Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 02-27-14 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, February 27,2014 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 John Holman, Community Development Director Christina Carlsen Cary Driskell, City Attorney Bob McCaslin Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Steve Neill Marty Palaniuk, Planner Mike Phillips Sean Messner, Sr. Traffic Engineer Chris Sneider Deanna Horton, Secretary Joe Stoy Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the February 27, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed seven to zero. Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the February 13, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed seven to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Planning Manager Scott Kuhta explained the advanced agenda had the public hearing and deliberations for the Comprehensive Plan amendments for the Feb. 27 • meeting. Staff suggested holding deliberations at the next meeting on March 13. He said it would push back the Shoreline Management Update to March 27th, 2014. April 24th 2014 is scheduled for the public hearing but staff will wait to see if an additional study session is necessary. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS Public Hearing— Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Chair Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:05 p.m. Vice-Chair Carlsen read the rules for a public hearing, asking all audience members to try to keep their remarks to three minutes. Senior Planner Lori Barlow began by discussing an overview of the Comprehensive Plan process and discussed the criteria for review. Ms. Barlow said she would be the lead for one map amendment and all chapter amendments, and Marty Palaniuk would be the lead planner on the other two site specific map amendments. CPA-01-14-Planner Marty Palaniuk explained CPA-01-14 was a City initiated site specific map amendment. The property is located northeast of Mirabeau Park, near the new Veterans Center. It is next to the parking lot for the Centennial Trail. The property abuts the Centennial Trail, but does not include the Trail. Mr. Palaniuk explained the property owner to the north of this parcel also owns land near Pines Rd. (SR 27). Additional property will be needed in order for the Pines expansion associated with the Bridging the Valley project. This property owner would like to enter into a letter of understanding with the City to exchange the property needed for the Bridging the Valley project for this parcel. Currently this property is designated as Parks and Open Space. The request is to change it to Mixed Use Center. At the study session, the Commissioners asked how the draft shoreline plan would affect development of the property. Mr. Palaniuk said there would be a 10 foot setback from the draft shoreline buffer, leaving approximately 32,000 sq. ft. of developable land. This land would also have to support landscaping and parking requirements. Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page I of 20 CPA-02-14--Mr. Palaniuk said CPA-02-14 was a privately initiated site specific map amendment requested by the property owner, Spokane Regional Animal Protection Service (SCRAPS). The property is located directly behind the new SCRAPS facility and is currently vacant. The request is to change the designation from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Center. The property is bordered by light industrial on the west, residential on the north, mixed use on the south and east. SCRAPS has stated they will be using the property for dog walking and a meet and greet area for prospective adoptees. CPA-03-14—Ms. Barlow said CPA-03-14 was a privately initiated site specific map amendment located at the corner of Barker Rd. and Sprague Ave. The request is to change approximately five acres from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential, and to change the zoning from R-3 to MF-2. The development surrounding the subject parcel is residential, with a church located at the southwest corner of the intersection. The designations surrounding the parcel are Low Density Residential (LDR) to the east and south, Medium Density Residential (MDR) west, and a parcel which is High Density Residential (HDR) to the north. Because the parcel to the north is already HDR, it meets the criteria of being contiguous to the requested change. The parcel to the north is currently being used as pasture. Farther to the north is a mobile home park. Ms. Barlow noted that the City's Sr. Traffic Engineer, Sean Messner, was present to answer traffic questions. Ms. Barlow stated at the study session the Commissioners had asked if the City needed additional multifamily development. Ms. Barlow said staff had done a quick analysis using GIS to determine if there was land available for development. This was, not a market analysis. Staff determined there are approximately 568 vacant parcels, totaling 553 acres currently in zones which allow multifamily. Only 88 of those parcels are actually zoned High Density Residential. Four hundred forty three of those parcels are one acre or less. Of the 443 parcels equaling one acre or less, very few were located next to each other. Staff presented maps that highlighted the vacant land by size. Ms. Barlow said, at the time the Planning Commission packet was completed very few comments had been received. Those comments had been placed in the packet. Since then45 additional comment letters had been received and the Planning Commissioners would receive them at this meeting. Also, she had received 1-2 comment letters just before the meeting and would make sure the Commissioners received those as well. CPA-04-14 — Ms. Barlow explained staff annually reviews the Comprehensive Plan to update general information contained therein. Changes to the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, include an update to the land capacity analysis and growth projections. Staff added a goal and policies to support infill development in residential zones. Last, staff has removed all references to a city center land use scenario, land use designation and all associated goals and policies. Removing all city center references will also impact several other chapters of the Plan. Ms. Barlow said the Commissioners previously asked what kind of tools could be developed to encourage infill development. She stated the policies were written for single family development only. Ms. Barlow displayed a map which showed typical long lots in the Valley. The lots showed what typical development may look like under the current community standards - a long dead end private road serving the lots maintained by a home owners association and not built to City standards. The next design showed an example of what could be possible with proposed infill standards to provide connectivity between lots. The road could be slightly narrower, sidewalk only on one side of the street, and smaller lots could be some of the trade-offs to get the connectivity the City is looking for. The road would be a public road, built to City standards, and maintained by the City. Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 2 of 20 CPA-05-14--Ms. Barlow said CPA-05-14 was an update to the Transportation chapter to remove references to the City Center and to update Map 3.1, Arterial Street Plan. CPA-06-14 — Ms. Barlow said CPA-06-14 was an update to the Capital Facilities chapter including updating the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and other plans, programs and capital projects to reflect Council policy direction and approved financial plans. CPA-07-14 —Ms. Barlow said CPA-07-14 was an update to the Utilities chapter to remove the references to the city center. CPA-08-14 — Ms. Barlow explained CPA-08-14 was updating the Economic Development chapter by removing the references to the city center and updating Map 7.1 Development Activity. CPA-10-14— Ms. Barlow stated CPA-10-14 was an update to the Bike and Pedestrian Element. It included bike and pedestrian improvements which have been completed throughout the year and adding a proposed shared use path along Barker Commissioner McCaslin asked if property owners of the `infill lots' were looking for solutions to develop those lots, and what was the purpose behind developing the infill standards. Ms. Barlow responded the City is seeing some demand. . Property owners have struggled to develop these lots, especially to incorporate the street standards into their limited area. Staff was seeing a high number of private roads and private drives. It was difficult to get connectivity in these types of lots, which is advantageous for everyone. PIanning Manager Kuhta stated, the City is seeing development of the smaller lots. However, they are being developed with dead-end streets when standards cannot be met. This proposal is intended to provide flexibility for the property owners if these policies are passed and regulations are developed. Chair Stoy reminded those in attendance the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council. The following testimony was provided: CPA-01-14—No testimony provided. CPA-02-14 Nancy Hill, Regional Director Spokane County Animal Protection Service (SCRAPS)—Ms. Hill stated she was a proponent for the change to Corridor Mixed Use. SCRAPS is currently retrofitting the former Harley Davidson dealership into a new regional animal shelter facility. The parcel being discussed tonight adjoins that parcel to the north. SCRAPS intends to use the parcel for a meet and greet and exercise area. Any future development of the parcel would be consistent with applicable zoning regulations. SCRAPS requests the item be moved forward to the Spokane Valley City Council for approval, and we concur with the analysis presented in the staff report. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not remember during the presentation to the City Council whether this parcel was discussed for development. Ms. Hill responded when the property and building were placed for sale it was bundled. At that time SCRAPS was focusing on the regional facility. The vacant land was there and it is a nice buffer between the facility and the residential neighborhood. There is a bit of space immediately behind the building, but upgrades to the building make the space unusable. It is nice to have a space for volunteers to be able to get out and walk a dog on a leash, and to have some small areas where someone can take a dog and get to know it a bit better outside the building. Commissioner Sneider asked if the zoning on the property currently would allow the walking of dogs on the property. Planning Manager Kuhta responded that an animal control facility is not permitted in a LDR zone. Walking dogs would be a function of the animal control facility and would not be permitted. It would not be as simple as one person walking a dog, and it would have a higher impact than that. Commissioner Sneider Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 3 of 20 stated he wanted to clarify the change was needed in order for them to be able to do what they wanted. Mark Schollenburger, 2205 N Bradley Rd.: Mr. Schollenburger stated he was an opponent of CPA-02-14. Mr. Schollenburger passed a picture of his backyard in former time. He then read a statement saying on or around the beginning of February a sign was posted on the site in question. In summary it said, declaration of predetermination of zoning change with no environmental concerns. It will have a horrific impact on the neighborhood as well as the environment. It would have an avalanche effect on businesses around the neighborhood as well. The brick company, Mutual Materials, would be able to change their use of land and would no longer have to maintain a 20-foot beauty zone as they would no longer be bordering residential property. They would even be closer to him. He said living next to them had never been pleasant. Traffic problems on Bradley Rd. are horrible. He has had to deal with large trucks, semi-trucks, Mutual Materials trucks, White Block trucks, NAPA trucks, Rouses towing, Avista and Interstate Batteries. Bradley Rd. is clearly posted NO TRUCKS, but nobody obeys the sign. The companies who are currently working on the SCRAPS building do not obey the signs either, The asphalt at Trent and Bradley is becoming well-worn and starting to crumble from the heavy loads. There are frequently dead bodies of dogs, cats, rabbits, squirrels, and birds from the traffic on Bradley. He will not tolerate any increase in traffic on Bradley. He stated the request was to change a third and fourth lot back from Trent to commercial, which he felt was atrocious. He said after driving from Trent and Waterworks to Trent and Sullivan there are only a few secondary lots which had been rezoned. There would be an increase in pedestrian traffic as well. He asked how many more pedestrian fatalities would be acceptable, five, ten, more? He stated the one fatality at Trent and Bradley in the early 70's was one too many. He wanted to know what precautions would be in place for the neighborhood pets. He said last fall Spokanimal had to euthanize every cat due to a virus. He said if any of his animals become sick because of SCRAPS God help you. He said his property taxes would sky rocket, his real property value would plummet, and there would be an increase in noise, air and light pollution. He said last fall a neighbor's dog had bitten him, it had been a puppy and puppies are not very smart. He said if any of SCRAPS animals escape and he felt threatened, he would use any kind of force he deemed necessary to protect his environment. He said the request was seeking to intrude into a low density residential area. It will ruin the environment of this neighborhood and destroy his environment. He felt it would destroy the environment for rabbits, skunks, raccoons, pheasants, red tail hawks, garden snakes and frogs. He asked if anyone had a conscience, morals, intestinal fortitude, backbone or spine. He said do what is right, no rezone. Gabrielle Slemp, 2121 N Bradley Rd.: Ms. Slemp stated she was attending to express her opposition to the proposed zoning change to the property bordering her home to the west and south. She and her husband purchased their home in Nov. of 2012,prior to SCRAPS purchasing the old Harley Davidson shop and the vacant lot next to it. In the process of purchasing their home, they were assured the vacant lot between the old shop and their home was zoned residential so that no commercial or industrial(uses) could occur. When they found out SCRAPS had purchased the property they were unsure how it would affect the noise level, privacy, and more importantly, the property value. Ms. Slemp stated her husband called and spoke to Nancy Hill to inquire about the vacant lot, and if they had plans for it, Ms. Hill assured Mr. Slemp there were no plans for the lot; the focus was on the main building. Mr. Slemp inquired if Spokane County would be interested in selling the vacant lot to the Slemps, Ms. Hill responded they were not interested in selling the land. Ms. Slemp stated in reviewing the Planning Commission minutes from January 13, 2014 "Mr. Palaniuk advised he believed the intent for the parcel was to be used as an exercise and greeting yard for animals and guests. Commissioner Anderson questioned the intention as he recalled the original proposal was to leave the vacant parcel as a buffer to the neighborhood and it bothered him that SCRAPS had originally proposed one thing Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 4 of 20 and now had changed it. Ms. Slemp and her husband are also bothered by this. Commissioners also asked, per the meeting minutes, if the current designation of Low Density Residential would prevent the property owner from using the property now, as it is, from using the property as a dog walking yard. Mr. Palaniuk had advised at the time it would not prevent them from using it as such now. Ms. Slemp asked then why rezone it. She continued with the only reason it would need to be rezoned to Corridor Mixed Use would be to develop commercial structures on it. If the Slemps home is bordered on commercial buildings on two sides, their privacy and property values are sure to diminish. She said they had bought their home with the intention of living in a nice family neighborhood. She said there are the trains, the distant noise from Trent, along with the sound of airplanes from Felts Field. She said she grew up in Millwood and these sounds have become tolerable, if not comforting. With the rezone of the vacant lot, next to and behind them, the close proximity of commercial noise will be anything but comforting. We plan to start a family in the near future and we want a home with privacy and security. Further encroaching on the neighborhood with commercial activities will not provide those things. Ms. Slemp said they also have a concern about reselling their home if the proposal is approved. When they looked into the purchase of their home, they were wary of the old Harley shop's close proximity. However after checking on the buffer parcel, and seeing the neighborhood was quiet, they fell in love with the home and bought it. If the parcel is commercially developed and compromises the enjoyment of our home, we may be forced to move. If our property is surrounded on two sides by commercial activity, it will make it much more difficult to sell. Honestly, she continued, we would not have bought the home if the parcel had been zoned as such. She asked if others would purchase a home which was bordered on two sides by commercial. She asked to have her statements considered in the decision to approve or deny this request. She asked for assistance in retaining her residential neighborhood and for support of the citizens of Spokane Valley. She offered her statement as a letter of record. CPA-03-14 Todd Whipple, Whipple Engineering, 2528 N Sullivan Rd.: Mr. Whipple stated he was representing the owner Mr. Wendell Olson. Mr. Whipple also said Mr. Mark Krigbaum was also attending with him and would be submitting additional testimony. Mr. Whipple said he has a minor housekeeping issue regarding the trip generation letter. He said on Table I, page 4 the title for the chart was listed as Trip Generation Rates for Land Use Code 220 Apartment. It should have said Trip Generation Rates Land Use Code 210 Single Family. Mr. Whipple said if you read the text and the Trip Generation letter it refers to single family. The table was mislabeled. Mr. Whipple said tonight the Commission would hear several themes — traffic, g schools, compatibility to adjacent existing property. Mr. Whipple said he felt staff did a good job. The property is adjacent to MF-2, which is one of the criteria. It is adjacent to a minor arterial and a collector,which are criteria for multifamily high density residential properties. Mr. Whipple said Ile is here almost every year presenting high density residential property. He said staff had represented to the Commission what the community finds many times. The City does not have enough of any one type, of anyone kind, in any one place, which is available (for sale) or available to congregate to make any kind of residential development. Mr. Whipple said he would like to explain how the development community arrives at the process to bring forward an HDR Comprehensive Plan change, and why they do it. Mr. Whipple passed a packet to the secretary for the Commission. Mr. Whipple said most of the projects his firm brings forward are larger than five acres. Mr. Whipple hoped staff would be able to do a more in-depth analysis of property available for multifamily development. Mr. Whipple pointed out there is a significant portion of the population which cannot afford to live in single family homes. They can't afford to buy them, they need to live in apartments, duplexes and other types of rental facilities. Mr. Whipple said for information purposes the vacancy rates for HDR-MF apartments Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 5 of 20 in the City of Spokane Valley is running between 3-5%. He said this is an extremely low vacancy rate. Mr. Whipple said they are pretty much all full. We keep building them, and they keep filling up. The older ones do not seem to be diminished by the newer ones going in. In the handout shared, he tried to share the processes when property, such as the proposal, comes available for sale. Vice-Chair Carlsen reminded Mr. Whipple his time had run over. Mr. Whipple said the Commission had the prepared handout, and Mr. Krigbaum would be following him. When the evening was over,the applicant would be a small voice in the wilderness. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present and asked for their recommendation to move this proposal forward to City Council Mark Krigbaum,Whipple Consulting Engineers,2528 N Sullivan Rd.: Mr. Krigbaum stated he was there to speak on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Krigbaum stated the staff report provides a thorough discussion of the proposed amendment. He said he would like to highlight the key points which make this change appropriate. He said regarding Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 regarding Comp Plan amendment approval criteria, the change first provides a transition from a high volume intersection to the surrounding low density housing. He said this intersection has been identified by the City as one which will be upgraded in the next five years with either a signal or roundabout. He said this would not be a very appealing location to try and market for single family housing. The site is located near a transit route at Barker Rd and Appleway. The amendment will make this property consistent with the property to the north. Additional factors the City must consider include: the physical characteristics of the property include flat terrain, which would allow for high density residential. There are no known critical areas located on this parcel. Current land use regulations, including the multifamily height to set back ratio will provide separation and buffering to adjacent properties. There are adequate public facilities to serve the property. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Guidelines this change would result in only 39 a.m. and 47 p.m. peak hour trips above the current zoning. He said the Growth Management Act encourages infill with a variety of housing types and residential densities. This change helps fulfill that by providing housing in the area for a variety of economic situations. The City's Comp Plan only has 4% of the City designated for high density residential use. Adding this site will allow for the City to provide more housing for younger low income households, as well as senior households on limited income. The property is adjacent to major streets. This proposal is less than 'A mile from transit and commercial zoning. Overall the change would have minimal impact on population density. Regarding Title 19 Zoning regulations, changing the zoning from R-3 to MF-2 provides a chance to have a range of housing types, provides a transition from a high volume intersection, and provides a site near commercial zoning and transit routes. This change is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals because it encourages a wide range of housing types, encourages housing for seniors and other populations. To address adequacies of public facilities the property is served by public water and sewer, served by minor arterials adjacent and to the north by Sprague and Barker, is bordered by a collector on the south side of Sprague and has a major arterial less than a '''A mile away at Appleway. It is served by Spokane County Fired District #1, the Spokane Valley Police Department, and again the transit service is less than a 'A of a mile from the site. In conclusion Mr. Krigbaum said this is a non-project action. When a project is proposed the applicant will have to complete project specific studies and reports covering the details of the project which may include a project specific environmental checklist and traffic letter or study Robin Boosalis, 19007 E Valleyway: Mr. Boosalis stated the was representing his family. As long as he has lived there, there has been little crime. He said building there would bring crime. He said he knew the Commission would want to live in a really nice neighborhood, where there was hardly any crime. He said he was saying no to it and hoped the Commission would help Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 6 of 20 them and recommend that as well. He said he would like to see homes go there. He questioned the applicant's statement of people not being able to afford a home. He shared that everybody's goal as a young couple is to have their own home, so they can raise their own family. He said if the homes are not built, then they can't be found, and they would struggle to be in apartments. He questioned if others had ever lived in an apartment. He had, and he said he did not like it and would not do it again. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity Scott Jutte, 18722 E Sprague: Mr. Julie stated the packet of comment letters was a thick packet, with a lot letters from people who don't want the project put in. He said he wrote a letter a week and a half ago, which was not included in the packet he had in his hand. He wondered how many others had also not been included. Commissioner Carlsen commented to Mr. Jutte that the Commission had received his letter in their packets. Mr. Jutte said the property might meet the criteria, but he felt it was still inappropriate. He said he had one of the smaller lots and his was 1.5 acres . He said the area was low density and rural. He had neighbors who had chickens and goats. The property to the north, which was the reason this proposal could be proposed because it was multifamily high density, is a cow field. He said when he bought his home he did his research to make sure everything around him was an R-zone because he had no desire to be next to multifamily high density residential. If this change is approved, he would feel like he bought his home under false pretenses. Currently he has seven neighbors. This proposal is trying to give him another 300, assumed on three people per residence. He asked the Commission to think about it- from seven to 300. He said he felt this was not appropriate for this neighborhood. He would like to see continued research for the proposal. He said he had worked with Mr. Whipple before and had respect for him. However,Mr. Whipple was going to work in the best interests of the property owner, as he would be expected to as the owner's rep. He wondered if it was a conflict of interest for them (Whipple Engineering) to do the traffic study and not someone who was unbiased. He asked the Commission to consider this carefully before making a decision. He said the City could very well need more high density land. If they do, go find it somewhere else where it is appropriate. This place is not appropriate. He encourages everyone to go out and stand on the property, look around and think if there should be apartments on it. He felt the answer would be no. Mary Ellen James, 18724 E 2"d Ave.: Ms. James said she bought her home 20 yrs ago. It was a quiet neighborhood, with low crime. When she moved there, her children were being transported out of the Greenacres Elem. School service area because it was overcrowded at that time. There are no sidewalks to walk on. The kids have to cross Barker. Traffic has increased and this is a concern for the small children which live on her street. She said she is concerned because the development to the south on Barker Road has never been addressed. She also said there is a development down the road, at Sprague and Hodges which will also increase the traffic at Barker and Sprague, then the apartment complex. She said she never anticipated something like this would ever happen in that area. She said she appreciates the quietness and does not want this in her neighborhood. She felt something better could be developed on the corner Doug Nelson 18902 E Sprague Ave.: Mr. Nelson said he felt this would be a bad mistake. He said it would be overloaded with people; the schools are over crowed right now. He said he had spoken with the police and that every time you get an apartment building there is an increase in crime activity, car prowling, and transient activity, which he said everyone was aware is drug dealing. He said he felt it would be a bad mistake and he had a petition with 70 of his neighbor's signatures. He turned the petition into the secretary. Dallas Williams, 18903 E. Sprague Ave.: Mr. Williams said he lives right next to the proposal. At least twice a week, emergency vehicles are going down Sprague, and it is an older neighborhood. He said he did not understand how there are 37 extra trips out of an apartment complex. He said he has four people in his home which drive, two trips a day, which makes Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 7 of 20 eight. He said if I have seven neighbors, and they have four people - seven times eight, that is over 50. He said the travel trips were flawed. Mr. Williams said from Sprague at 6:00 to over the freeway takes him 25 minutes. He said you will add 200 trips from 100 apartments. He shared his daughter lived in an apartment complex off of Sullivan Rd for a year. In that time, his daughter's car was broken into three times. So he believes there will be an increase in crime. Mr. Williams said the applicant stated there were few apartments available. He said he drives for a living, all day long, in the Valley, and he sees signs at every apartment complex in the Valley, "Apartments for rent, starting at $525.00." He feels the figure of availability is flawed, because there are available apartments out there. This project does not fit in this neighborhood. Mr. Williams said there is plenty of property over near Barker and Trent for example. Apartments off of Flora and Sprague have not been rented yet. He is requesting the Commission look at the proposal. He said houses would be fine. Houses would fit, with cows to the north of an apartment complex just would not fit. Mr. Williams stated he also had a petition with over 60 names and he would like to submit it for the record. The petition was handed to the secretary. Stephanie Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway Ave.: Ms. Colombo stated when they chose their home they were looking for a single family home to raise their kids. Since they bought the home, there has been lots of growth down Barker, down Sprague they are building more. The traffic has gotten worse. She cannot imagine, with apartments, verse just the houses which have been built, with the traffic there. She said she gets stuck at the 4-way stop for 6-7 cars. Then after you get around the corner you get stuck at the light at Appleway through 3-4 cycles to get to the freeway. Traffic is just going to get worse. She said people have mentioned the schools are over-crowded. Both the elementary school and the middle school, kids have to be bussed, or they are put in portables. Ms. Colombo said her children were not getting the attention they needed so she currently home-schools her children. However she still sees the need for other children. She said she knows that only people who were 400 feet from the