February 14, 2017
In front of a full-house, standing-room-only crowd, 5 out of 6 Councilmembers voted to ignore the Katke Development Amendment in spite of near unanimous testimony in favor of the change. More information will be added here in coming weeks...
The Katke Amendment is written to remove language in Gig Harbor's existing Development Agreement ordinance that gives City Council the authority to deviate from underlying zoning codes such as building heights, densities, setbacks, etc.
The next DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS meeting is:
Plng & Blg Committee Mon - Mar 20, 2017 - 5:30 pm
Gig Harbor Civic Center | 3510 Grandview Street
The meeting will focus on the Public Input Process for Development Agreements. Public Comment will be allowed. (Committee Councilmembers: Paul Kadzik | Steve Ekberg | Rahna Lovrovich)
Council Vote Monday - Feb 13
February 10, 2017
Take public comment, discuss proposed amendments, and choose one of these two options:
- Move to: Initiate amendment and direct staff to set a date for a Council work-study to begin direction consideration by the Council
- Move to: Direct staff to prepare a resolution for the February 27th Council meeting to cease further processing of the text amendment.
Below is the area that could (under the City's current Development Agreement language) bypass all zoning regulations and circumvent public input. Regardless of varied opinions, does our community want Council using Development Agreements to change downtown?
More Legal Findings Against GH's DA
Correspondence from Cheney's counsel, Gordon Thomas & Honeywell, (William Lynn Letter) favors the City's current Development Agreement. Attorney Carol Morris responds (Morris Letter) with case law and findings that bring Gig Harbor's 2013 Development Agreement Amendment in question.
Another of Cheney's One Harbor Point attorneys (Goeltz Letter) also weighed on Feb 7, 2017. Again counsel for Jeffrey Katke provides clear findings to the contrary. (See letter from Attorney Carol Morris.)
Traffic impacts would be minimal, somewhat helped by the target age range of the future tenants. Street, sidewalk, and lighting improvements would be inevitable; professional landscaping and safe and attractive “tree planting” would take place. Strict covenants for view protection AND grounds and building maintenance would be superior. Such a quality development and the infusion of new neighbors could be a very welcome addition compared to the problems inherent with a forested urban park, or an uncoordinated assemblage of individual single family homes both of which have been suggested alternate uses for this property.
In response, Carol Morris, legal counsel for local resident Jeffrey Katke, provided a detailed Clarification Letter explaining the problems that the City's current Development Agreement as written creates for the community.
Why would a developer bother to conform to the development standards if a (development) agreement could allow anything at all? The only question then would be how much the developer will pay the city in the form of ‘public benefits.’ -- Carol Morris | Attorney for Jeffrey Katke
Citizen Challenges City's Development Agreement Policies -- Jan 20, 2017 Charlee Glock-Jackson | Gig Harbor Life
For more input on this subject, go to 4GIGHARBOR BLOG Opinions.