I find this news hardly shocking. I think the determination of an incomplete application has much more to do with property owners in Northeast Tacoma than what was actually included in the application. Maybe those landowners who claim their “small town” atmosphere is being violated should take a look around them. They live in the state’s second largest city, one whose population is expected grow by up to 50% in the next 30 years. The land under the golf course has been zoned PRD for a long time. I bet most of these same landowners never bothered to get involved with the comprehensive plan update or rezone processes—only when something is proposed do they become NIMBYs.

The residents of Northeast Tacoma should stop pretending that they live in Bonney Lake. If they really want to live in a small town, they should come on down to Centralia or Chehalis. We could use the deep pockets. Just leave the snobby attitudes in Northeast Tacoma.

i’d rather have 850 houses in NE Tacoma than on South Hill.

that area is zoned R2. it will get its PRD soon enough.

On the surburb issue, check out the trailer for The End of Suburbia which is a new independent film.

The development project would have a much greater impact than just providing more homes to a large city. This community grew up and around that golf course with an understanding that it would be there as a golf course in perpetuity. There is a contractual obligation for it to remain that way. Otherwise, the many apartments that are by it would have to be renamed from “Apartments on the Green” to “Apartments by the shoddily built homes erected incorrectly by a contractor with a terrible JD Powers rating” The backup through Federal Way to NE Tacoma is already ridiculous without adding additional residents. The schools aren’t equipped to handle the overload and many kids would be have to be bussed much farther from home. It isn’t snobby to try and protect the area where you bought a home and decided to raise a family. Many of the people in NE Tacoma are very active in the South Sound community and have participated in creating what we have today. I can assure you that if this project does move forward, that civic pride would be damaged greatly and I know I would likely move away. That step backward could very well see a number of people here relocate, perhaps to Centralia or Chehalis.

There is a contractual obligation for it to remain that way.

From what I’m hearing, there was supposed to be a contractual obligation back in the day before the homes around the golf course were started, however, that contract was never formalized. Everybody assumed it would be done before permits were issued, but it wasn’t… which would leave us in the situation we have now.

If anybody can find the contract, send me a copy.

This is only a guess, but it is not uncommon to see a portion of a project listed as “open space” on the plat map that is recorded with the County Auditor or a final develoment plan. This is very similar to the Tribune article’s quote from Haynes-Castro that the previous PRD establishing the existing residences stated the golf course “shall be restricted solely to golf course and open space use.”

Since the previous project was approved in 1981 and the easily accessible online information from the Auditor only goes back to 1984, someone would have to pull a the recorded document from the Auditor’s Office directly. Another option is to request the file for review at the City of Tacoma and copy the Title Report included with the application. If anyone does obtain an image of the previous plat, I’d be curious to see how the golf course is restricted.

Jurisdictions will typically attempt to mitigate away any potential environmental impacts, but a clouded or restricted title is a whole different challenge. A plat amendment to the original subdivision, with all owners approval, could be required if there are changes to that subdivision. I have the suspicion the developers could have more than one hold out if that were the case.

HAHA you posted a link to Shoes. That one is a classic.

I live in NE Tacoma and not retaining a, “small town” atmosphere is the least of my problems.

This proposed development would have an impact on our schools (see letter from Superintendent Dr. Milligan about the school issues: http://www.tacoma.k12.wa.us/newsroom/News/news.asp?action=detail&article=1533), Environmental Issues, Traffic Issues (1,000 plus cars), Water Run-off Concerns, Strain on Police Response, Strain on Emergency Medical Response, Strain on Fire Response, etc.

Get informed: SaveNETacoma.com

Here is the Notice of Incomplete Application letter to the builder from Caroline Haynes-Castro (City of Tacoma, Land Use Administration Section Supervisor).

February 26, 2007

Northshore Investors, LLC
PO Box 73790
Puyallup, WA 98373

RE: Notice of Incomplete Application – Preliminary Plat of “The Point at Northshore,” Rezone Modification, Site Plan Approval, Variances and Associated SEPA Review

File Nos: PLT2007-40000089069, REZ2007-40000089068, SIT2007-40000089067, MLU2007-40000089065, and SEP2007-40000089066
4101 Northshore Boulevard NE, Parcel Number 0321232700
1611 Browns Point Boulevard NE, Parcel Number 0321236002

Dear Applicant:

City staff have reviewed the above subject application requests for the redevelopment of the Northshore Golf Course site with 860 residential units. The permit applications were submitted to the Public Works Department, Building and Land Use Services Division, on January 29, 2007. The applications have been determined to be incomplete in accordance with Tacoma Municipal Code (TMC), Chapter 13.05, on two separate issues, addressed below.

