Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Renfrew - I have similar feelings. It is one thing to develop a parcel under <br />existing zoning. It's another to try and increase the density and have a right to do that without <br />public input and process. I am not a big proponent of rezoning in any case. I would like to <br />have a review through some process, what ever that might be. Preferably through a PUD <br />process to have input on design. Being that the location of this property has some rather <br />unique physical characteristics that are going to impact the design and how it is going to be <br />viewed by the surrounding neighborhood. If there is a way to bring it in through a PUD <br />process that would be my preference. I would not be willing to support the rezoning tonight <br />as it is presently put forward. <br />Commissioner McAvinew - Here we are with one of those toughies, those infills. Whenever <br />you starting doing this, we have had a few of these, they are not easy. I would prefer, at this <br />point, to see this whole thing come in as a PUD. Then we can work it over and make sure we <br />have public input and come up with the best solution for this. We have no plans here. We <br />need more information. I would like to see this come back. <br />Commissioner VanNostrand - I am in agreement as well. I think what ever route we take it is <br />most important, not so much the PUD which I would like to see, to have the public input. <br />With out the public input it is a use by right. That puts it into a different ball game. I would <br />not like for us to be put into the situation of just making it the same zoning. Pretty much <br />taking it out of the publics hands. I would agree with the comments regarding the rezoning. I <br />would go a little farther on that. I would probably be most amenable to seeing it stay the way <br />it is and come forward as a PUD. Quiet frankly when I look 17.44.050 I am not particularly <br />convinced that it meets any of those criteria that would cause the rezoning to RM. I think <br />what ever concerns that we have with the applicant being able to use .the property we can use <br />the same method to address those as we can use to address the comments of the neighbors <br />which is the public process. <br />Chairperson Boulet - I am not opposed to putting more units or more density on this property. <br />It is right next to town homes, condominiums. I am not sure that it actually meets any <br />particular policy for rezoning that the ordinance lays out. So I am hesitant to vote for <br />rezoning at this point. I do think that there is nothing wrong with putting town homes on this <br />property. As to the property that is right behind the residents who spoke here tonight, most of <br />that is RM any way. This applicant could come in and, if he provided adequate access to that <br />property, build units based on that zoning. There was some question as to what the maps <br />show. I don't know whether you looked at the same maps that we have referred to here <br />tonight, the ones that were updated at the end of 1993, or some earlier version. I can certainly <br />appreciate the confusion that all of this causes, especially for people who are not used to <br />looking at development and zoning maps. From what I have heard it was there on the most <br />recent map at the time you would have purchased your property. This applicant could come in <br />and, by right, build units right now. I think what he is trying to do is get the zoning of the <br />southern most portion of his property consistent with the RM zoning. I am not opposed to that <br />goal. I don't think that it meets the requirements for rezoning. I think that if he were to come. <br />7 <br />