Tuesday, March 19, 2024

Council approves building height in general commercial district

Posted

Despite objections from River Bend Drive residents, the Leavenworth City Council has approved an increase in building heights in the general commercial district from 35-to-50 feet. On Jan. 10, the city council remanded the measure back to the planning commission for further review.

After taking public testimony, the planning commission decided to change the ordinance to accommodate nearby residential homeowners.

“The planning commission is still looking for a 50-foot height, but for the first 30-feet from the property edge, when adjoining a low density, residential, you have to stay at 35-feet, then you can go up to 50-feet,” said City Development Manager Nathan Pate, at the Feb. 28 city council meeting. “The planning commission discussed other ordinances from other jurisdictions on how to average, modify. The planning commission and those attending felt this was the best solution to bring forward to council for consideration.”

The measure was remanded back to the planning commission, Councilman Elmer Larsen said, because they were looking at the impact, not just on River Bend Drive. It was not known what the height increase would do to the adjoining properties in other parts of the city.

Pate said the planning commission considered the historic buffer between multi-family, commercial and residential.

“They talked a lot about what areas did not have that buffer. There’s a couple small pieces along the highway, but very marginal in impact,” Pate said. “One of the major pieces north of the highway is the Ranger station, which we don’t anticipate any changes in the coming years. They really felt this solution was palatable.”

Councilwoman Sharon Waters said she still had a hang up. She counted 27 homes that are bordering the general commercial area. She was concerned because they had not heard from those people.

Waters felt the city needed to better reach out to those homeowners. In the planning department realm, Pate said notice was successful.

“We did have a hearing in which the council received public testimony. Again, the public showed up to voice their concerns. In my world, that is 100 percent success in getting the word out to people,” Pate said.

Waters said only River Bend residents are showing up to the meetings. Pate said the people that showed up understood to show up and participate. Waters still felt the city needed to find a better way to reach out to people affected by changes in the municipal code.

“We met all the requirements of the statutes. We give the usual notices. Folks show up when they chose to. If the council wants to change the standards, if you have to make new regulations, the council should have a serious conversation about the impacts of that, including legal ramifications, like challenges from developers,” Pate said. “If you go outside the norm, you need to understand the impact and those unforeseen consequences.”

Pate said if the city goes outside the legal process, it will be challenged on procedural errors. The code is almost always challenged on procedural errors, Pate said. City Administrator Joel Walinski said the city has a policy in place on how legal notices go out.

We need to follow that procedure, Walinski said.

“If we go to the left or right of that, that opens the door for a legal challenge for someone to, two or three years down the road, that wants to challenge some type of development brought up under this code,” Walinski said. “That being said, if the council wants to look at the way we notice people and provide public notice, if you do these types of changes, you do that in code. In that particular case, it needs to be reviewed by legal, and by the insurance.”

Walinski said he’s not saying council can’t do it, but if it is changed, some further in-depth study is needed, bringing in legal, insurance, etc. Waters wondered if the city couldn’t just put something in the paper, saying if you live here, come to the meeting.

“If you put the notice in the paper that identifies specific properties that aren’t specified in some kind of code language, then the person next door, they might challenge if you noticed these folks, why didn’t you notice these other folks?,” Walinski said. “The other piece is, you could do a blanket, which is everyone. Then, you have to consider the cost factors.”

In terms of this particular code, Councilwoman Mia Bretz said she really respects the planning commission.

“I think this protection of the 35-foot for 30-feet back is a great compromise to grow in a well organized way that is thoughtful of a planning process that is community based. I think it is really great move. I support the planning commission’s recommendation,” Bretz said.

River Bend resident Duane Goehner said he was concerned about the density factor and it’s impact on the traffic congestion.

“An increase in density means an increase in number of traffic,” Goehner said. “What we heard at the traffic meeting, there is no money for a solution. To me, it seems like we adding to ongoing problems for problems we don’t have a solution for now.”

Goehner said the 35-foot setback is great, but it does not help the density. River Bend Park Homeowner’s Attorney, Steve Demarest, said the Willkommen Village development has brought a lot of things to them. All have had varying level of impact on their “island.”

“Frankly, Willkommen asked for the (height) increase to include Bavarian features. Didn’t see that as a very sincere request by Willkommen,” Demarest said. “The city council remanded that back to the planning commission. We participated with the planning commission. We felt collectively the planning commission did a good job and came up with a workable, not perfect solution.”

Demarest said his group is in favor with what the planning commission is recommending to the council. He said that with one caveat.

“The caveat is the one expressed about going up higher to increase density. If you increase density, you are going to increase traffic,” Demarest said. “It won’t directly impact River Bend Drive, but River Bend Drive feeds to the highway where it meets with Safeway and Marsons. We recognize the concern and hope the staff will work with us and try to mitigate an obvious impact.”

Another River Bend homeowner, Joe Aponik, said this code change does equal increased density.

“To me, it is very black and white. We have a problem now with no solutions, so to make a decision to increase density, it’s simply saying we are making the problem worse without a solution,” Aponik said.

As the council deliberated on this issue, Councilwoman Carolyn Wilson said she had concerns about the noticing, much like Waters.

“I’m not sure everyone got noticed, even though you are following the code. I think that needs to be looked at, how we notice people on things like this,” Wilson said. “I’m uncomfortable not everyone has a computer or gets the paper. I think we need to look at how we notice people on things that might affect them.”

Traffic flow is the main issue, Larsen said.

“I know there appears to be no answer at this point in time. We have essentially the same thing in the urban growth area. We have a large population with the same things. We don’t have answers, but the WSDOT is willing to look at it,” Larsen said. “I think we are trying to deal with the parking. We’ll try to deal with access. We need to be aware of issues and continue to chew around the edges. I feel the frustration, but I don’t know you can pick a solution that will work 20 years down the road.”

The council voted 5-2 to approve, with Wilson and Waters voting against.

Ian Dunn can be reached at 548-5286 or editor@leavenworthecho.com.

 

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here