TMC Subsection 13.05.010.E.4 states the following:

“An application is complete for purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of the Department as outlined in Section 13.05.010.C and TMC Section 13.11.250 for projects that may affect wetlands, streams, or their regulated buffers, even though additional information may be required or project modification may be made later. The determination of a complete application shall not preclude the Department from requesting additional information or studies, either at the time of the notice of complete application or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur, or should it be discovered that the applicant omitted, or failed to disclose, pertinent information.”

The submitted application material failed to address the submission requirements of the above-cited subsection, and specifically TMC Section 13.11.250. In this regard, your application material contained a two page letter titled “North Shore Golf Course Ponds and Ditches”, prepared by J.S. Jones and Associates dated December 27, 2006. This document did not provide the proper review of the site, as required under TMC Section 13.11.250.

The second issue concerns the 1981 rezone of the North Shore Golf Course and the surrounding property as a unified Planned Residential Development District (“PRD”). In 1979, North Shore Golf Associates, Inc. (“North Shore Golf”), entered into an Agreement concerning North Shore Golf Course (“Development and Zoning Agreement”) with Brownfield and Associates, Inc., and Nu-West Pacific, Inc. (“Nu-West”). The Development and Zoning Agreement described an agreement wherein North Shore Golf, agreed to acquire certain property for development of a golf course and based on North Shore’s performance, Nu-West agreed to acquire 35 acres of property surrounding the golf course for residential development. Though the respective acquisitions by North Shore Golf and Nu-West would result in parcels under separate ownership, the Development and Zoning Agreement expressly bound the golf course and residential properties together for purposes of land use requirements as follows:

“North Shore Golf Associates, Inc. understands and agrees that Nu-West Pacific, Inc. would not exercise its option and acquire Brownfield and Associates, Inc. interest, nor would it allow North Shore Golf Associates, Inc. to acquire the option property directly from the seller without this agreement by North Shore Golf Associates, Inc. that it will subject the golf course property described on Exhibit A to the master planning process, that it will restrict its use for such period as is required by the City of Tacoma, and any other municipal entity for master planning purposes, to golf course purposes and to “open space” as required, and that it will execute all applications and plats to the extent necessary with regard to the Exhibit A property so that Nu-West Pacific, Inc. may use such property for its density, open space, and other planning requirements, as though it were owned by Nu-West Pacific, Inc.”

Nu-West subsequently applied for a rezone of both the golf course property that had been acquired by North Shore Golf and Nu-West’s surrounding property as a unified PRD. (Tacoma Hearing Examiner’s file numbers 120.924, 125.238, and 127.140). In March 1981, the City’s Hearing Examiner recommended that the City Council approve the rezone. A specific condition of the Hearing Examiner’s recommendation for approval affecting the golf course property was as follows:

“The applicant shall submit a legal agreement, which is binding upon all parties and which may be enforced by the City of Tacoma. It should provide that the property in question will maintain and always have the use of the adjacent golf course for its open space and density requirement which has been relied in by the applicant in securing approval of this request.”

That condition was satisfied by an Open Space Taxation Agreement (“Open Space Agreement”) between North Shore Golf and the City of Tacoma concerning the golf course property, which was approved by the City Council in September 1981. The Open Space Agreement contained a special term unrelated to the taxation of the property that fulfilled the PRD rezone requirement. At paragraph 2, the Open Space Agreement states:

“The use of such land shall be restricted solely to golf course and open space use. No use of such land other than as specifically provided hereunder shall be authorized or allowed without the express consent of the City of Tacoma.”

The final paragraph of the Open Space Agreement makes clear that it has a dual purpose both to provide for the tax classification of the golf course property and separately and independently to establish an enforceable condition upon the future use of the golf course property required as a condition of approval of the overall PRD. It states:

“It is declared that this document contains the classification and conditions as provided for in RCW 84.34 and the conditions imposed by this legislative authority.” (Emphasis added).

The conditions of approval of the PRD rezone having been satisfied, the City Council approved the rezone of both the golf course property and the surrounding property as a single unified PRD in November of 1981. Under the Tacoma Municipal Code a PRD has three integral components. The first is the underlying regular residential zoning, in this case R-2. (TMC 13.06.140 A.) The second is the site plan. (TMC 13.06.140 B. 4.) The third is the decision of the City’s Hearing Examiner, any conditions imposed by the Examiner, and any related agreements, including in this case the Open Space Agreement. (TMC 13.06.140 C. 4.) The recorded condition required through the Hearing Examiner’s decision, established in the Open Space Agreement and ultimately imposed by the City Council, is an inextricable part of the zoning of the golf course property. Regardless of whether the golf course property has been removed from an open space tax classification, the Open Space Agreement remains as an integral part of the PRD and an enforceable condition on development of the golf course property for so long as the golf course property is necessary to serve the open space and density requirements of the surrounding property within the PRD.

