Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves Wallen rezone to R-2 after closed-record hearing
Summary
Longview City Council adopted a site-specific comprehensive plan amendment and rezone for a 1.46-acre parcel (Wallen 401k Solo Trust), changing the designation from low-density R-1 to medium-density R-2 and approving the planning commission’s recommendation.
After a closed-record quasi-judicial hearing on the planning commission’s record, Longview City Council approved a comprehensive plan amendment and rezone for a 1.46-acre parcel owned by the Wallen 401k Solo Trust, changing the site’s comprehensive-plan designation from low-density residential to medium-density residential and the zoning from R-1 to R-2.
The decision matters because the proposed zoning change increases allowable density and introduces housing types (duplexes, small multiunit options) that are restricted in R-1, which could yield more units and change adjacent traffic and infrastructure demands.
City planner staff summarized the planning commission’s findings that the rezone aligns with objectives in the comprehensive plan — increasing housing diversity, promoting infill and efficient use of infrastructure — and that the site is served by existing utilities. The planning commission had unanimously recommended approval after its December hearing and staff issued a SEPA determination of non-significance before the commission.
City Attorney Charlotte Archer read the appearance-of-fairness disclosures and two council members reported conflicts in the case and elected to leave the room for the quasi-judicial discussion; RCW-based disclosure procedures were followed. After the closed session, motion to adopt the planning commission’s recommendation was made, seconded and carried. The council adopted the ordinance (Ordinance No. 3533) approving the comprehensive-plan amendment and rezone.
Staff noted the hearing considered only the zoning change; any future development proposals would be separately reviewed and could require traffic analysis and other site-specific conditions. Planning staff said the site could yield a higher unit count under R-2 (theoretical maximum cited in staff materials) but that future site plans would determine actual density and access arrangements.
Council members who spoke in favor highlighted infill and housing-choice goals; the applicant was present but did not present new evidence at the council hearing because the record was closed.
