COM 1075.001 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I don't think it's anything nefarious by any means; just maybe a few things need to be discussed. With that said, I, I have a hard time looking at anything that would be anything but unfavorable. CARR SMITH: Are you making a motion, or not? NEWBERG: Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion for SLU 20-53; I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the applicant's request for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban for 11.707 acres of land based on the Planning Director's recommendation. I'd also like to make a motion for REZ 20-241; I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the applicant's request for a Change of Zone from Open and Residential and Agricultural 1 -Acre to a Village Commercial CV -10 zoning district based on the Planning Director's recommendation. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Max. Is there a second to that? Faye: YATES: Yes, I second the motion. CARR SMITH: All right, we've got a motion on-the,floor by Mr. Newberg .and. a second by Ms. Yates. Discussion time, folks? Go ahead, Mike._ VITOUSEK: Sure. I can understand,where'-Commissioner Newberg is coming from. I feel like we're in a really tough position again because of a p.erceived-lack of consensus building between the applicant and the County. I can defini%tely seethe applicant's perspective on why commercial development may be appropriate -in that are a,"given.that you're on a corner of an intersection that's entirely surrounded -by commercial development. That being said, I don't necessarily think that we have enough information to fully assess the current project. You know? And I'm a guy who's never really comfortable adding conditions that they can be done later on; I'd want to have all the information up front in order'to,really assess the impact of adding commercial development.into that area. I"'wish`that the County and° the applicant could take more time to try to coordinate a better consensus -on how that can .move forward with County support, but, as it is now, I would, I would have -to ;agree with Commissioner Newberg. CARR SMITH: `Mr. Kealoha.`. We're discussing the motion on the table, right? KEALOHA: Yeah:: So, I'd like o-1ind of echo what's been said. When I look at the timeline, when the applicant stepped, in=to, this project in 2014, there was a Rezone Ordinance No. 13-29, which was for timing of final 'subdivision approval, so when the applicant stepped into this, I can see where they thought they had a green light, and now things change; so, I suspect that there was fraud on someone's part along the way. Having said that, as the Planning Director mentioned, this is not the place to litigate any fraud that might have taken place, and it's unfortunate, but I don't think we have an option other than an unfavorable motion as well. VITOUSEK: And I would, if I could, interject on that one. I believe the addition of the commercial zoning is new; I believe the previous zoning of Rural and, you know, potentially Residential would have allowed for the affordable housing component, but I think that the new 23 DRAFT