property were notified. Yet she can see the house, and she was not notified. She said she wanted to bring this up for the future. This is going to affect more people than those just bordering the property. She drives down Sullivan and sees signs for vacancies, which is only two miles away. She did not feel it was necessary to build apartments in this area where it is all single family. She was worried that the apartments would be taller, people would be able to see into her backyard and it would affect her privacy. She is concerned her taxes will group to help pay for road changes, and yet she feels her property value will go down. It will be more difficult for her to sell because of having apartments next to her. Her family is opposed to this proposal, Richard Patterson, 19104 E Riverside Ave.: Mr. Patterson said everyone had covered what he had to say, but he wanted to go on record. He feels the schools are a big problem, traffic, noise, and a big thing for him is property values. He said he can't see that anyone would want to buy next to an apartment complex. He would not. He bought his home because it was all R-3 Low Density. They are building homes in the area, all single family. Why not on the subject parcel? This property might be bordering multifamily on one side, but it is also bordered by single family as well. He would like to see it remain single family. William Currier, 110 N Barker Rd.: Mr. Currier stated he lives on the parcel between the proposal and the piece which is already zoned MF-2. Mr. Currier asked how the parcel to the north of him was changed to high density, He wanted to know if it was contiguous to another parcel which was high density, or was it always high density. He said he did not remember when he purchased his property if the parcel to the north was zoned as high density. He said about 8 cows live on it. He said he could not stress enough how this would affect him and his family. He and his father-in-law both have PTSD. But sitting in their backyard was better than any medicine. Chair Stay informed the audience the parcel to the north, which is already MF-2, was rezoned sometime prior to City incorporation,under Spokane County in approximately 1996. Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 8 of 20 Keith Atkins, 11 S Barker Rd.: Mr. Atkins said he had found out yesterday that a 100 unit apartment complex was going up. He thought it was just going to be houses just like other projects in the neighborhood, which was fine with. He had a problem with an apartment complex. He had lived in his house since 1989, and he has never had a problem with crime, except for the duplexes which were put in on Sprague. He said there was some drug activity, which the police took care of. He said he could not imagine what it would be like with 100 units. He said the neighbors have had drug issues with duplexes. What are the apartments going to be like? He felt they would be horrible. He said this was a residential area, full of families. He said putting an apartment complex amongst home owners would drive up crime and drive good people away from their homes. He said people with families don't want to live next to apartments;they would sell their property and move on. He said it would lower property values. He asked how it would be addressed, by putting in four lanes on Barker. He said the schools had been brought up. He said it was a poor place. He felt there were plenty of apartments available. Any complex you drive by has a sign looking for renters. We don't need this apartment complex in this location. Brian McMinn, 19115 E Nixon Ave.: Mr. McMinn said he was sorry he did not get to sign the petition. He said that although his house was on the picture (being displayed on the screen) he did not get a notice. He said he did not know if anyone remembered the Spokane millennium baby. He said that baby was born premature, because the north-south traffic on Barker has a high propensity for not stopping at the stop sign, He said if the City of Spokane Valley wants to make money, they just need to put an officer there and they can pay for everything in a very short time period, because the north-south traffic does not like to stop. Now that you have Chapman Rd, Morningside, Turtle Creek, Saltese and several new developments on Sprague, we get even less traffic stopping. He said they just slow down to 15 mph and then just go through. He said he works at Kaiser. Some days when he goes to work, after he pulls off of Sprague onto Barker, traffic to the freeway is backed up that far. He does not understand how the numbers of 39-47 trips actually applies. He said consideration needs to be given to putting a traffic light in sooner than 2019. If you go against those of us who live in the area and raise farm animals this is going to make people like myself want to move away and take our farm animals with us Russ Voucher, 10 N Harmony Rd.: Mr. Voucher said he was questioning how the parcel was designated High Density Residential. He feels it was a mistake back then; that having apartments in this area, right now is a bad idea because it is rural. The HDR parcel stands out like a sore thumb (referring to the picture on the screen). He said it was not well thought out, even though the City did not make the change. Mr. Voucher said he has property which touches the subject parcel, and he feels the roads and schools are already crowded. He said he has raised three children and they all went to Central Valley; he went to Greenacres himself. He said he felt low income housing would be a really bad idea in an area which was all residential right now. He said he hoped the Commission look at this proposal and see how it does not fit the area. Shelly Voucher, 10 N Harmony Rd.: Ms. Voucher said she has lived in the area since 1970. She said she has grown up in the area, she and her husband returned to the area and now live next door to her parents. She raised three children in the area. She said it is a nice community, family driven, rural area. Most of the homes are on a `/a acre to an acre lot and most of the neighbors have yards to play in. But, there are no parks to play in that area. She said the proposal is to put 100 apartments on a 5-acre parcel; where would these kids go to play? She said it was the possibility of senior housing was mentioned, but it will be young kids, or teenagers. What would these kids do,there is nowhere to go. She said if kids don't have something to do, mischief goes on. She said the staff report says it is 100 feet from Appleway and Sprague, which is commercial. She said apartments usually go into a more commercial environment. She said we are a rural environment. She said in 100 feet, you have two gas stations, which are convenience Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 9 of 20 stores. Near is Greenacres Shopping Center with a few bars, a dry cleaner, she wondered what there was for these people. She said we don't have restaurants; we don't have anything for these apartment complex people to walk to. She said the bus route is on Appleway and Barker. However she said it isn't a developed bus route. She said there aren't any seats for people to sit in. She said if you have 100 people, who go to the bus route, she wondered what they would do. Would they go to the convenience store on a rainy day and wait for the bus. She felt this was not well thought out. She said everyone knew Mrs. Anderson who had owned the property, and the neighbors had reconciled themselves to homes. She said this was the worst possible scenario they would have pondered. Beverly Enyeart, 15111 E 12th Ave.: She said she was concerned about the schools; her son's school has to have a portable put in. Now we are going to put in an apartment building to bring in more children to our schools. She said she had moved from the U-Hi district so her children could attend CV High School, and she is hearing rumors there could be a cut off at Sullivan Road which would mean her children would have to go to U-Hi, instead of CV where she is within walking distance. She asked the Commission to deny the proposal. She said this was not needed; Our kids need our schools. She said until `you guys' start building more schools to accommodate more apartments, don't build. Gene Warden, 18924 E Nixon Ave.: Mr. Warden said he did receive a notice about the project. He said the previous testimony had covered pretty well the issues which had gone through is mind. He said he would like to hear from the traffic engineer because he believes the City already thinks there should be a round-a-bout or a traffic signal at Barker and Sprague without 100 apartments. If you are going to have to have apartments there, he feels the traffic circle should be there first. He said he did not really want the apartments; It was a quiet neighborhood„ but not completely crime free. Mr. Warden said he plans on being in his home for a long time. He said between the traffic, crime, and the rural single family atmosphere, he recommends it be kept at R-3. Neldon Mitchell, 223 S. Barker Rd.: Mr. Mitchell said the attraction to the neighborhood was the size of the lots and being close enough to an urban area to get groceries, but have a rural environment. Mr. Mitchell said he would demonstrate how his life has changed already. Currently he gets off the freeway about 5:30. The freeway to Appleway is already full of cars; it takes multiple cycles to get through the light; it is not unusual for cars to be backed up 2 blocks to get north bound on Barker, even on a Sunday; if there was a light at Sprague it would not help the traffic situation. He said his daughter came to his home today concerned about the impact this would have on the schools. He said he loves coining home, looking down the road, having an unobstructed view of the hills; it would be a sore thumb and like a jab in the eye to drive down Barker Rd. and confront an apartment complex; this would not be a good fit and he would recommend this proposal be denied. Taffy Hunter, 18820 E Sprague Ave.: Ms. Hunter said everyone here has the same concerns. She said she was here speaking for her son. Ms. Hunter said she is a single mother of 3; her 9-yr old son is autistic; this home was her once in a life time opportunity; if she had to move from this home, she would not be able to purchase a home again. She said the increased traffic, increased population, increased noise, increased crime, increased special needs students in our schools will all highly