Planning commission recommends denial of setback relief for 67 East Parata Paccana Lane project

The Washington City Planning Commission on March 5 recommended denial of a request to add two units and an alternate setback plan for a property addressed as 67 East Parata Paccana Lane, forwarding the recommendation to the City Council.

Staff told the commission the applicant proposes two new two‑story units in the western corner of the existing Planned Unit Development Residential (PUDR) parcel, a combined approximately 1,733 square feet of new building area, and a 576‑square‑foot covered canopy south of the existing playground. The site’s general plan designation is medium‑high density (7–12 dwelling units per acre); adding two units would create 12 units total, a density the staff said equals about 10.34 dwelling units per acre and falls within the general plan range.

The staff report cited provisions of Washington City Code concerning setbacks and distances between two‑story buildings. Under the cited code, a two‑story building on a boundary requires a 25‑foot setback from the side boundary line and 15 feet between two‑story buildings; the applicant asked to reduce those requirements to a 15‑foot side boundary setback and a 10‑foot distance between two‑story buildings. Staff told the commission it could not recommend approval because the setback requirement could be met if the proposed units were attached to the existing buildings, and staff preferred that attachment as a code‑compliant solution.

Adjacent property owners and the applicant spoke during the public hearing. Beth Ann McDonald, who said she owns two adjacent lots, asked the commission to verify conditions from an earlier approval: she said earlier approvals stipulated some units were to be sold rather than rented and that an earlier owner was to live in one unit; she also said a private road behind her homes was built to serve her properties and was not intended as access for the proposed development. The applicant, Greg (owner), described the site history: he said he bought the parcel in 2009 when it was zoned R‑3, that the project was redesigned after market conditions and public opposition, and that a small triangular parcel now owned by UDOT and a private drive make the corner area difficult to develop. He said attaching the new units to existing units would require converting an existing common (party) wall to a higher fire‑rated wall and would be disruptive and costly to residents.

Commissioners discussed alternatives the applicant could pursue, including attaching the units, sliding the site plan to obtain the required setback from adjacent property owners, or seeking a rezoning amendment that would change setback standards. Commissioners also expressed concern about setting precedent by granting the requested relief when the request did not meet current PUDR setback standards. Commissioner Mitchell said his primary concern was that granting relief could limit what a future owner of the adjacent triangular parcel could do with that property. Commissioner Bullock said there was some merit to the applicant’s position but ultimately voted against the commission’s denial recommendation.

Commissioner Mitchell moved to recommend denial of the setback relief request; Commissioner Davis seconded. The motion passed on a 3–1 vote (Davis: Aye; Mitchell: Aye; Tupou: Aye; Bullock: Nay). The commission’s recommendation of denial and the staff findings will be forwarded to the City Council for final decision.