Planning commission recommends denying general-plan change for Washington Fields property over access concerns

The Washington City Planning Commission on Aug. 6 recommended denial of G-25-04, a proposed general-plan amendment to change a parcel at 2651 South Washington Fields Road from low-density residential to Planned Unit Development Commercial (PUDC), saying the application does not yet resolve how vehicles would safely access the site.

The commission voted 3-0 to send a recommendation for denial to the City Council after a public hearing and an extended staff presentation. Commissioner Richard Davis made the motion to deny, citing “ambiguity with respect to the access,” and Commissioner Mitchell seconded. Commissioners Mitchell, Davis and Bullock each voted “aye.”

The proposal before the commission would have allowed a site-specific PUDC designation; the applicant and a speaker who identified the existing use as a flower farm described plans for an on-site building for workshops and rental for weddings or other events. City staff described the requested change as a link between neighborhood commercial to the west and surrounding low-density residential to the north, east and south, and recommended approval at the general-plan amendment stage.

Neighbors and several public commenters urged denial or expressed concern. Sue Schmidt said the change would disrupt an established low-density neighborhood and increase traffic and noise. Ryan McAllister called the request “spot zoning” and pointed to sight-line and hill-grade problems at the Lost Ridge–Washington Fields Road intersection. Joan Chipman said she supported the applicant’s concept but worried that a future owner could change the use if controls were not binding.

City staff and the commission discussed access and roadway geometry in detail. Staff said the existing 35-foot-wide strip on the property was originally intended for a single-family residential use; typical commercial development or a commercial-style residential subdivision would require a wider public right-of-way in the 50–55-foot range for two lanes. Staff also described access-management spacing requirements on Washington Fields Road: roughly 330 feet is the separation typically used for right-in/right-out access and roughly 660 feet for a full-movement intersection; the existing distance where the proposed driveway would be is approximately 200 feet, which staff said falls short of the typical standard.

Commissioners repeatedly returned to the access issue. Mitchell and Davis said the commission’s role at the general-plan stage is to determine whether a proposed map change is consistent with the general plan; they noted that zone and site-plan review would follow if the map change were approved. Commissioners said the likely next step — a zoning application and site plan — would provide the level of detail needed to evaluate trips and whether the right-of-way and intersection spacing are adequate. Several commissioners said, however, that the application in front of them did not resolve the access concern and that the location was too close to a busy intersection to support commercial access without additional property acquisition or easements.

The commission also discussed history: staff and commissioners said a prior, simpler commercial rezoning application for the parcel had been denied by City Council because it proposed general commercial zoning rather than a PUDC; the applicant has since proposed the PUDC format to allow site-specific conditions.

By recommending denial at the general-plan amendment stage, the commission does not preclude the applicant from returning with a revised proposal; applicants can pursue alternative access designs, additional easements or other changes and submit a new amendment and zone application. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action.

Votes at a glance: G-25-04 (amend general-plan land-use map from Low Density to PUDC; 2651 South Washington Fields Road) — motion to recommend denial by Commissioner Richard Davis, second Commissioner Mitchell; vote Mitchell Aye, Davis Aye, Bullock Aye. Outcome: recommended denial to City Council.

The record of the hearing and written public comments submitted in advance will be included in the City Council packet when the item goes forward.