impact her son and his ability to function. She said she picked her home because it had land, it was quiet, it was rural, and her son could play in the fenced back yard; He cannot keep himself safe. She said she did not have to worry about cars honking noise which can send him into a tantrum; an apartment complex across the street from her home would highly impact his ability to function;they used to live in an apartment, which their therapist advised them to get out of. She said she knows she is not the only special needs mother in the community. She knows her child has to be bused to another school for speech when there is a school down the street. She Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 10 of 20 said the birds, animals, lack of traffic have a calming effect on all of her children. She said she has been low-income. She understands how important it is to have affordable housing. She said she supports this effort. But in this community, in this place, where there are families who are established,who have plans and goals, this is not the place to put apartments. George Kovacs, 19122 E Valleyway Ave.: He said he and his wife just bought the house not too long ago; it is a '!a acre lot and close to his son's school; His son is a special needs child and he personally takes him to school every day. Mr. Kovacs said when he first looked at this he thought this was the worst idea; If you look it clearly shows low density (referring to the map). He wondered where anyone would put high density. He also wondered who would think this would be a good idea. He said the money it would cost the City for the police, fire, medics would far drain resources for any money which he feels the City would make off of the project. . He shared the plan has no thought. He said it was a great job, he loved the way it was done, it looked good. However he felt that people needed to look at where all the crime is. He said if you look west of the City, a lot of crime. If you look at where those crime stats are they are all going to be in places like rentals, high density, and up and down Division and in the West Central neighborhood. He said he most certainly was not going to buy a house there. He wondered why anyone would want to put in a 100 unit apartment complex when our schools are already on overflow; luckily his son does not have to go to Adams,because he was going to have to take two buses. He said for a special needs child to have to take two buses is ridiculous. He said there was no thought process in there. He said we bought the place because we knew it was going to be a nice area; His in-Iaws live seven houses down; they have been living there for years; they have never had a problem; if you look at the crime stats on any crime map there is almost nothing in our area. But, if you look west of the City, north of the City, then there is lots of crime and it is because it is all high density. He said there is absolutely no thought process put into this other than how can we make money and develop it. He said there won't be any money made. He said we need to decide this is not a good idea; A few houses is a good idea. He said no one would want to buy a house here; 100 apartments, 300 people-there is no thought there. Jackie Williams, 18903 E Sprague Ave.: Ms. Williams said she lived next to the proposed project; she has lived there eight years with her three children. It is a small community, nice houses, older people, and mature adults. Ms. Williams said the proposal was to bring in low income, younger adults which otherwise would not be able to buy a house; Putting them in with grown mature homeowners is not the right thing; She lives on Sprague and out her front window is traffic, traffic, traffic; If 100 apartments are added it is only going to add to it. She said it did not take a 2Rd grader to do the math. She said she did not get it, it did not make sense. She said you have 100 apartments, you could expect at least 100 trips. She said they leave once a day; they come back once a day, which are 200 trips. She said she felt it was unethical that Whipple did the traffic study and she disagreed with it. She said she wanted to point out the other lot, which houses cows, was done before the City incorporated; There was a reason the City incorporated; it was because the County didn't do things it was supposed to do. She said now we are stuck with this rezone. She said she hoped the Commission did not follow the County. She said she too, likes to sit on her back porch and watch the sun set; apartments, three stories high with people looking into her backyard, would violate her privacy. She said there are no parks in her area and the children from the apartments would find the need to play in her backyard and in her hot tub. . She said schools and traffic have been discussed. She said a 6-foot fence would not take care of a 30-foot building. She asked again for the Commission to not follow the County and not to rezone this property. Robert Harvey, 19011 E Valleyway Ave.: Mr. Harvey stated he was speaking for myself, his wife and his children. He said they hoped the Commission would deny the change. He said he was most worried about kids. He said he has an older daughter who grew up in apartments, and Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 11 of 20 it was full of Section 9. He said he was not saying all Section 9 people are bad, he was sure there are some good ones, he had experience with the kind of people who live in those apartments. He said he lives two blocks from the proposal and it would be close enough for the kids who live in the apartments to mob his entire neighborhood. He said he firmly stands opposed to the change for his children's sake, amongst all the other reasons other people have brought up. Lee Nelson, 101 N Barker Rd: Mr. Nelson said he lived across the street from the island home, and he looks directly at this subject parcel. He can see Mica Peak out his front window. He felt it would be a wonderful place to raise a family. He said the cows belonged to him and there is nothing HD about that pasture; the parcel is completely surrounded by single family homes, there are no exceptions. He said the proposal did not fit; there are many long term neighbors in the area and he is concerned about the height blocking the view; he is worried about the transient nature which is typically attracted by apartment complexes; It was a fact of who they are. People are seeking to move on to single family, apartments are a stepping stone. He said he did not know if people are good or bad, it was just the transient nature which does not exist now in the neighborhood. He said he felt the island would be the apartment complex because it would be the thing which did not fit with the single family homes; since he has lived there some pastures have been converted to duplexes but those are not out of character. A multi-story apartment complex on such a small parcel would be out of character. Another thing he would like to point out is the flaw in the study. It is ok as far as this study, but we need the rest of it. What we really need reported is what are we doing here tonight, and look at the number of parcels you could develop assuming you rezone them like is considered tonight, that number would be considerably larger. Plus as people have pointed out there is a whole lot of rental around which is presently available. Darrin Peha, 18920 E Sprague Ave.: Mr. Peha said he has lived in the neighborhood for 13 years; it is rural, my neighbors have sheep, chickens; this doesn't fit. He said all the way to Greenacres Elem. is single lane roads with no sidewalks; This would add proportionately more kids to the school system than would single family homes developed on the same property; Crime would go up if you cram that many people into that small of an area. He said he left apartment living, near the Valley Hospital when traffic and crime increased. He asked the Commission not make him leave this area, he really likes it. He asked the Commissioners to take 20 minutes to drive out and see if they felt the apartments belonged there. Heather Graham, 18320 E 10th Ave.: Ms. Graham said she did not want to repeat a lot of what had already been said because she agreed 100%; she wanted to go the approval criteria, specifically supports public safety. She said there had been a lot of talk about the traffic on Barker, Appleway and even east on Sprague. West on Sprague, is a cut off which will connect to Appleway; people turn left on Sprague to use the cut off instead of waiting to travel to the light at Appleway and Barker. She is concerned the school district will change the cutoff for busing and many children in the area will be required to walk, needing to cross the intersection at Sprague and Barker in order to get to Greenacres Middle School. She is also concerned there are no sidewalks and no proposal to improve the area. She said it would actually require the City to maintain the streets during the snowing wintertime, which is inadequate at best. She stated again she was speaking against the proposal. Karen O'Shogay, 105 S Barker Rd.: Ms. O'Shogay said she would like to address the traffic. She said she gets stuck in driveway, not at the corner, not able to get out. She stated everything else had been said. Allan Holcomb, 18920 E Nixon Ave.: Mr. Holcomb said his house is within 200 feet of the pasture. He said Greenacres was rural and country. He said he would like to make a point. He said approximately 3.5 years ago the County tore up the road and put in the sewer. He said the main pipes are 8" plastic pipes. He feels the piping was designed for that kind of residential Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 12 of 20 sewage traffic. He feels the sewage system was not designed to accommodate a 100 unit apartment complex. He wondered how the builder would surmount this problem. Mr. Holcomb said he felt the Commission should recommend denial of the project. Donna Leestma, 710 S Beige Lane: Ms. Leestma stated she received her notice yesterday. She said she felt most of the neighbors did not know this is happening. She said she has lived in the area all of her life. She has watched it through many changes. She does not feel this is a good change. She currently lives on a private road, on an acre. She is aware her neighbors are writing letters. She does not feel many people in the area are aware of the proposal and as the word spreads there will be more of what she