Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 02-13-14 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-01-14: 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. Palaniu.k 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 statecl 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 I1 — 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 MeCaslin 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 4*Inj Deanna Horton, secretary Date signed /1 ,�/"/ Planning Commission Minutes 02-13-14 Page 6 of 6