Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves major revision to Ridge at Candy Mountain Phase 2 despite 12% grade waiver
Summary
West Richland council approved a major revision to preliminary plat PLAT-013-2025 (Ridge at Candy Mountain Phase 2), accepting revised ingress/egress and fire-access conditions despite one planning commissioner’s opposition over a 12% street grade; the approval was based on staff and planning commission findings.
The West Richland City Council approved a major revision to the preliminary plat for Ridge at Candy Mountain Phase 2 (File PLAT-013-2025) at its Dec. 2 meeting after staff and the planning commission recommended approval.
Planner Alicia Ransom told council the revision does not change the number of lots but alters points of ingress and egress, triggering a major revision under city code (referenced in the hearing as "WRMC 16.04 0.14 point d 0.4"). She said the conditions of approval were adjusted to address fire‑truck turnaround requirements on private drives and to update stormwater conditions. "The request, was the number of lots is staying the same on this, but the points of ingress and egress are changing," Ransom said.
The planning commission recommended approval with one vote in opposition. Council members asked technical questions. When Council member Blum asked how long the 12% grade section would be, the building official (Eric) replied it was "about a couple 100 feet" and explained the commission member who voted against the recommendation was concerned the 12% grade increases maintenance — particularly in winter — but staff said a prior waiver had already authorized that grade and changing it now would require redoing installed infrastructure and carry a significant cost to the developer.
On fire access, Eric said the city references the International Fire Code for turnaround width tables, noting a minimum of 20 feet but that some situations (for example, when a hydrant is present) can require up to 26 feet.
Council member (speaker 5) moved approval based on the planning commission’s findings of fact and conditions; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The council record shows the planning commission’s recommendation, staff findings, and the city’s reliance on prior waivers and the International Fire Code in approving the revision. No parties of record provided supplemental testimony during the hearing.
The approval finalizes the council’s decision on the major revision; staff and the developer will proceed under the revised conditions of approval and the project’s existing infrastructure constraints.