had seen this evening. She said when the sewer went down Barker her understanding was they would widen the road. She said not to two lanes but enough a car would not slide off into the flood ditch. She said she was concerned about the children from the apartment complex. She said they will have to walk to school, her children did, and it is not safe, along that area. She feels the crime will go up. She is concerned about the drug problems increasing. This area is rural, it was named Greenacres because it was meant to have horses and cows. She said she did not know how the `other' parcel was rezoned,the area was all supposed to be 3.5 (UR-3.5), then a developer managed to sneak in when none of us noticed and this is right around the corner from us, and he got the larger lots. She said we then had the troubles of keeping away the 7-10 (lots per acre). She said the smaller lots weren't too bad but an apartment complex was. She said there were plenty of other areas, places on Sprague, a place formerly owned by Rice which had cows, those are great places where the apartment density already is. She wanted to know why it was necessary to bring it into one of the last areas where it has the cows and the lifestyle they want to live. She feels in the coining days the Commission would receive more letters regarding this project. She said she knew that her family made multiple trips a day, so she knows the apartment complex will bring much more traffic, She is aware of several more development coining from farther south on Barker and those will impact the traffic, so what would an apartment do. The other developments belong, apartments don't. John Bymers, 18011 E 8th Ave.: Mr. Bymers said he was sympathetic to the people who live in the area of the project. He lives on 8th, where a new road was just put next to his home. He said the believed they were building 15 new homes. He said he used to be able to sit on his deck and see Mt. Spokane, now the sees a 30-foot house, which is 10 feet from his fence. He said the could not imagine what the other people were going to have to see. He said he cannot imagine the traffic increase; it has gotten worse in the 8 years he has lived there. He commented maintenance of the roads during the winter does not happen in this area David Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway Ave.: Mr. Colombo commented on the maintenance of the roads. He said his daughter had a car in front of her pull off barely to the side of the road. When she went to go around the car, there was a snow berm in the road because he felt it was poorly maintained. When she hit the snow berm, she flipped sideways and hit the car. He said if a kid had been walking along the side of the road, in the road where the kids walk when it snows, she would have hit a kid. Mr. Colombo stated he also has a child with autism. He said the schools told him there was not enough help for his son. He said they also took his daughter out of the school. He wondered if there were not enough help in the schools for his children, how would there be enough help for the children coming from the apartments. He feels the schools cannot take any more children. He said he opposes this change. He said he understands the Commission has to look at things differently than the neighborhood, but he hoped they would consider if they lived in the neighborhood how they would vote. Wayne Vincent, 117 N Barker Rd.: Mr. Vincent said he lives across from the proposal. He said the one thing he has not heard about is the emergency responses from fire and police. He said from 4:30 to 6:00 traffic is backed up from Sprague, back to Appleway, all the way back to the freeway. He watched an ambulance headed northbound on Barker have to drive on the Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 13 of 20 opposite side of the road around an island, because the traffic would not yield. He said the neighborhood needs help for the fire and police department to be able to get to them, and it isn't coming. He said he opposes this change, it is wrong. Ron James, 18724 E 2" Ave.: Mr. James said a lot of things have been mentioned, but it does not take into account the 42 houses being built just east of the neighborhood by Mr. Olson of Viking Construction. He said this would also impact the traffic. He said when he moved out there, his children could not ride the school bus because the cut off was two miles away. He said they were too close for his children to ride the bus, but there were no sidewalks for the kids to walk on. He said he understood the Barker Bridge over the freeway was outdated and it would be updated but he has never heard anything about it again. He says there has been a problem with traffic for some time. He said the only people who would benefit from this (proposal) would be the trick-or-treaters on Halloween. William Currier: Mr. Currier wanted to know if the neighborhood could propose a change to the other high density property, requesting to change it to low density. Commissioner Stoy explained the owners would have to apply for the change. Mr. Kuhta stated the Comprehensive Plan would be going through a complete update in the next two or three years. He said there could be an opportunity for the community to be involved in the process. He said staff would not be proposing a lot of changes such as this through that process, but that would the time to get involved. Dallas Williams: Mr. Williams wanted to say there were no more federal funds available for Bridging the Valley. He wanted to know if the neighborhood could get together and pay for a traffic study. Ms. Barlow said staff had been making notes of the many questions they had heard throughout the evening and when everyone was done testifying they would address those questions. Rob Boosalis: Mr. Boosalis said he was confused and wanted to know if Ms. Barlow and Mr. Kuhta worked for the City (which was confirmed). He said, so we pay you, our taxes pay you. He continued, so you work for us, you don't work for these people who are trying to build here. Ms. Barlow responded it was true they worked for the City and their role in the process is to present the information to the Planning Commission, so they can make a decision as well as to provide the audience the opportunity to understand the process, and to understand the criteria that is being considered in order to arrive at a conclusion. She continued saying staff does not work for the developer. She said this is not a City initiated proposal. Staff is facilitating a privately initiated proposal for consideration by the Planning Commission. She said our role is to present the facts based on the criteria which is in the Comprehensive Plan, She said staff is not for or against this project. Staff is facilitating the process so everyone has the information they need in order to make an informed decision. Mr. Boosalis asked when the sewer was taken into consideration, with the pump station which was installed when the sewer was brought to the area. Ms.Barlow stated those types of things are taken into consideration at the time the building permit is considered. It is at that time those types of specific infrastructure are extended to the site. She said at this time the comments should be geared toward the appropriateness of the Iand use to give the Commission information to make a decision. She said staff is available for specific land use development questions, but staff has a list of general questions which could be answered and the end of the testimony. Chair Stoy asked for an opinion from City Attorney Cary Driskell regarding how to proceed if the Commission did not feel they could finish tonight. Mr. Kuhta conferred and responded the Commission could continue the hearing to a date certain if the Commission has not concluded the rest of the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 14 of 20 The Commission chose to take a 10 minute break, at 8:42 p.m. The Commission returned at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Carlsen moved to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Carlsen said she felt it was necessary in order to try and finish up tonight's discussion. This motion passed seven to zero. Commissioner Carlsen said the next meeting of the Planning Commission is March 13, 2014. She encouraged people to attend. Donna Leestma: Ms. Leestma asked if people will be able to make more comments or if the decision will be made. Commissioner Stoy said if the Commission were able to get through the rest of the items on the agenda and the public hearing were closed, then there would be no other public comment. However, if items are not finished then the public hearing would still be open and then additional comments could be made. He also said additional comments can be submitted to the City and will be provided to the Commission prior to the 13th meeting. Ms. Leestma wanted to know if the community could request to have the public hearing left open so the community could comment. Mr. Kuhta stated it would be up to the Commission to make the decision. If the Commission decides they have heard enough testimony in order to make an informed decision or if they feel they need to hear more they could extend the hearing. Ms. Barlow offered another option of leaving the written comment period open, while closing the verbal testimony portion. Dallas Williams: Mr. Williams returned to ask if written testimony would include petitions. He said they still had petitions out in the neighborhood. Mr. Kuhta said written comment of any kind can be submitted until the date the Commission determines it will not accept any more input Ms. Barlow said she would defer traffic questions to Sean Messner, Sr. Traffic Engineer; she would touch on some of the other questions heard through the night. She wanted to clarify some process questions. Ms. Barlow said more written comment can be taken. She said the public hearing sets itself apart from what happens in front of the Council. Persons testifying tonight become a party of record. Council will take public comment, but it will not be in the form of a public hearing. A public hearing is a special process with rights of appeal. She said she would be happy to discuss appeals with anyone interested, at a later date. All comments, in any form, will be forwarded to the City Council. Ms. Barlow said she wanted to address some of the issues which had been mentioned during the evening. She said there have been comments about some people receiving