In order to remove the condition, an applicant must request a major modification to the PRD pursuant to TMC 13.05.080 C. Such an application must contain an analysis that allows the City to consent to removal of the condition on use of the golf course on the specific basis that the golf course property is not needed for open space and density requirements in the context of the full development of the entire PRD. In the request to the City, an applicant must clearly demonstrate that in the event all other property within the PRD were to be developed to the highest level approved by the Hearing Examiner at the time of the original rezone and site plan approval, all or a portion of the golf course property would not need to be reserved to meet open space and density requirements for the surrounding property. In the alternative, if the level of development sought by the applicant would impact the development rights of the surrounding property owners in the PRD, the applicant could provide an agreement with the surrounding owners for a modification of their rights within the PRD.

The applicant has applied for a major modification of the PRD and, therefore, has utilized the correct avenue for seeking the City’s consent to remove the condition. However, the application materials do not include an analysis that clearly establishes that in the event all other property within the PRD were to be developed to the highest level approved by the Hearing Examiner at the time of the original rezone and site plan approval all, or a portion of the golf course property, would not need to be reserved to meet open space and density requirements for the surrounding property. Nor, in the alternative has the applicant provided an agreement with the surrounding property owners for modification of their rights within the PRD. Because the application does not provide the information necessary to allow the City to consent to remove the condition on the use of the golf course property, the application is materially incomplete.

For your review, I have included a copy of City departmental reviews and agency comments, which have been received to date. The attachments include the following: Elton Gatewood, Community Economic Development Department (dated February 6, 2007); Department of Ecology (dated February 16, 2007); Alana Hess, Washington State Department of Transportation (dated February 20, 2007); Jason Moline, P.E., Environmental Services Engineering Division (dated February 20, 2007); Cary M. Roe, P.E. and Kathy McClung, City of Federal Way (dated February 20, 2007); Public Works Review Panel Minutes (dated February 14, 2007); Theresa Dusek, Building and Land Use Services Division (dated February 20, 2007); Charles D. Milligan, Ph.D., Tacoma Public Schools (dated February 22, 2007); Carl Anderson, P.E., Tacoma Fire Department (dated February 20, 2007); Department of Ecology (dated February 20, 2007); Kurtis Kingsolver, P.E., Engineering Division (dated February 15, 2007); Joyce Mercuri, Department of Ecology (dated February 16, 2007); Alan Aplin, Environmental Services Engineering Division (dated February 16, 2007); Nick Tomanelli, Tacoma Power (dated February 7, 2007); Reuben McKnight, Historic Preservation Officer (dated February 9, 2007); Susan Coffman, P.E., Building and Land Use Services Division (dated February 9, 2007) and Monica Adams, Pierce Transit (dated February 22, 2007).

Please note the attached comments were submitted following a preliminary review of the proposal. Additional comments will not be provided as the project has been determined incomplete. As you are aware, per Ordinance No. 27584, a six-month moratorium which addresses the acceptance of land use permit applications for development proposals within “PRD” Districts was adopted by the City on January 30, 2007. Any future proposed development of the site will be subject to either the moratorium or regulations effective at the time of a new application submittal.

Should you have questions regarding this determination of incompleteness, please contact Jennifer Ward at (253) 591-5022 or Caroline Haynes-Castro at (253) 591-5404.

Sincerely,
Caroline Haynes-Castro
Land Use Administration Section Supervisor

Wow mea. Thanks for posting that text.

It sounds like the incomplete determination based on wetlands is a little questionable. However, if they had determined it complete, it looks like there is plenty of opportunity to deny the project based on the failure to “provide an agreement with the surrounding owners for a modification of their rights within the PRD.”

As long as the City keeps it together, the applicant is screwed regardless of completness on this one.

I’m surprised the City doesn’t state that a plat modification requires the signatures of all property owners within the original plat on the application. It’s an easy way to make sure all owners are on board with the amendments before it gets in front of the City.

I’m surprised by your comment about trash-talking high-density developers on this site. I don’t get that feeling at all. I do get the feeling that people want to discuss the major projects, for better or worse.

I think the bottom line on the North Shore project is that the title restricts the ability to further develop the golf course – regardless of the politics.

I know you didn’t mean to decree “Thou shall not criticize developers,” but that’s kind of how it sounded.

I somehow make enemies with every post…and I apologize if I offend.