1986/11/19 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

.... , 492 11 l'''' November 19,1986 ii'131 3.'1 remains the B-1 zone. Generalla tbat 3.ordi.e.ce..d law.r.it It Ai'' takes precedent over policy. Revisions of the new comprehensive Plan are takir.place and some of these types of conflicts will be 33.11 11 resolved during this process. • The applicant has stated and shown his intent to develop this 1.13i'.1 property in accordance with the zoning and even if Council desired to change the zoning,the applicant would be ful.vested and would retain his legal rights to proceed in the future. ,33 113 A Kr. Derickson stated that the City Council has recentlY adePted a new residential land use element of the General Plan and it clearly 'II 1...' 'A calls for all of the Mukilteo Boulevard are. that is currently 11i •iliA1Iiiiii' designated and zoned low density single family to remain so. That kiiiiii'13-A '1',.1 no new areas would be rezone for development for multiple family or commercial development. 3Ah3'331 A', 13113P'1,g'4' Councilmember Kiva asked about down zoning. She stated it was her understanding the City Council did not have the authority to down 17:4 3 31,AP i sone the property. . ,3 tipr 30,1 '113 lit',i1.1 'E'te 1=Pfrg=tV.lat.Z,IT9:71"1..i:it 1,12:t g7:7h21".'t"" 1.11C'Al'''*1:1;,'il'il, ..m Iles,Assistant City AttOrney, stated that the aPP13cant has. vested legal right in developing this property as zoned and the City i iih's 7• cannot preclude him from doing this. The City has the right through '1,i 2• 111 the SEM procebs to mitigate the impacts but must remain aware of the individual rights of the PtoPertY 0.ner• ierr'igil'hkbeotCr:sio7.'i'd6T7hne°UtpPllear'notdingletnoati9t:easVtlehteecitiar't:1[1e1:::f:inelitionch:ofPi:hele-41 TC.3 4 11 111111 i 3 , zone is to provide for and protect certain areas of the city for i'llVAI lil• , retail serving the residents of the neighborhood and, in his opinion,the'apartment complex does not serve the neighborhood. '-1 !!'11 i'411 Jill Hatcher, representing her parents, the Tom Schofields of 3701 Upland,stated that just the prospect of a tymnty unit apartment in J1 1,ir the neighborhood has depressed their propertY va..bY 00.000. She also stated that this tn.of dev.10Pment weuld.....telT .1..9e the makeup and appearance of the neighborhood. 1.11111 1..11''3 lili'i Michael°rade, 3718 Mukilteo Blvd, also spoke againet the proposed 1'hid 01,',11 project. He felt that some special attention should be paid to the NA't i,r A police department response to the SEPA questionnaire as to the number of calls this type of development requires. He also stated iiie ili idhl that the rentals on the property now are not maintained in an acceptable manner. il t1A A ,VW.P 1 3 1'1W June Stuart,3801 Shore Avenue,spoke against the proposed project. Jim shields,3508 Upland,stated be was against the prePosed Project and it would change the character of the neighborhood. In his opinion,the crime rate in the neighborhood would also increase with 1..11,0,1'61 this project. 1• '13.3''"ii li'11i1 14' 3 William Siebold, 3701 Shore Avenue, expressed strong concerns regarding the drainage problem.. Nis Pr.PertY is 1..ated hel..the project and there are tremendous drainage problems.'The houses 61'11N11:1 flood every time it rains. i 11'i VI il'i!ii 31 Ail 1 .. ,