notice and other people not. The City has a set of standards which are defined the SVMC and state law which require noticing to be done in a certain manner. The requirements are to post notice on the site, written notice within 400 feet. The list of names is acquired through a certain process and although staff works to make sure everyone on the list receives notice, it is possible for one or two to be missed. She did say she wanted to commend the neighborhood for coming together and showing how the process is supposed to work. She said Ms. Leestma said she just got her notice; that was because her notice was from the neighborhood effort, because she lives beyond the noticing distance requirement. Ms. Barlow said she wanted to address the issue of comments received. Ms. Barlow said all of the comments she had received as of(02-20-14), were in the Planning Commission packet. She said Mr. Jutte's comments had been received and were included in the packet for the Commission which was sent to them the week previously. All of the comments received since 2-20-14 were in the packet which was laid out for people and given to the Commission this evening. Ms. Barlow said she did receive a couple more comments at 5:00 and they will also be forwarded to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 15 of 20 Ms. Barlow said the Central Valley School District was noticed and they did not comment. This is not uncommon, the school districts seldom comment on projects. At this stage where there is no real "project," they may not understand this is the appropriate time to comment in terms of capacity. Ms. Barlow said however generally when they do comment, the City gets a standard letter which almost always says the same thing similar to "the schools are available but that they cannot guarantee persons living at certain addresses will go to the neighborhood schools." She said some of the schools are over capacity, some are under capacity and this causes the bussing situation. Ms. Barlow said the City has a set of standards when applicable to multifamily project level review, which provide not only parking and landscaping but also provide open space near the residences. She said it would not address all of the issues which were brought up but this is the City's process to ensure onsite area for play. Ms. Barlow said there was discussion about the parcel to the north which is currently zoned MF-2 and HDR. She said her research indicated that these pieces, in addition to the pieces the mobile home park are located on, were rezoned in 1996. Those pieces are owned by a single property owner and they applied to the County in 1996 to have the property re-designated as HDR. She said through recent conversations, the owners still prefer to have it remain HDR. She said regarding the question about re-designating it, the property owner might not be interested in participating. Ms. Barlow said that this is a privately initiated proposal. The City is not encouraging this property be re-designated as HDR for the purpose of facilitating apartment complexes. The City is neutral on this. Staff is simply providing the facts to the Commission and then to the Council. Ms. Barlow said the Fire Dept. was also notified and did not comment. She said that would be common at this stage. The Fire Dept. would not get involved until there is actually a project. Sean Messner, Sr. Traffic Engineer began to address the traffic concerns mentioned and future improvements planned for the area. Mr. Messner said he counted about 15 different issues which had been brought up. 1. The traffic study. Normally Comp Plan amendments at this level do not require a traffic study. He said the traffic study being submitted fits many comments heard tonight. He said generally we would ask for a trip generation/distribution letter once the site is more defined. Which would likely lead in this case,to a formal traffic impact study. We would ask the applicant to look at the intersections we have identified as a concern and do a detailed analysis of those intersections. 2. The traffic generation letter. The traffic generation letter submitted by Mr. Whipple uses the ITE (The Institute of Transportation Engineers) trip generation rates. It is a standard/national practice for traffic engineers to use the ITE manual to determine the number of trips generated by a particular land use. The reason it is used is the manuals have several hundreds of studies which are taken across the United States, and come up with average rates for trips which are generated for projects such as this. He said the trip generation rates correspond with the ITE rates. It seems counter-intuitive to a lot of people that apartments would generate fewer trips than single family residential. He said part of the study through ITE indicates the range of trips entering and leaving the apartments is far greater than a single family residential. Not only that, but typically there is a higher occupancy rate in a single family residential than in apartment units. So the trip generation rates are counter-intuitive. The study looked at two hours of the day,the AM and PM peak hours. He said, again apartments have a wider range of distribution of traffic. The number of trips which were spoken tonight and were included in the trip generation statement, are in fact accurate, based on ITE trip generation rates. He said this was just for this site, it does not include any other site being developed. The City did not ask them to look at the intersection operations there as part of this process. This is just a trip generation statement and after his review of it, it Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 16 of 20 corresponds with all ITE standards. He continued saying as part of the development process staff would require more formal reports, staff would review them. City staff is impartial and would review them objectively and would provide comments back to the applicant. 3. The current operation of Sprague and Baker. He said recently Chapman Rd. opened up to serve additional residential units. The City has not taken counts since the opening of the road. He said there is probably some additional traffic which has not been accounted for. As part of the process and what the City is planning this spring, is to do traffic counts at that intersection since Chapman Rd. has opened to do an internal analysis. This intersection is already on the City horizon for improvements. Some of the developments which have come in have contributed to the design for those improvements. Improvements have not been identified yet because staff is still looking at different concepts. The level of service of the intersection before the opening of Chapman Rd. was still at an acceptable level, since the opening he is not sure. He said he has heard the testimony tonight and he has not personally been out there since the opening. 4. Freeway interchange. He said the Washington State Dept. of Transportation (DOT) owns the interchange and has been doing a study on the interchange. He said there have been some improvements which have been identified, and the City is actively involved with the process. As time permits, the City will continue to be involved in the process and hopefully over time it will be improved. He said any improvements would be subject to available funding. 5. Traffic noise. Mr. Messner said anytime you have an increase in traffic, you have an increase in noise. He said the City was looking into ways to facilitate the traffic, thereby also hoping to help facilitate the noise. 6. Travel time to and from the freeway—Barker Rd. is a minor arterial and it is the primary north south destination to and from the freeway. As part of the analysis of the intersection, it is also to consider what happens between Sprague and the freeway and what improvements may or may not be needed. It would also be looked at as part of a formal traffic study for this development, if it moved forward. The City would review it objectively and provide comment. Part of the traffic study would be to look at current conditions, future conditions, and any improvements which might be needed to help mitigate the traffic. Mr. Messner said he tried to answer the large majority of the questions he heard, and would answer any additional of the Commission. Commissioner Carlsen said there was concern about sidewalk improvements for the children having to walk to bus stops, the lack of bus stops, and walking to schools. She asked if the City had any plans for sidewalks in the area regardless of an improvement of this size. Mr. Messner did not know if there was a sidewalk infill project. From a traffic engineering perspective, he said he is looking into Safe Routes to School for the different schools which are here. He said there are very few schools in our City which have Safe Routes to School. Part of the reason for this program is the safety of the students. One of the ways to help build these is federal grants; Safe Routes is one of the federal grants we are looking into. Commissioner Anderson stated the trip statement is written such that it says above and beyond what the property is currently zoned. Does that mean you would also have to add in the current zoning trips on top of the number in order to get the true number? Mr, Messner responded he knew the numbers were a concern to everyone. He said right now there is only one residential unit on the property. He said the difference would be what the property is currently zoned to be able to accommodate and what is being proposed.. He said the letter states 15 single family dwelling units could be built on the property. Mr. Kuhta said the property could potentially have 30 units. Mr. Anderson asked if you would add that number to the number on the letter. Mr. Messner said the letter described 15 units, and the comparison is from 15 units to the 100 Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 17 of 20 apartment units. He said the trips generated by 30 units of single family and 100 apartment units then the difference would be lower than the letter states. Commissioner Carlsen said this does not make sense, 30 units would make 30 trips but 100 units would only make 39 trips. Mr. Messner said the 30 single family units would generate 30 peak hour trips, but the 100 apartment units would generate 62 peak hour trips. The difference between the two would be 32 peak hour trips. The statement submitted by Whipple is identifying the difference. Commissioner Anderson