The planning commission met on August 26th to discuss what they would recommend to the council on the proposal to change the zoning along Pearl Street to commercial from 52nd to 54th as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing had been held and a petition presented with the majority of property owners opposed to the idea. Colett Judd was on vacation and not present.
The town planner began by reporting that Tacoma's planning commission had decided not pursue zoning for a mixed use center on their side of Pearl. Cherrie Anderson made a motion to recommend to the council that they change the comprehensive plan for this area to residential because so many of the residents wanted it that way. The motion was seconded by Richard Pederson.
Kevin Moser agreed that he did not want to change the zoning to commercial, but he did not see the need to change the comprehensive plan. If conditions changed in the future making commercial development favorable, the zoning could be changed at that time. Pederson did not want folks in the area to worry about this coming up again. If things changed, they could just change the comprehensive plan back to commercial.
Moser asked the planner what would be involved if the town wanted to change the comprehensive plan back to commercial in the future. The planner explained that the zoning is residential, but the comprehensive plan shows the area as commercial. The proposal was to change the zoning map, but the commission is now wanting to change the land use designation - which is a much more involved process that would take at least 4 months. The state is requiring that Ruston update its plan by 2011 anyway and the town council may want to look at this change as part of that overall detailed review of the whole plan.
The planner pointed out it would be much more difficult to change from residential to commercial if the town wanted change this back in the future. As it stands now, no one can do commercial development in this area without requesting a variance. If the zoning map were changed in the future, the burden for the extensive environmental review would fall on the developer for each individual proposal. They would have to show any impact on sewers, roads, police, etc. If the town follows this recommendation by the planning commission and then wants to change it back in the future, the burden for the environmental review would fall on the town. The town would have to pay for the study of impacts on sewers, etc.
The motion to change the comprehensive plan to residential for this area passed 3-2 with Moser and Ficiala voting no. Their recommendation will be forwarded to the town council for consideration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The people have spoken.
There is to much concern and worry
about the ramifications of this size and scope of project. We are co-existing with the apartment buildings already. Many thanks to the planning commission for the hard work they have put forth.
I respectfully disagree with the last comment. There is no project to worry about. That fear is unfounded. I think it is unwise for a false worry to be the basis for forming an opinion, much less making an important policy decision like this.
Any individual "project" would have to be proposed and the impacts fully studied (on the developers dime). Any impacts would be carefully weighted and mitigation could be required for things like traffic, such as traffic calming improvements, or sewer like upgrading the line for the whole neighborhood.
I think these important decisions that impact the future of the entire town should be based on facts.
I do think this is an excellent catalyst to bring everyone together to talk over these issues. It bothers me that neighbors are worried about something that simply isn't factual. I hope the planning commission and the council/mayor will use this to start some open community meetings to get us all talking.
Actually all of "the" people have not even heard about it. What project now?
Sounds like NIMBY's are at it again. When do the rest of us get to hear about or speak on this topic?
The full comment is available on Free Ruston:
Ruston is writing it's own eulogy. Why in the world would these blocks not be zoned commercial??? It's on... Pearl Street!....
Taxes need to come from somewhere. Ruston needs to keep encouraging as much development as possible to survive.
karen, by your own admission you are pro-development. the reason you sometimes give is that you feel ruston needs a stronger tax base.
Regardless of what you think,or whether you are right or wrong, other residents feel adamant about their view of ruston: we want ourr own neighborhoods to remain single family residential and low rise.
'Unfounded fear', as you put it, has little to do with what we want for ruston, which is, that it maintain itself as a quiet, attractive town that keeps its neighborhood feeling as it grows. we don't favor future encroachment by commercial interests.
since 30% of the town is already zoned commercial or mixed use (the planning commission stated this in one of their meetings.), that is quite enough for present and future businesses, in the eyes of the majority of us residents. just ask around if you question this.
i applaud the planning commission majority vote but am disappointed in kevin moser's and brian ficiala's minority votes. however,
if since these two members agree with you, well, mr ficiala is running for council and you can vote for him.
in the meantime, as the 1st anonymous writes, 'the people have spoken.' please respect that even though you disagree with his message.
Ok I'v talked to my neighbors to find out what all the ruckus is about so I see it is two blocks on Pearl with only four or five houses.
"keeps a neighborhood feel as it grows"...grows what? a garden?
As I said I have asked around and what I hear is that it would be lovely to have little shops down that stretch.
Seems to me that the "majority of us residents" haven't had an opportunity to have a say here.
Actually, the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as "P-Com"--potential commercial--which means it is not actually commercial, but possibly. It is presently residential zoning and has always been residential.
As it stands right now, the Council could just use an ordinance to change the zoning from "RES" to "COM"--that is only two public readings! The notice of a possible change went out to properties within 300 feet of the area in question. THAT is why the whole Town was not informed of this change. NIMBYs? Possibly. I would say informed NIMBYs. These are the ONLY ones whose opinions were sought at this time.
Let's talk about the facts--not unfounded fears. The fact is that three years ago (November 2006), the residents spoke overwhelmingly in favor of keeping this area residential. The fact is that without a change in the Comprehensive Plan, this whole issue can resurface time and again--say, after an election. The fact is that nearly 100% of the residents on Highland Street (N. 52nd to N. 54th) objected to the proposed change--again. The sad reality is that only 3 people's opinions (votes) matter .
I also applaud the workings of the Planning Commission. I believe they, as a majority, listened to what the residents had to say. I hope the Council--or at least 3 of them--will do the same in the future.
A couple of points. I believe we can disagree respectfully and that is I have attempted to do here. To clarify, Moser and Ficilia did NOT support commercial development along Pearl Street at this time. But they did not agree it was necessary to change the comprehensive plan to strict residential use as proposed by Anderson.
And I don't see where this number comes from that 30% of Ruston is already zoned commercial. If you strictly count numbers of blocks, we have 22.5% zoned commercial. But this is decieving since 5 of the 9 commercial blocks are only one or two building lots. If you count the number of building lots in town, there are only 15% that zoned commercial. That's not much a tax base, especially in these tough economic times.
Post a Comment