HomeMy WebLinkAboutEAST SKYWAY REZONING - 19-07 - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)1. Pete Wray - Bnan $chumm - Whitman
Page 1 1
From: Joe Frank
To: Atteberry, Darin; Eckman, Paul; Jones, Diane
Date: 7/24/2007 12:25:56 PM
Subject: Brian Schumm - Whitman
Pete, Cameron and I met with Brian Schumm this morning in regards to the Whitman rezoning. A second
meeting is scheduled this afternoon with Darin, Diane, Paul and me ( have also invited Pete and Cameron
to come along). Included are some highlights of Brian's issues and some staff response:
Here's some quick highlights:
1. Brian is not happy with the City initiating the rezoning ... he wonders why the City is using its resources
to enrich the Whitmans (re. increasing the value of their property). He questions why we are doing it now;
we refused to annex and rezone the property a few years ago when the County asked us to.
response; The City is not doing the rezoning to "enrich" the property owner. The staff initiated rezoning is
for the purpose of getting the issue in front of the PZ and Council; get some closure to the discussion; so
much staff discussion has already taken place on the use of the property; there is no new information to
glean; bring forward a staff recommendation will not be a lot of work; the alternative was to wait 18 months
for resolution of the subarea plan; waiting would just create more brain damage, more staff work, and
uncertainity for all and financial cost/risk to the property owner. Staff decided to initiate the zoning.
Why now? Applicant has requested rezoning. We did not want to annex it previously because we wanted
to wait for the southwest enclave; and the County needed to resolve the zoning violations/court orders
before we annexed.
2. Brian understands though that bringing the issue of the use of the property to Council for resolution_
might be a good step. Although he thinks that the rezoning would not necessarily end the
issues.... Whitman has violated zoning in the past; whats there to think he won't continue; Schumm also
thinks that the Whitmans will eventually want to rezone the proposed RL parcel to C.
response: we think that the rezoning action will at least resolve for now the issue of existing and future
land use. We believe the City has better tools and will do a better job of acting on zoning violations than
the County.
3. He is against any C commercial zoning .... he is concerned that the commercial zoning would decrease
the value of his nearby home and increase traffic on skyway. He pretty much dismisses the staff
arguments. He prefers the existing estate zoning. He will argue against characterizing the current
operation as "commercial"... he would say that its commercial character is only because of the zoning
violation... otherwise its a home occupation.
response: we believe the estate zoning is not appropriate for the property which is sandwiched between
the Kelmar commercial strip and a childrens day care center. The Estate zoning is a "carry-over" from the
existing County zoning; the character of the south college area has changed since the initial County
zoning; the whitman land use issue is not an isolated case; more urban uses are being sought for other
estate zoned properties on south college. The "character" of the buildings and activities is "commercial".
C zoning might lead to further development wherein city standards could apply and actually improve the
look/activity on the property (landscaping, buildings, streets, sidewalks, etc.). City Land Use Code has
neighborhood compatibility standards that we believe should protect the values of adjacent properties.
The Whitman's would prefer a C zoning for the entire property; they would prefer an Industrial zoning that
would allow outside storage of vehicles; staff has consistently opposed this as not being in character with
the neighborhood.