Laserfiche WebLink
P70 <br /> <br />Case #8: <br /> <br />Consider Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment; Case of Patrick <br />Fitzpatrick <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon explained the 2001 Comprehensive Plan <br />shows the property located at 9150 Highway 10 as Low Density Residential. Patrick Fitzpatrick <br />resides on the subject property and recently became aware of the parcel's residential land use <br />designation. Mr. Fitzpatrick does not agree with the residential' designation and is requesting a <br />comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation from Low Density <br />Residential to Places to Shop. Staff found maps from 1999 showing the property as residential. <br />Staff is unsure why that pmnticular piece of land had changed, but thinks the surrounding <br />neighborhood played a part in that, and the fact that there is currently a residence on the subject <br />property. Mr. Fitzpatrick has expressed concern that he did not receive notice about the re- <br />designation. Staff did send notice to all postal patrons during the process, although Mr. <br />Fitzpatrick would likely still contend that he was not fully aware of the changes. A public <br />hearing was held at the Plmming Commission meeting and the Commission recommended denial <br />of the comprehensive plan amendment, as well as the rezoning. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon advised while it il'lay not be clear what <br />the exact reason was for changing the subject property's land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the <br />property has been historically residential and is located directly on the river. In recent <br />Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the City Council has indicated a preference for non- <br />commercial uses directly on the river, with the possibility of changing to a cormnercial use if a <br />desirable plan is brought forward by the land owner. The redevelopment of this parcel for a <br />commercial use may also be constrained by its location directly on the river and potential need <br />for expanded access to Highway 10. He noted Mr. Fitzpatrick is also asking that the City waive <br />the application fees for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment. <br /> <br />Pat Fitzpatrick, 9150 Highway 10 NW, stated the property he resides in has been in his family for <br />35 years. He ,,vas not aware the City was rezoning it so he did not have a chance to move <br />forward before. He asked to have staff send him what would have been sent to him regarding the <br />rezoning, and what he received was a newsletter. In the newsletter he cannot tell where his <br />property is. It shows the working critical boundary area 1-½ miles away from his house. He <br />spoke to a commercial realtor and developer, and they said mixed use, rather than B-2 would be <br />the most appropriate zoning for the property, it would allow his residence to stay Conforming and <br />have R-2 development. His understanding is that the property at 9340 Highway 10 was aware of <br />the rezoning and came forward, and was granted mixed use zoning. He is asking for the same <br />thing. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec commented a plan gives the Council a better opportunity to look at what is being <br />proposed. He commented notification has always seemed to be a problem, but the City does its <br />best to notify people tltrough the newsletter and notices. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak inquired if the property at 9340 had a plan for a nursing home. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon responded in the affirmative. <br /> <br />City Council/May 25, 2004 <br /> Page 16 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />