Agenda 02/27/2014 •••#\...
sijoune
Valle
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
February 27, 2014 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda.
IX. PUBLIC HEARING:
Public Hearing and Deliberations: 2014 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
X. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
XI. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
CHRIS SNEIDER JOHN HOHMAN,COMMUNITY DEV DIRECTOR
KEVIN ANDERSON SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MANAGER
CHRISTINA CARLSEN- VICE CHAIR LORI BARLOW, SENIOR PLANNER
ROBERT MCCASLIN ERIK LAMB,DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
STEVEN NEILL
JOE STOY-CHAIR DEANNA HORTAN,SECRETARY
MIKE PHILLIPS WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: February 27, 2014
Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑ new business ®public hearing
❑information ❑admin.report ❑pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Public Hearing
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: On February 13, 2014, the Planning Commission was briefed on the 2014
Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs).
The Planning Commission will review the following Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs)
and make a recommendation to City Council. City Council may choose to adopt the individual
amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, deny the amendments, or modify
and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to modify a proposal, they must either conduct a
public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
2014 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS: The Community Development
Department received two privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan
amendments. In addition, the City is initiating one site-specific Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a
zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation.
The Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to six Comprehensive Plan
Elements: Chapter 2 - Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and
Public Services, Chapter 6—Private and Public Utilities, Chapter 7—Economic Development, and
Chapter 11 - Bike and Pedestrian. The amendments may also entail minor changes to other
elements referencing the proposed amendments.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED: At the Study Session the Planning
Commission requested the following information:
CPA-01-14: Area of parcel with corrected boundaries = 1.1 acres; staff report has been
revised to reflect the updated information regarding the parcel boundary and address the
setbacks, screening and landscaping. Additional information regarding the amount of
property lying within shoreline jurisdiction and affected by the proposed shoreline buffer
area is attached. Comment received from Spokane County Utilities is attached.
CPA-02-14: The use of parcel # 35124.0813 was not discussed at the time SCRAPS
presented their proposal to the Council.
CPA -03-14: The City currently has 568 parcels, equaling 553 acres of vacant property
that would allow multi-family development. The parcels range in size from less than 1
acre to greater than 10 acres, and includes properties zoned MF-1, MF-2, CMU and
1 of 2
MUC. Data indicates that 443 (78%) of the 568 parcels are less than 1 acre in size, and
551 (97%) parcels are less than 5 acres. The analysis does not determine how much of
that is available or suitable for development. A breakdown of the parcels by size is
attached. Comments received are attached.
CPA-04-14: Examples of incentives for single family residential infill that provide
connectivity include reduction of street width, lot area, lot width or depth, lot setbacks or
increase in lot coverage.
OPTIONS: The Planning Commission may recommend approval, approval with modifications,
or denial of each amendment proposal.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT PROPOSALS:
Comprehensive plan amendment proposals are organized into individual reports consisting of
application materials, staff reports, comprehensive plan maps, zoning maps, aerial maps, vicinity
maps, and comments submitted to date to assist the Commission's review. Each item will be
reviewed separately.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1 (yellow notebook): 2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Staff Reports
Exhibit 2: Revised Staff Report CPA-01-14 (Tab 1)
Exhibit 3: Shoreline Jurisdiction CPA-01-14 (Tab 1)
Exhibit 4: Spokane County Utilities Comments (Tab 1)
Exhibit 5: Scott Jutte email dated February 13, 2014 (Tab 3)
Exhibit 6: Clyde and Zita Smith Comment letter dated February 17, 2014 (Tab 3)
Exhibit 7: Multifamily Property Analysis (Tab 3)
Exhibit 8: Petition Opposing Rezoning (Tab 3)
Note: The exhibits should be added to the Yellow Binder behind the Tabs identified.
2 of 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
Spokane
REVISED STAFF REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CPA-01-14
STAFF REPORT DATE: February 18,2014
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 27,2014,beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers,Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane
Valley,Washington 99206.
Project Number: CPA-01-14
Application The application is a city initiated site-specific comprehensive plan map
Description: amendment requesting to change the designation from Parks/Open Space
(P/OS)with a Parks/Open Space (P/OS)zoning classification to a Mixed Use
Center(MUC)designation with a Mixed Use Center(MUC)zoning
classification.
Location: Parcel 45101.9068; generally located 800 feet east of Pinecroft Way and
Mirabeau Parkway on the east side of Mirabeau Parkway as it bends to the
south and east; further located in the NE 1/4 of Section 10,Township 25 North,
Range 44 East,Willamette Meridian, Spokane County,Washington.
Applicant(s): City of Spokane Valley
11707 E Sprague Ave, Ste 102
Spokane Valley,WA 99206
Owner(s): City of Spokane Valley
Date of Application: November 1,2013
Date Determined November 1,2013
Complete
Staff Contact: Martin J Palaniuk,Planner
(509)720-5031
mpalaniuk@spokanevalley.org
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Title 17 General Provisions,Title 19 Zoning Regulations, and Title 21 Environmental Controls.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the
submitted application and applicable approval criteria, recommends that the Planning Commission
approve CPA-O1-14.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 Comprehensive Plan Map
Exhibit 3: Zoning Map
Exhibit 4: Aerial Map
Exhibit 5: Priority Habitats Map
Staff Report CPA-01-14
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. PROPERTY INFORMATION:
Size and The site is approximately 1.11 acres in size. The SEPA checklist
Characteristics: states the site is generally flat and consists of rocky soil. The lot is
covered with natural vegetation.
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Open Space (P/OS)
Zoning: Parks/Open Space (P/OS)
Existing Land Use: Vacant property with the Centennial Trail traversing across the
Northeast boundary of the site and an old gravel road paralleling
the trail on the southwest side.
2. SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ZONING,AND LAND USES:
North Comprehensive Plan—Parks/Open Space(P/OS) and Mixed Use Center(MUC)
Zoning—Parks/Open Space (P/OS) and Mixed Use Center(MUC)
Existing Land Uses—Centennial Trail and vacant land
South Comprehensive Plan—Parks/Open Space(P/OS)
Zoning—Parks/Open Space (P/OS)
Existing Land Uses—Paved public parking area for Centennial Trail
East Comprehensive Plan—Parks/Open Space(P/OS)
Zoning—Parks/Open Space (P/OS)
Existing Land Uses—Forested riparian public open space area between Centennial
Trail and the Spokane River.
West Comprehensive Plan—Parks/Open Space (P/OS)
Zoning—Parks/Open Space (P/OS)
Existing Land Uses—Public Park with paved parking area and outbuildings for
Mirabeau Meadow park.
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA
1. Findings:
Pursuant to SVMC Title 21 (Environmental Controls),the lead agency has determined that this
proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The
Planning Division issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) for the proposal. This
decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information
on file with the lead agency. Comments were offered by Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission and are addressed under the Agency Comments section of this report.
2. Conclusion(s):
The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and SVMC Title 21
have been fulfilled.
Page 2 of 8
Staff Report CPA-01-14
C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC 17.80.140(H). Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria
i. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map
amendments if it finds that(analysis is italicized):
(1) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
Analysis: Mixed-use Center developments are characterized by differing land uses
which are developed pursuant to a coherent, approved plan of development.
Compatibility between uses is achieved through design which integrates certain
physical and functional features such as transportation systems, pedestrian ways,
open areas or court yards, and common focal points or amenities. The proposed
amendment will create a mixed use opportunity due to the near proximity to
Mirabeau Meadows Park, Discovery Playground, Center Place, and the Centennial
Trail. The amendment is generally consistent with the long-term objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and should have merit and value for the community as a whole.
The Centennial Trail lies along the eastern boundary adjacent to the property.
Maintaining the Centennial Trail is important to the City. Actions to protect the trail
in this area will be taken prior to any development and will be determined at that
time.
The public health, safety, and general welfare should be promoted by standards
established by the state and the City's regulations.
(2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A
RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment;
Analysis: The Growth Management Act (GMA) stipulates that the comprehensive
land use plan and development regulations shall be subject to continuing review and
evaluation by the City. The amendment provides a suitable land use designation
consistent with the City's GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan.
(3) The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the
property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies;
Analysis: The amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions.
The amendment is a reasonable extension of the existing Mixed Use Center
designation located north of the property.
The surrounding land uses are complimentary in nature to the concept of mixed use
development.
(4) The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error;or
Analysis: The amendment does not correct a mapping error.
(5) The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Analysis: The amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Page 3 of 8
Staff Report CPA-01-14
ii. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan
amendments:
(1) The effect upon the physical environment;
Analysis: The Centennial Trail runs along the eastern boundary of the property and
may present challenges for future development with regards to setbacks and access.
An existing sidewalk runs along the western boundary and would likely require
border easements along that boundary to accommodate the sidewalk. However, this
is a non project action and future development will be evaluated for compliance with
all development, building and environmental requirements.
(2) The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes;
Analysis: The site and surrounding area are located within the Critical Aquifer
Recharge area. The site is also identified in the City's Priority Habitats map as
Urban Natural Open Space. The Comprehensive Plan states "urban landscaping,
parks, and open spaces supplement natural area in providing habitat for a wide
variety of wildlife." The eastern half of the parcel lies within the Shoreline and has
been designated Pastoral in the Shoreline Master Plan. There are no known
frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas.
It should be noted that this site has already experienced some development. The
Centennial Trail has been built along the east boundary of the property. Mirabeau
Parkway runs along the western boundary and a sidewalk, swales and street trees
are located on the site along the street. Pavement remains of an old roadway run
parallel to the Centennial Trail along the eastern boundary. Parking lots for the
Centennial Trail and Mirabeau Meadows Park lie south and west of the site.
Any future development will be subject to SVMC Title 21, Environmental Controls
which addresses the State Environmental Policy Act, Critical Areas, and the
Shoreline Management Act.
(3) The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods;
Analysis: The mixed use development of this parcel is viewed as a positive
opportunity to mix commercial or office use with the surrounding parks and open
space areas. Development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations will
ensure compatibility with the existing natural areas and surrounding parks and open
space uses. If required, the use of buffers,fencing, and screening will provide visual
separation and mitigate impacts on surrounding uses. The site is 48,352 square feet
in area. A setback of 20 feet will be required along Mirabeau Parkway and along
Centennial Trail. Zoning setbacks are not required when adjacent to other MUC
zoning. The maximum building height in the MUC zone is 60 feet. A considerable
area along the eastern boundary lies within the Shoreline and will be subject to the
Shoreline Master Plan. Screening requirements for MUC adjacent to P/OS is not
addressed in the SVMC. Landscaping and parking is based on a project basis and
will be determined when new development is proposed.
(4) The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public
transportation,parks,recreation,and schools;
Analysis: The amendment will have a minimal impact on existing facilities given the
constraints environmental factors will impose on developing the site. The parcel
located north of the site was previously developed with an office use. In general, the
Page 4 of 8
Staff Report CPA-01-14
roads, utilities, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools are all
considered adequate and any impacts will be addressed at time of development.
Policy CFP-9.1 of the Comprehensive Plan recommends a concurrency management
system for transportation, sewer, and water facilities. The City of Spokane Valley's
Parks and Recreation Plan outlines an implementation strategy including a capital
facilities plan, which identifies costs and revenue sources for new parks.
(5) The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region;
Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment is likely to provide a positive
benefit to the community. Future development will enjoy the natural environment
afforded by the Mirabeau Meadows Park, the health benefits associated with nearby
access to the Centennial Trail, and the use of the Center Place community facility.
Close proximity to the YMCA and a Spokane Transit Authority bus route are also
desirable features.
The proposed amendment will allow for a desirable mix of commercial, office and
parks/open space.
(6) The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density
and the demand for such land;
Analysis: As shown in Figure 2.1 of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan, 3.5%
of the land in the City is designated for Mixed Use Center. The Mixed Use Center
designations allows for two or more different land uses within developments. These
developments can include employment uses such as office, retail and/or lodging
along with higher density residential uses, and in some cases community or cultural
facilities. Compatibility between uses is achieved through design which integrates
certain physical and functional features such as transportation systems, pedestrian
ways, open areas or court yards, and common focal points or amenities.
The Corridor Mixed Use designation represents an opportunity to integrate an office
or retail development into the community parks, pedestrian ways and natural open
space found at this location.
(7) The current and projected population density in the area; and
Analysis: The amendment will have little impact on population density and does not
demand population analysis.
(8) The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan.
Analysis: The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will have
minimal impact on other aspects of the plan.
2. Compliance with SVMC Title 19 Zoning Regulations
a. Findings:
The proposal is to change the comprehensive plan designation from Parks/Open Space
(P/OS) with a Parks/Open Space (P/OS) zoning classification to Mixed Use Center (MUC)
designation with a Mixed Use Center(MUC)zoning classification.
Pursuant to SVMC 19.30.030 (B) all site specific zoning map amendments must meet all the
following criteria:
a. The requirements of SVMC 22.20,Concurrency;
As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment meets concurrency requirements.
Page 5 of 8
Staff Report CPA-01-14
b. The requested map is consistent with the Comprehensive plan;
As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
c. The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and
welfare;
As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the
public health, safety and welfare.
d. The map amendment is warranted in order to achieve consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan or because of a need for additional property in the proposed
zoning district classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is
appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property;
The proposed amendment and zone change is reasonable as part of this development.
e. The property is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include corner touches and
property located across a public right-of-way) to property of the same or higher
zoning classification;
The property located north of the subject property has a Mixed Use Center land use
designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Mixed Use Center zoning designation. The
subject property meets the requirement.
f. The map amendment will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the
immediate vicinity of the subject property;
The surrounding land uses include Mirabeau Meadows Park, the Centennial Trail and
parking area, and an office building. The City of Spokane Valley Center Place, the YMCA
and STA Mirabeau Point bus station are all located in close proximity. As stated previously
the amendment will allow mixed use development which may include a mix of office and
retail with open space and community and cultural facilities. The existing land uses are
compatible with the proposed land use designation and zoning district or will be made
compatible with the application of development regulations.
g. The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole;
The amendment will provide an opportunity to redevelop a property that is currently
overgrown with weeds, partially covered with remnants of an old road, and containing the
remains of a rusted portion of guard rail. The MUC designation would allow for commercial
development as an amenity to trail users and park patrons.
b. Conclusion(s):
Pursuant to RCW 36.70a.130(2)(a), proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be
processed only once a year except for the adoption of original subarea plans, amendments to
the shoreline master program, the amendment of the capital facilities chapter concurrent with
the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the
Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearings Board.
The proposed amendment is consistent SVMC Title 19 and state law regarding
Comprehensive Plan amendments.
3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
a. Findings:
Page 6 of 8
Staff Report CPA-01-14
The Mixed Use Center designations allows for two or more different land uses within
developments. These developments can include employment uses such as office, retail and/or
lodging along with higher density residential uses, and in some cases community or cultural
facilities. Compatibility between uses is achieved through design which integrates certain
physical and functional features such as transportation systems,pedestrian ways, open areas
or court yards, and common focal points or amenities.
The Mixed Use Center designation represents an opportunity to integrate an office or retail
development into the community parks,pedestrian ways and natural open space found at this
location.
The proposed amendment will complement the existing community and cultural facilities, the
pedestrian ways and the existing office development north of the site.
The amendment is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and
policies.
Goal LUG-9: Encourage the development of Mixed-use areas that foster community identity
and are designed to support pedestrian, bicycle and regional transit.
Goal EDG-1: Encourage diverse and mutually supportive business development and the
expansion and retention of existing businesses within the City for the purpose of emphasizing
economic vitality, stability and sustainability.
Goal EDG-6: Establish a balanced approach to environmental sustainability which
complements the utilization of area resources and economic growth.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's Adopted Comprehensive Plan.
4. Adequate Public Facilities
a. Findings:
The Growth Management Act(GMA) and the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that public
facilities and services be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is
available for occupancy.
The amendment is currently served with both public water and sewer. Mirabeau Parkway, a
collector,provides roadway access and ties into Indiana Avenue to the south and Pines Road
to the west. Pines Road is a designated state roadway and Indiana Avenue is a minor
arterial road according to Map 3.1 of the City's adopted Arterial Street Plan. Spokane
County Fire District No. 1 will provide fire protection service, the City of Spokane Valley
Police Department will provide police service and Spokane Transit Authority (STA) will
provide public transit service.
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed amendment will have adequate urban services at the time of development.
D. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
1. Findings:
Staff has not received any public comments to date.
2. Conclusion(s):
No concerns are noted.
Page 7 of 8
Staff Report CPA-01-14
E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Findings:
Staff received comments from the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (State
Parks). State Parks is an agency with environmental expertise under SEPA and is an adjacent
property owner of the Centennial Trail. State Parks would prefer to see the parcel retained as
open space but understands the public benefit gained from the action. State Parks also expressed
concern with having higher intensity development and uses immediately adjacent to the
Centennial Trail.
Should the proposed rezoning action be approved, State Parks requests the decision-makers
consider adding the following conditions to the license (MO U)governing future development and
use of the parcel:
• Potential Adverse Impacts: Trespassing, dumping, and uncontrolled trail access
• Recommended Mitigation: Surveying,permanent marking, and recording of the common
property line by a professional surveyor licensed in the State of Washington. Fencing the
common property line to help prevent trespass, illegal dumping, and uncontrolled trail
access. A legal easement from State Parks must be secured for any future access from
the referenced parcel to the Centennial Trail.
• Potential Adverse Impact: Noise, Light, Glare
• Recommended Mitigation: Planting of a vegetative buffer along the common property
line with 6' tall conifers planted at a maximum of 20' on-center, per an approved
landscaping plan prepared by a professional landscape architect. The buffer should be
maintained for the life of the project. Any lighting should be shielded and directed to
prevent "wash"onto adjacent parcels.
2. Conclusion(s):
The Centennial Trail is located on the subject property. Questions as to the common boundary
and the site of the fence and buffer would need to be determined prior to inclusion in any sort of
licensing or development agreement. Protection of Centennial Trail from unfettered access,
noise and light intrusion will be addressed by the City prior to any development on the parcel.
Page 8 of 8
Draft Shoreline Master Program Jurisdiction and Proposed Buffer
i - c
1.'1-,
i.
c
y
I.
{
Ili, lit
q
LA .1‹.....\,,„„„ .....
w ir
P ! �1 4
I
II' --11NI., 10/11r - .iik; Alt : \
N« ,
CPA 2014-0001 Request:
Applicant: City of Spokane Valley Community Change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
Development Department designation from Parks/Open Space to Mixed
Parcel #: 45101.9068 Use Center,MUC;
Address: The site is vacant and is not addressed
and
Buffer Ordinary High Water Line
Parcels Shoreline Jurisdiction Subsequent Zoning change from Parks and Open
Space, P/OS to Mixed Use Center, MUC.
To: Lori Barlow (City of Spokane Valley- Community Development)
CC:
From: Jim Red (Spokane County- Division of Utilities)
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Planning/Building #:
Subject: CPA-2014-0001 Stage: Preliminary Phase:
1.37 Acres into 2 Commercial Lots Address 13501 E MIRABEAU PKY
AO01
Any new use will be required to connect to the sanitary sewer system. Sewer connection permit
is required. Commercial developments shall submit historical and or estimated water usage prior
to the issuance of the initial building permit in order to establish sewer fees.
Cari Hinshaw
From: Scott Jutte [sjutte @leone-keeble.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:58 AM
To: Dean Grafos
Cc: Arne Woodard; Rod Higgins; Ed Pace; Chuck Hafner; Ben Wick; Bill Bates; City Hall; Lori
Barlow
Subject: Project CPA-03-14
Esteemed Mayor and Council Members;
I am writing in regard to a proposed zoning change to a piece of property in Spokane Valley. The Project Number is CPA-
03-14, for parcel #55173.1005.
I am the homeowner for parcel 55202.0803, so you can see I'm directly across the road from that project location.
My concern with this is the appropriateness of this change. When I first caught wind of this sale and this project, I called
the City and was assured that the only zoning change that would be allowed for this property would be to up the low-
density residential value from an R-3 to an R-4 or R-5, meaning that the only thing that would be allowed would be 7 to
10 dwelling units per acre, resulting in this being a housing development, or possibly townhouses.
When I received the notice that the owner is attempting a re-zone from an R-3 to an MF-2, I was really quite shocked.
Planning had told me that this would not be possible, and I can tell you that such a project,with 22 dwelling units per
acre allowed, would be wholly and totally inappropriate for the neighborhood in which it is being proposed. I suggest
that you all go there and see it, to see what I mean. This is a low density residential neighborhood. Most of the lots are
an acre or bigger. To put a high density housing development would be a little out of place there. To put a 22 unit per
acre apartment complex there would be totally inappropriate.
When I bought my home, I checked to make sure that it was surrounded on all sides by low density residential land,
specifically to avoid the chance that we'd end up living next to a property with 330 people (at 3 people per dwelling,
average) in it. Right now, I have seven neighbors. You are trying to give me 330 more. Doesn't that seem
inappropriate? I feel like if this is approved, that I will have bought my home under false pretenses. I bought a home in
a low density residential area, and the City is now trying to force high density on me, complete with the traffic, the
noise, and, let's face it,the crime associated with high density housing.
There are a couple of things to consider about this parcel "meeting"the criteria for this re-zoning:
• Yes,technically, the property to the north is a high density property. However, it currently has a farmhouse
sitting on it and is being used as a cattle field—all 5 acres of it. So it isn't like we've got a record of any high
density housing in the area. I don't even think we've got any duplexes anywhere nearby.
• The area is borderline rural. My property is one of the smaller parcels in the area, and I'm at an acre and a half.
I urge you to reconsider. I urge you to deny this zoning change, and keep the appropriateness of the planned
development within reason. It would be a shame if the City that was created by frustrated residents, who felt that the
county was not listening to their needs,were to continue with this re-zoning and therefore become the very hateful
thing that they were created to destroy in the first place.
Scott Jutte
1
February 17,2014
City of Spokane Valley
Community Development Department
Planning Division
11707 E. Sprague Ave.,Suite 106
Spokane Valley,99206
Attention: Lori Barlow,AICP,Senior Planner
This letter is regarding the Notice we received about the application for zone change to the property located at 4 N.Barker
Road—Parcel#55173.1005(intersection of Barker Road and Sprague Ave;further located in the S 1/4 of Section 17,
Township 25 North,Range 45 East,Willamette Meridian,Spokane County,Washington.
We want to submit our reasons for opposing this application to change the zoning from Low Density Residential(LDR)with
single Family Residential(R-3)to a High Density Residential(HDR)designation with a High Density Multifamily
Residential(MR-2).
FIRST: The traffic on Barker Road is already very heavy and at peak hours it can back up at least a quarter mile or more.
With high density multifamily buildings,basically large apartment buildings,the traffic would become horrendous. Barker
Road is a fairly narrow two-lane road. Currently,there are two new residential areas being built on 8th Avenue,a new one
in the process,McMillan Estates,at Sprague and Hodges Roads and another one on Henry Road.
Traffic comes in all the way from Saltese Flats on Barker Road where large housing developments have been built. Turtle
Creek is a very large residential area on Barker Road at Saltese and Morning Side residential,which is also very large,has
just opened an access road down to Barker Road. They are planning to build more houses in this area. Traffic comes to
Barker Road from East on Sprague as far as Henry Road and even from West on Sprague as it's the only through road to the
freeway between Sullivan Road and Harvard Road at Liberty Lake.
SECOND: Greenacres Middle School is already overcrowded due to so many students living in this area,south and north on
Barker Road and east and west on Sprague -plus students coming in to the middle school from Liberty Lake. If there were
multiple families in the high density apartments who had children in school they couldn't handle it. There just wouldn't be
room. Greenacres Elementary School is full to capacity. Central Valley High School was so full it has started changing it's
boundaries and they have brought in portable units to try to accommodate the overcrowding.
THIRD: We have lived here since 1970 and our large neighborhood has always been a mostly peaceful quiet single family
residential area. With high density multi-family apartment buildings there would be a big increase in noise from so many
people and their cars coming and going and trying to use Barker Road. We live practically next door to this area,just across
the street in the first block so it would really affect us. We are retired and just want to enjoy the peace and quiet of our
neighborhood.
Parcel 55173 1019 was zoned HDR before 1996 by the County,but wouldn't qualify under current standards which in all
fairness disqualifies 55173 1005 from HRD.
We strongly oppose letting this area be rezoned to include the High Density Multifamily Residential buildings. If this
rezoning is allowed to go through it will create multiple problems and headaches for our schools and all the people who
currently live here now. Would you like to have big apartment buildings built in your single family residential
neighborhood? Please don't rezone this area to High Density(HDR or MR-).
Thank you,
Clyde and Zita Smith
16 N Harmony Road
Spokane Valley,WA 99016
509-924-7927
TOTAL PROPERTY
ZONE
MUC
CM U
HDR
MDR
Total Parcels
Results from GIS Analysis of Properties That are Zoned to Allow Multifamily Development
0 - 1 acres 1 - 2 acres 2 -3 acres 3 -4 acres 4-5 acres 5 -6 acres 6 -7 acres 7 -8 acres 8-9 acres 9 - 10 acres 10+ acres
TOTAL
305 77 35 7 5 3 1 1 1 0 14
827 124 30 22 14 8 1 1 1 1 3
750 63 29 12 7 13 7 7 3 4 8
1830 56 23 4 9 1 0 2 2 0 6
449
1032
903
1933
3712 320 117
VACANT PROPERTY=
ZONE
MUC
CM U
HDR
MDR
Total Parcels
45 35 25 9 11 7 5 31
TOTAL parcels =
acres =
0 - 1 acres 1 - 2 acres 2 -3 acres 3 -4 acres 4-5 acres 5 -6 acres 6 -7 acres 7 -8 acres 8-9 acres 9 - 10 acres 10+ acres
4317
3205
TOTAL
106 37 23 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 8
173 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
74 8 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
90 4 7 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 0
181
192
88
107
443 65 33 5
PARTIALLY USED
ZONE
MUC
CM U
HDR
MDR
Total Parcels
5 3 1 2 3 0 8
TOTAL parcels =
acres =
0 - 1 acres 1 - 2 acres 2 -3 acres 3 -4 acres 4-5 acres 5 -6 acres 6 -7 acres 7 -8 acres 8-9 acres 9 - 10 acres 10+ acres TOTAL
568
553
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
35 32 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
50
72
72 43 4 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
TOTAL parcels =
acres =
122
130
PETITION OPPOSING REZONING
The following homeowners are adamantly opposed to the proposed zoning change to the
property located at 4 N. Barker Road—Parcel#55173.1005 (intersection of Barker Road and
Sprague Ave; further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 25 North, Range 45 East,
Willamette Meridian, Spokane County, Washington.
By signing this petition you confirm your opposition to the rezoning of above said property from
Low Density Residential (LDR)with Single-Family Residential (R-3)to a High Density
Residential (HDR) designation with a High Density Multifamily residential (MR-2).
Print Name Written Signature, Phone # Address Date
,OSCUI , CFAAV ►f I . C6SIAN '5 VI •0t •LtDtC 21 0 . Wkimu rl i 21c0•1(4-
t Svcs 5 ( ` ,I 1\pci. _5b -9 )g-9(Yri 0,10Q -t; ,-..,-„N/Qatabi[ a_1(1)--I(1
io ar tVc t4 .. , -sP7- 7z "-/OT/ /vldy M%rt1dxy eripg '2,- )4 -Pi
o Ah. int, em _ 501 I Z.-eroacf I os 1-1 Aizvnc g1 24. 2- d ..j
/lark (fee, p7,641 Ami4----
,5 07-438 7�//� OO7 ,l1 / a� 99'14 2-/lam/ 7
D,,,,,;/ t P-- - ` /Ds/= . f-O�l-43 0-79/e zr)7 ,�1. 1-{-arw.�,,,7 ??ai - -/ --/V
f WOO/A- , , , soy /y04/ y
i, ' i !. . /� Q° -- 79 icil i� Z�P1 - de -/(f) -/-
•.�,I � � _'�/. .. ' to - -
Pillit 5 I:1 4 ( ( =/1 -1111915,l---- - ,5" -o ,5•"`".-/23(./ ,i '/aS'ei BLIE3a‘0 ,- ,2--C.--(V
Nila I%I r GAtoV i IC4(1 Cri Yi %% !A'' JA-(1 7.(p ` li ICI 1L E. )9 Vg IA Ave. I' 6 J/Li
j �/ /
,Qi 6.11/,45 :C': if ' i%} 1.Iy My, / 1,.,j e 3fi!�-yueAi.'c. - �'/ 1 -
\3 P,WV Itit ' 4 4-kih? C( 4-.7sLR I gYas e. O;l`i c//'F
I
. 50(1 -99 i, - f V03 L. Grp 'o 4/10/ 1
(c4. L rl (7 //I
,.)UK in c.7-ej j/ �/ - 2 7 73- )aXI (cL-)(_,C-7-1�,..uLu )/(��q
) ' r
A-11.LLt! 144.4 fin I _ V/ju �C�1 ' (- E�[2 I It)/0 << ./%( �. , //7 /�
- t e/'k,,� kt.A.,vt LA-,iL cv`I 5`,-/Y`i,3 lc/617 i, gJi,(( r6 ),- (7I
1,,,,,„,
-211-4 ;5;111 t - ,N Fj-yZ4- 7(0'7 /O.2(U ( 2_ ten. In 417/1V
PETITION OPPOSING REZONING
The following homeowners are adamantly opposed to the proposed zoning change to the
property located at 4 N. Barker Road-Parcel#55173.1005 (intersection of Barker Road and
Sprague Ave; further located in the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 25 North, Range 45 East,
Willame Meridian, Spokane County, Washington.
y signing this petition you confirm your opposition to the rezoning of above said property from
Low Density Residential (LDR)with Single-Family Residential (R-3)to a High Density
Residential (HDR) designation with a High Density Multifamily residential (MR-2).
Print Name Written Signature Phone # Address Date
ci__-(0-c R SitAcrt 044 f vnt.4 --E P-K -'7 (.4/ It/ Il _i_lviat(kic id LI/7 i(
&and P1•-t- t.(i 0/ a 8oc 330? . /F9a10',iver6iaie five Z-17 t l
,L e e i v R e f) 0glad /f/r e a d •.4 9V 7.6 e_ c Y e t( a , - c, v
apy, se4,,,,,, , „ a 815/_1547 6 /8Z- () y -2.-/1-1'161
it_ F, / I,
� <. 'ems C' '2 .3.1 77 /V. i5" -4 ,g��N A -iff-/fZ
she << i jobjv, � q< /0 4/ /L/�CpT 214/V
Felew 4;rp‘v45 oAPItyitt-;\
q-1 tilt,4 yo Y2-I f? EIL• 4-v6 1__.-o-eV
'bow 1 9 640,(7ccof I • -IF-,
cvey
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall,
February 13,2014
Chair Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the
pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present:
Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Christina Carlsen Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Bob McCaslin Marty Palaniuk,Planner
Steve Neill Deanna Horton, Secretary
Mike Phillips
Chris Sneider
Joe Stoy
Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the February 13, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed seven
to zero. The Commissioners were given an updated set of minutes from the January 23, 2014 meeting
which had a few corrections from the set which had been originally posted to the website. After review of
the corrections Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the January 23, 2014 minutes as amended.
Motion passed seven to zero.
COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no report.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. Findings of Fact for CTA-07-13: Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the Planning
Commission findings as presented. Commissioner Anderson stated he had noticed the definition
of retail services did not appear to be in the new document. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb
stated the definition most likely was missed while cleaning up the documents and was an
oversight. He stated staff would correct the omission as the amendment moved forward.
Commissioner Anderson moved to amend the motion to add "approve the findings with the
addition of the definition of retail services." The amendment passed seven to zero. The vote on
the amended motion to approve and forward to Council the Planning Commission Findings of
Fact for CTA-07-13 with the definition of retail services added passed seven to zero
Chair Stoy noted to Ms.Horton he would prefer the documents for signing to come with the name
"Joe"instead. Ms.Horton said she would make a note of it for the future.
B. Study Session— Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Senior Planner Lori Barlow stated she and
Planner Marty Palaniuk would be going over the proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan
amendments in preparation of the upcoming public hearing scheduled for February 27,2014.
Ms. Barlow began with background regarding comprehensive plans. All cities and counties in
Washington State are required to prepare a Comprehensive Plan. The plan looks to the future and
requires the city to plan for services to accommodate growth and development. State rules limit
Planning Commission Minutes 02-13-14 Page 1 of 6
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to once a year. There are limited exceptions, for
example the update to the Shoreline Master Plan being one of them.
The City's process is:
• the City Council approves the docket;
• There is a Nov. 1 cutoff date for submissions each year.
• Staff prepares and analysis for the public review process
• Public Hearing and Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission
recommendation is forward to the City Council
• City Council weights the recommendation along with public comment and then makes
the decision based on the same approval criteria as the Commissioners use.
Approval criteria:
• Supports public health, safety welfare, and protects the environment
• Consistent with GMA and Comprehensive Plan
• Responds to a change in conditions
• Corrects an error
• Addresses a deficiency
Other considerations could be:
• The effect on environment,
• Compatibility and impact on existing uses and neighborhoods,
• adequacy and impact on services,
• benefit to city and region,
• quantity,location and demand for land,
• the projected population for the area,
Ms. Barlow discussed each of these considerations with the Commissioners. Ms. Barlow said
this year there are two privately initiated map amendments, one City initiated map amendment
and six chapter text amendments. Planner Marty Palaniuk will be handling two of the map
amendments, and Ms.Barlow will handle the remaining amendments.
CPA-O1-14: Mr. Palaniuk stated this was a City initiated site specific map amendment. The City
owns the property and is requesting to change it from Parks and Open Space, to Mixed Use
Center. The parcel is located near Mirabeau Park, across the street from the parking lot for the
park. It is also next to the parking lot for the Centennial Trail. When the amendment was routed
for comment, State Parks informed the City the property line shown on the Assessor's map was
incorrect. The trail is not on City property but on State land. An old paved road and an old piece
of guard rail remain on the property. Commissioner Stoy asked what the difference in the square
footage was without the trail. Mr. Palaniuk stated he did not know but would provide the
information by the next meeting. Mr. Palaniuk also said the staff report would be corrected to
reflect this information by the next meeting. The zoning on the property is Parks and it is next to
Urban Natural Open Space. Commissioner Stoy asked if Dept. of Natural Resources had
commented. Staff responded no,but State Parks had a few concerns about access to the trail and
future development.
Planning Commission Minutes 02-13-14 Page 2 of 6
Commissioner Phillips asked why the City was requesting the change. Ms. Barlow responded
this change would allow the City options if they should choose to consider disposing of the
property in the future. She also said there is no proposal in front of them right now. The question
was raised if fencing and screening should be a condition of approval. Staff explained this would
not be a consideration at this time, but would be considered if the property was developed in the
future. Commissioner Anderson stated if the City does not plan on selling the property, he does
not see a reason to change it at this time. He stated he could understand if the City was going to
sell the parcel,however if there is no plan to sell it,he was having a difficult time understand why
the Commission would approve the change. Ms. Barlow stated the City would be positioning the
property to dispose of or sell in the future. She said this designation would allow for more uses
than Parks and Open Space. Commissioner Anderson again, questioned why the City would go
through the exercise if there wasn't something definite. He said this parcel is just above the last
set of rapids in the river many people use for recreation. Why would the City consider
developing a business there, when the river is a good resource? There is plenty of other
undeveloped commercial land in that area,and it was near a popular set of rapids.
Ms. Barlow, noted that the Draft Shoreline Management Program Public Access Plan indicated
that the area was a potential spot for public trail access,however not river access-the shoreline is
fairly steep in this area of the river. The City would not want to do anything which would
negatively impact the trail. Mr. Phillips stated he felt it would make more sense for the City to
wait until they have interest in the property before requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Staff stated the City was being proactive in order to position the property for disposal since the
Comprehensive Plan can only be amended once a year. Commissioner Stoy wanted to know the
square footage of the proposal, without the trail included, and if it would be large enough to
support commercial development. Staff stated they would return with the lot size after removing
the trail, shoreline impacts,and setbacks for development should it occur.
CPA-02-14: Mr. Palaniuk stated this was a privately initiated amendment from Spokane County
Regional Animal Protection Services (SCRAPS). The request is to change the parcel from Low
Density Residential and R-2 Zoning to Corridor Mixed Use. This parcel is located behind the
new SCRAPS building located on Trent Ave. SCRAPS also owns this parcel. The site has single
family residential R-2 to the north and east, Corridor Mixed Use to the south, and Light Industrial
to the west. When asked, Mr. Palaniuk said he believed the intent is to use the parcel as an
exercise and greeting yard for animals and guests. Commissioner Anderson stated he thought he
remembered in the original proposal from SCRAPS to the City Council that SCRAPS was going
to leave this parcel as a buffer to the neighborhood and not use it. He said he did not remember
them ever stating they would be expanding into this part of the property. Mr. Anderson asked if
staff was required to review the original proposal for the building. He shared it bothered him if
SCRAPS originally proposed one thing and returned later to change it. Mr. Anderson stated he
tried to find the original proposal on the City's website but found the site too difficult to search.
Commissioners asked if the current designation would prevent the property owner from using the
parcel now as it is for a dog walking yard. Mr. Palaniuk stated the code does not prevent them
from using as such now. Commissioner Carlsen wanted to know if a boundary line elimination
could be done if the parcels were zoned differently. Ms. Barlow stated this would not be allowed.
Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission they would need to consider if the property was currently
designated appropriately or if conditions had changed and warranted a new zone. Commissioner
McCaslin asked if the surrounding neighborhood had been notified, and Mr. Palaniuk shared the
noticing requirements. Commissioner Anderson stated if the change occurred, then commercial
activities could encroach further into the neighborhood. The encroachment could keep going and
going,while the boundaries of neighborhoods keep getting pushed back.
Planning Commission Minutes 02-13-14 Page 3 of 6
CPA-03-14: Ms. Barlow stated this is a privately initiated amendment. The request is to change
the designation from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential, and the zoning from
R-3 to MF-2. The parcel is located at the north east intersection of Barker Rd. and Sprague Ave.
This area is generally surrounded by residential uses, mostly zoned R-3 with some MF-1 across
Barker and it is contiguous with a parcel to the north zoned MF-2. The site contains has a house
and outbuildings currently located near the intersection while the remainder of the site is not used.
It is considered underdeveloped. Ms. Barlow stated she spoke to a neighbor today who said the
parcel to the north is pasture. Commissioner Carlsen asked how many units MF-2 allowed. Ms
Barlow replied up to 22 dwelling units per acre. Commissioner Stoy asked about the single
parcel,which is zoned R-3,which would be left between the two larger parcels if this amendment
were approved. Ms. Barlow stated the proponent's representatives, Whipple Engineering, had
contacted the property owner and asked if they would like to be considered as part of this
amendment to avoid creating an island. The property owner declined to participate at this time.
Ms. Barlow said the staff report did address this issue and at some point in the future, staff would
recommend some course of action be taken to bring this parcel into conformance if this
amendment were approved.
Commissioner Anderson said he had gone the Spokane County Assessor's website and looked up
the surrounding properties. Commissioner Anderson said the island parcel was purchased as
recently as 2012. The Commissioners asked when the parcel to the north of the subject property
had been re-designated to MF-2. Ms. Barlow said it had been done prior to the City's
incorporation in 2003, and believed it may have occurred in 1996. This was based on a reference
to a land use action that occurred in 1996. Mr. Anderson said he found the parcel had been
purchased by a development company in 2005. However, he felt if all three (including the single
lot not included in the request)of the parcels were developed,it could be approximately 300 units
and the traffic volume at that intersection could cause a problem. He felt a light or traffic circle
would not be able to fix it. The Commission discussed leaving the one parcel in the middle as an
island. Commissioner Phillips asked if changing the designation on that parcel would cause the
property taxes to go up because it would be more valuable. Ms. Barlow said her understanding
that the taxes are in part based on the sale of surrounding properties. The re-designation itself
would not increase the taxes,immediately,but in the future it may.
Ms. Barlow encouraged the Commission to consider if the designation was appropriate for the
surrounding parcels, if made sense for the requested parcel, keeping in mind other uses are
allowed in the High Density Residential designation, including a single family home.
Commissioner Anderson asked if MF-2 was considered a buffer to a commercial zone.He felt the
commercial zoning was farther way from this parcel than the criteria allowed. Ms. Barlow stated
it was also considered a buffer to arterial traffic.Barker is a minor arterial; Sprague to the west of
the intersection is a minor arterial,and a designated collector east of the intersection.
Commissioner Carlsen asked about the City's process for changing the "island" parcel if the
request was approved. Ms. Barlow and Mr. Lamb explained there are processed in place to
address this issue. Staff has recommended to include it now or address it at a later date. The
Commission could make a recommendation to include it now,however the Commission would be
required to notice and conduct a public hearing prior to making the recommendation.
Commissioner McCaslin said that in the staff report on page 5, item 7, it states the amendment
will have little impact on population density. He said when you make land a higher density from
what it was before, it would make a big impact, maybe not immediately, but it would make an
impact in the future. The Commissioners and staff discussed the amount of people, cars and trips
which could be generated by adding apartments to the subject parcel, and how the difference
might be compared if it was left at an R-3 zoning. Ms.Barlow stated the applicant had submitted
a traffic study and it was estimated that an additional 37-47 peak hour trips above single family
Planning Commission Minutes 02-13-14 Page 4 of 6
residential would generate. . Ms. Barlow also discussed with the Commission that during the
public hearing they would probably hear that multifamily will increase the crime rates and lower
property values, but there are no statistics to back these statements up. The trend is more and
more people living in multifamily dwellings.
Commissioner Carlsen asked if there was a need for more multifamily in the City. She wanted to
know if the City had an inventory of the current apartment complexes and vacancies. She was
surprised there was still interest in more apartments and she wondered how much longer
developers will continue to build multifamily complexes. She was concerned this would be
approved, destroy an existing neighborhood and then sit half vacant, like many other complexes
in the City. Ms. Barlow stated she would bring back additional information regarding HDR
lands. Commissioner Sneider asked who was responsible for producing the traffic study. Ms.
Barlow said the applicants engineer had provided the analysis which is reviewed by City staff.
Ms. Barlow then explained the next six amendments were text updates to the chapters in the
Comprehensive Plan. These were basically updating standard information in the plan which is
done every year with a few exceptions.
CPA-04-14: Chapter 2- Land Use Chapter, Update the Land Use Map, update the land capacity
analysis and growth projections. Add goals and policies to support infill development in
residential zones. The City Council has directed that all references to a City Center be removed,
including all land use designations and all associated goals and policies. Commissioner Sneider
asked if a scenario to replace the city center would be developed in the future. He also asked
what would be developed in its place. Ms. Barlow said nothing would be developed in its place
at this time. She explained the City Council determined through a previous process that the
community does not support the idea of a City Center. It will likely be replaced when
comprehensive update of the Plan is completed which must include community involvement.
Commissioner Anderson pointed out there was a mention of a city center in Chapter One on page
one which mentions it. Also at 2.10.1 it is mentioned in the survey charts. Ms. Barlow stated the
references were purposefully left in this section since the charts reflected the results of a
community survey. To remove the reference would be to change the survey results. The
reference in the introduction would be considered for removal.
CPA-05-14: Chapter 3 - Transportation- Remove references to the City Center, update map 3.1
Arterial Street Plan.
CPA-06-14: Chapter 4- Capital Facilities- Update the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan,
update city capital projects to reflect Council policy direction and approved financial plans.
CPA-07-14: Chapter 6 -Utilities-Remove reference to City Center plan concept
CPA-08-14: Chapter 7 - Economic Development — Remove references to the City Center plan
concept,update the development activity map.
CPA-09-14: Chapter 11 — Bike and Pedestrian Element — Include 2012 bike and pedestrian
improvements, add proposed shared use path along Barker.
Commissioner Anderson stated there was a date regarding the Bridging the Valley project which
was outdated and should be fixed.
The Commissioner discussed the infill goals and policies. Ms. Barlow stated the goals and
policies must first be added to the Comprehensive Plan to guide the development of the
implementing regulations. The Commissioners wanted to know what types of incentives could be
offered in order to encourage infill development. Ms. Barlow stated she did not know at this
time, but Mr. Palaniuk shared that many lots in the City are long and narrow and at times it is
difficult to develop consistent with community standards because there might not be room for a
Planning Commission Minutes 02-13-14 Page 5 of 6
standard width road. One way to encourage infill could be to relax the road standards to allow a
reduced width road to serve the lots in exchange for connectivity. The Commissioners had a
discussion regarding infill and connectivity of roads in the City and how to achieve this with
future development. Commissioners wondered if it would make more sense to switch policy LU
3.1 and LU 3.2 to make the intent of the infill policies more understandable. Commissioners
wanted to know if the infill standards could be applied to any lot in the City. Mr. Palaniuk
replied the lot would likely have to meet a set of criteria before it would be able to use whatever
standards the City would come up with and it would have to be a residential lot.
Commissioner McCaslin said he noticed some people view apartment dwellers, not as property
owners. Property owners consider them to have no commitment in the property they live on, so
most of the objections which will be received regarding the map amendments will come from
people who say the developers have no investment in the community.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Stoy asked about the status of the Appleway Trail. He was
given guidance to the Public Works website where there is an update page with all of the most current
information regarding the proposed trail down the vacated Milwaukie Right-of-Way. Staff did tell the
Commissioners there have been community meetings to discuss design concepts for the trail. The trail
has been placed on the legislative agenda and would be discussed at the Council retreat scheduled for
February 18,2014. http://www.spokanevalley.org/ApplewayTrail
ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
Joe Stoy, Chairperson
Deanna Horton, secretary
Date signed
Planning Commission Minutes 02-13-14 Page 6 of 6