said he was looking at was above and beyond then the true number would be more like, 30+47-77 as the capacity of the new system if it was installed. Mr. Messner said no. Ms. Barlow said that was how many trips would generated, not capacity and also, she said something more important to keep in mind was Mr. Messner's point that the intersection is already impacted. There are a number of developments happening out in the County which are going to further impact this intersection. Whether or not this land use designation is changed this intersection is going to continue to see an increase in traffic, and this development isn't going to affect that any more so because of all the other development that is already happening. Mr. Messner said that was mostly true. The other developments which are surrounding this, which are generating more traffic going through this intersection and generate more trips than the proposed apartments would. It is partly because the developments farther south have higher numbers of residential units associated with them. He said as that happens, and it becomes developed, additional traffic will continue to go through this intersection. He said the important thing is the intersection has already been identified for improvements because of what we are seeing today and developments which have already been approved. He said the apartment complex would add additional trips to the street network but has already been identified as needing improvements based on other developments coming on line. Commissioner Stoy asked if there were adequate right-of-ways at the intersection to do whatever improvements are going to be required. Mr. Messner said the short answer is no there is not enough right-of-way, specifically at the intersection for proposed improvements. He said the City had not gone through the design yet. He said the conceptual look at the intersection indicated the City would need to acquire more right-of-way to install improvements. He said they are still looking at different concepts for the intersection, so nothing is set in stone, and we have not gone thought the formal design process. Conceptually there would need to be slivers of land purchased or acquired at the corners. Commissioner Stoy asked if this would be necessary with or without this proposed development. Mr. Messner confirmed yes. Commissioner Carlsen asked if there was a plan for a traffic study in the near future. Mr. Messner said it was on his list to get counts sometime in March. He would like to get counts and get a closer look; primarily from the traffic engineering prospective he wants to understand what kind of trips are there since the opening of Chapman Rd. He said he had some real concerns about it. Commissioner Neill asked if studies say further improvements are needed for this intersection even without the apartment going in, he wanted to know where the money would come from. He said he recalled the Sullivan Bridge was having problems getting money now and it was a major project. Mr.Messner said some of the developments which have already come on line have made contributions, based off of trips being generated. Those contributions won't cover the the cost of design at this point. He said there were three stages in the process, design, right-of-way and construction. He said it was partially funded through the design; the right-of-way and construction are still unfunded. He said there are several grant applications which have recently come out. Staff is looking to get this intersection qualified in order to go after those grants. He said it was an application process and it was federal dollars. It is a competitive process. He said at this time there is no construction money allocated for this project. Commissioner Neill said this project would further compact that already compacted intersection, yet there are no real Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 18 of 20 concrete plans or ability to correct that problem. Mr. Messner said as part of the development process the developer would be required to improve their half street. Mr. Messner said he would defer to Community Development staff for the process, however there could likely be some mitigation which would be identified by a traffic study but he said he was saying this without seeing the traffic study). He said he felt if there were items which were identified it would become part of the development process. Mr. Kuhta added whether the property was developed as multifamily or single family the frontage of Sprague and Barker would be analyzed and if the City needed more right-of-way and improvements for sidewalks, those would be required. The trips which are generated from the site would be analyzed and the intersections would be analyzed through the process Mr. Messner described. He said there has already been some mitigation contributed to this intersection. The City would likely have to get grants. There is not going to be enough money from any of the developments along here to fix that intersection. There would be some more developer contributions, no matter how this site is developed in the future. Commissioner Carlsen moved to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Commissioners discussed the meeting could keep going, or it could be continued to the next meeting, discussed the deliberations being at the next meeting. By a show of hands the motion fails. Two (Carlsen, Neill)to five. Todd Whipple: Mr. Whipple said he understood there was a lot of misconception about the trip generation letter. When it was put together, we looked at the site for 15 units, not 30. If you read the handout given to the Commission this evening,the members will understand why we used 15; maybe we should have used 18. By using a smaller number for residential units and the normal number for apartment units the increase is actually greater. He said he felt Mr. Messner explained it well. He said if they had used 30, it would have been 62 PM trips minus the 30 that would have been there had it developed as a single family development, so the increase in PM would have only been 32. We are saying there is an increase of 47 trips. Even though it is five acres you are only going to get between 15-18 lots that is just the way it works. He said more importantly though there is another table which demonstrates the change in total daily trips. We demonstrate there will be an increase of 522 daily trips. Commissioner Carlsen moved to extend the meeting to 9:35 p.m. Commissioner Carlsen said they need to allow Mr. Whipple to finish his statement and for the Commission to make a decision about the remainder of the public hearing. Motion passes seven to zero. Mr. Whipple continued with the apartment on the site, with 100 units, it would generate 62 total trips, A single family dwelling unit development with 15 units, would generate somewhere between 15-30 trips. This is all the increase was, it wasn't meant to change anything other than to just say that is what the actual increase was. There was also some number thrown out that (the apartment) would only generate only 200 trips a day. That is not true, the trip generation letter is real clear. It says that single family residential subdivision would generate 143 total trips in a day, and an apartment project would generate 665 total trips in a day. Apartments are busier than single family and that increase was 522. Commissioner Stoy asked Mr. Messner if he would be able to provide the current traffic counts for the intersection at Sprague and Barker. Mr. Messner said he could provide the most recent count which was conducted in 2012. Commissioner Carlsen made a motion to continue the public hearing to March 13, 2014. Motion passed seven to zero. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioners thanked those in attendance for coming. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 19 of 20 --- Joe Stoy, Chairperson y dp ) Deanna Horton,secretary Date signed /3- ,// Attached: Vacant land maps Planning Commission Minutes 02-27-14 Page 20 of 20 Analysis of vacant land which allows Multifamily—Maps—City as a whole and sections of the City enlarged. 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 443 Vacant Land That Allows Multi Family By Size 1 33 3 0 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 VACANT PROPERilf ZONE MUC CMU HDR MDR 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 acre 10+acres 106 37 23 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 8 173 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 74 u 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 90 4 7 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 TOTAL 181 192 88 107 Total Parcels 43 65 33 5 5 3 1 2 3 0 8 TOTAL parcels = 568 acres = 553 HDR Vacant Land Map Legend acreage Category 0:300000.1:330000 *Amid Lea Cr om, -1:300001-2:300000 i Ccrrdcr N M I She .000011-1:33!!]00 11adu-r ormatr R.aGda'C6: n 1:303001-« •30330 . #c:a cY ddrea, .:DYMI-5!3003]0 -51200001-a.00000c -ct00c)D1.7:1300C3 -7.O1-a:300000 =1303011-g.003003 -9A03031•10.000000 -11:300001- `.51.001) West side of City r 1 E 1 L 11 O a 0 E 0E 0 0 Q Q U Legend acreage Category 4440434-1403003 Mxad 1.1ta Can7+s' -1403431-2443340 f. ,Arfdar1ulia ud u.a -=mar-3)303000 YAaduas:Dersiy Rmidettaal 1-1=coal-4444040 9,141 Dun*Reside/Mai -4400031-540 300 -5440031-8A03000 -6483431-?443040 -7403431-sw4a34o -a4oaoa,-9403043 -9.C4 I a,-10.030830 - tomato.'-445,cow Along the Sprague Corridor - . _ -_- _• . • - •, • 0 -;111,111-: -• ------- ' - _ _. -- al : .-.4 Liiii, — • ';-:.•.7:-...7..'. _ '. :r.----__ - _ _ _...... 141 11 •• Z.%- %I:,• 12 -:1Z■.414 s,Z,‘,"" d ^ "QS -- , - —- , ..... — U - - • ,,,„. .....• = 0 0 OD Legend acreage Category .Q.4000:10-1.000300 Mind Idea Caller 111.1 1 00 00 T 0:10 00 Li - Word Liut 17 2400031-3403303 Medan Floadertlor 0 :0i-4.003000 1-141 Doxr...4 Ras,cinfitut 1 1 1M tonal -54303003 ▪50W001-8403300 ▪6.0a)031-7400303 MI 7400031 I=& � -9.acialcia 1111. oa • ammo 111.1a1-44 si Near area of Coyote Rock Legend acreage Caiegory 0.00.1000-1 A00000 UrAt Caller/ 1.003001 2.000002 F'7.77-1 CkTridar 2.011821 3JOCONO Median Density Ramcitiniza: F73400001.44I � H rity Finsidurta:. 11. East side of the City T�0 Lagend 6400000-,=coo —1406061•2400090 ;.600061.5.000000 3600901.4.007000 -A.003901-6.00:000 -1000901.0400000 -649090,•7400000 -7.090061•5.060000 -0.000Qi1.9.000607 -940000,-,:400070 -,0400001•rA5t 0600 Catagary Sized Um C. i___, taxelu Mwd uae Melum,Dewy FadeNai 114,Dnmy Ramd ttel