Finding of Fact that is more correctly a Conclusion of Law is hereby incorporated as
such by this reference.
III. RECOMMENDED DECISION
Based upon the above recommended Finding of Facts and recommended Conclusions of Law,
the Hearing Examiner recommends DENIAL of rezone application Z 2021-016.
Dated this 18"'day January,2022.
CIT OF PASCO HEARING EXAMINER
�f-
drew L. Kottkamp
Z 2021 016
Velicanin
Page 5 of 5