I’ve tried to layout the facts as I understand them. You can read that in the previous post.

I’ve also tried to avoid taking a side, but I want to make clear which side I am on—future land use designations either mean something or they don’t. Our Municipal code as it is written today is what we follow. Otherwise we are just making it up as we go and I might as well make this my last post. From where I sit, this city is simultaneously fighting in court that a judge got it completely wrong and the quasi-judicial system we currently use is just fine while we fold when someone threatens a law suit when their application is denied. You either have confidence in the system or you don’t. Re-read the motion (it’s included verbatim in the original post) that five Council members voted for denying the application. It’s not capricious or vague.

Why are we back here doing this again? Is 16 stories with 38 units each more than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area (including amenities) medium density? Plus a 5 story garage? This isn’t a a future land use amendment requesting to increase density and intensity. It’s a request to rezone from a planned development for a place of worship and daycare to a planned development for a place of worship,daycare and residential multi-family. By current zoning, RM-35, which seems to be the closest proximity to the future land use designation of R-35, a unit is defined as 1,243 square feet. The building height limit is 12 stories and there is requirement to increase setbacks 1 foot for every 2 feet above 30 feet. (See Table 4-2).

I didn’t write the code or determine the future land use designation. I’d just like to make sure we are following it. Other wise, maybe the judge got it right. Councils should just get to make it up as they go answering to the people who elected them. Or spent the most getting them elected.