Print
E-Mail
tool name
closeComp plan amendments in spotlight
Proposed development needs new land designation in order to move forward
Nate Hulings
of the Gateway
The saga between Gig Harbor city staff and a proposal for a mixed-use development continued during a public hearing last week for proposed comprehensive plan amendments.
The Planning Department, headed by director Tom Dolan, recommended the city council deny a proposed amendment that would change 2 acres of property near Pioneer Way and Grandview Street to residential-medium designation, paving the way for two buildings that would provide both business and residential occupancy.
City staff’s conclusion indicated the proposed structures’ bulk and scale would be inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan.
Dolan pointed to one comp plan goal that states, “New structures should not overpower existing structures or visually dominate Gig Harbor’s small town city-scape, except as approved landmark structures.”
“This request is inconsistent for this policy,” Dolan said.
In part, the comp plan outlines how properties in Gig Harbor should be developed, and how the city’s goals come into play with development regulations.
The land use map amendment at 3700 Grandview St. would change 2 acres of the property from a residential-low to a residential-medium designation. The map amendment is necessary because, under the current designation, structures would be limited to 5,000 square feet.
The two proposed two-story buildings have 21,100 and 24,900 square feet of habitable space, respectively, according to staff reports. A majority of the buildings’ parking would be underground.
A development agreement also is part of the Planning Commission’s recommendation of the plan. The agreement would place additional restrictions on the developer, on top of the new map area requirements.
As part of the agreement, only the proposed construction areas would be rezoned RB-2; the remaining property will stay R-1. The developer also would have to retain 38 percent of the trees on the rezoned property and place tree buffers between the new zoning, the rest of the property, the lower part of the property and Butler Street.
Mike Paul, one of the property’s owners, tried to reassure citizens and city officials that the proposed development would have a positive economic impact on the city.
“This is not about view condos,” he said, referring to complaints that the upper-level residential units would be high enough to have harbor views.
An application to remove a portion of the land from the height restriction area was denied by the City’s Hearing Examiner earlier this year.
Carl Halsan, a local real estate development consultant, said the entire property would stay within the height restriction area.
The proposal also has become more detailed over the years, Halsan said.
“It’s a better proposal this year,” he said.
The applicant also presented a computer-generated topographical simulation that showed street views from different locations on Pioneer Way and Grandview Drive, looking toward similarly scaled structures on the proposed development site.
The presentation included proposed tree retention and demonstrated the building’s bulk and scale from different vantage points.
The technology should remove assumptions that the building can be seen from the water, said William Lynn, a legal representative for the property owner.
“I don’t know why people can’t accept that,” he said.
But not everyone is buying it.
The development would “compromise the whole intent of scale and balance in the harbor,” said John McMillan, who lives on Jacobsen Lane.
If the top floor is planned for residential living, “obviously, they’d want a view,” he said. “I don’t understand how you could justify this.”
One resident voiced his concern over traffic impacts if the two-building plan came to fruition.
However, transportation capacity studies show only minor adjacent intersection upgrades would be necessary, senior planner Jennifer Kester said.
Approval at the city council level would only be the first step in a long process for the development.
SEPA regulations and rezoning are just a few of the hurdles the development would have to clear before groundbreaking could occur, Lynn said.
This amendment merely would allow the applicant to take the first step, Lynn said.
This is not the first time the property has come up for a comp plan amendment. The amendment was denied based on sewer capacity in 2007.
Last year, another application was denied based on “inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding neighborhood, a lack of opportunity for the Planning Commission to review the final version of the development agreement and the need to make a decision by the end of 2008,” according to a Planning Department staff report.
The city council will have its first reading of this year’s comp plan amendments during its Nov. 23 meeting.
Eleven other comp plan amendments were presented during last week’s public hearing. For a complete rundown of those amendments, visit www.cityofgigharbor.net/page.php?id=944.