Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 03-13-14 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, March 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 John Hohman, Community Development Director Christina Carlsen Caty Driskell, City Attorney Bob MeCaslin Scott Kuhta,Planning Manager Steve Neill Marty Palaniuk,Planner Mike Phillips Sean Messner, Sr.Traffic Chris Sneider Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Joe Stay Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the March 13, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed seven to zero. Commissioner Carlsen moved to accept the February 27, 2014 minutes as presented. 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: Continued Public Hearing—Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Chair Stoy opened the commission business stating this is a continued public hearing regarding the City's 2014 Comprehensive PIan amendments. Vice-Chair Carlsen read the rules for the public hearing. Chair Stay stated the Commission would continue to take testimony after an update from staff. Planning Manager Scott Kuhta gave an update on the public hearing. Testimony had been heard for CPA-01, 02 and 03-14 but not for CPA-04 through 10-14. Written comments had been received and distributed right up until this meeting. Mr. Kuhta explained the role of the Planning Commission as a recommending body and volunteers, of staff and of City Council. He discussed the rules of procedure in regard to organization of speaking times. Chair Stay said the Commission had received considerable testimony and comments regarding CPA-03-14 and the issues heard so far were: • Traffic, possible increase in crime, increase in population, impact to schools, impacts to emergency services, noise. The Chair asked people to try and only bring forward new issues regarding this amendment. Chair Stoy said the Commission would be allowing the applicant time at the end of CPA-03- 14 to respond to all comments and questions which had arisen during testimony. Chair Stoy asked for testimony for CPA-O1-14: a City initiated map amendment Iocated near Mirabeau Park. Request to change from Parks and Open Space to Mixed Use Center. None was offered. 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 20 Chair Stoy asked for testimony for CPA-02-14: a privately initiated map amendment located near Trent and Bradley Road. A request to change from Low Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. Mark Shollenberger, 2205 N Bradley: Mr, Shollenberger asked if a traffic study had been done for the SCRAPS project. He said the previous Wednesday three 85-foot semi-trucks came and parked on Bradley Road while forklifts unloaded them for SCRAPS. He said this activity is illegal,he has filed complaints with the police department,but they cannot respond in time. He had a suggestion to eliminate the access from Bradley Road so the traffic cannot come through the neighborhood. There was no one else who wished to testify for CPA-02-14. Chair Stoy asked for testimony for CPA-03-14: a privately initiated map amendment located at the corner of Sprague Avenue and Barker Road. The request is to change from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. Miranda Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway: Ms. Colombo stated she was an opponent. Ms. Colombo read a poem she had written "They say home is where the heart is,I would have to agree. But I think your heart feels so much more than just your home. It also feels your neighborhood. My family's heart started here in this place. Mine is very deep here. In ways the mind does not fully comprehend or understand. Taking it away would rip a hole in the heart, would rip a hole in me. One that won't repair itself. And if this building does go up, my family will surely leave. My heart displaced, longing for the place I belong. The place the building destroyed. So I beg of you, I beg. Leave this Iand, let it be. Save my heart and save me. The audience applauded, Chair Stay asked the audience to hold their applause. Dallas Williams, 18903 E. Sprague Avenue: Mr. Williams said that page 6 of the staff report states: HP-1.6: Encourage the development of housing for seniors and other special populations along transit corridors and within walking distance of shopping and medical facilities. Mr. Williams wanted to know what 80 year old would walk to what medical facility close to the neighborhood. The closest is on the other side of Sullivan or Liberty Lake. He said this was flawed in itself. Several people who signed the sign-in sheet declined to speak, but spoke from the audience stating they were against the proposal but did not want to come to the podium. Sean Barnes, 17710 E Broadway Avenue: Mr. Barnes stated he and his wife were the previous owners of the proposed parcel. The plans for the property are unacceptable to them. He felt there should already be a traffic light at the intersection. Mr. Barnes was concerned how the hay trucks would be able to get up and down the road. The response time for the fire dept, would be impacted with the increase in traffic and population. The crime would increase with low income apartments. Krista Larsen, 18905 E 2n" Avenue: Ms. Larsen stated she wanted to give the School District's perspective on the proposal. She is a high school teacher at the Central Valley High School(CVHS), She said she has taught there for 15 years and is a product of the District as well. She said the City and the School District have prided themselves on their school system, education and public safety. She believed the proposal was going against those aspects. Children in the area have a hard time attending their home schools. Greenacres Middle School is bussing children to other schools and already has portables for extra rooms. She currently is teaching on a cart, not a room and there are four portables currently at CVHS. She said there would be an increase in crime. She had felt it when development near 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 20 her home had opened up a street between 2"d Avenue and Sprague. She feels the proposal does not fit the area. She begs for her children for the Commission to reconsider the proposal. City Attorney Cary Driskell asked Ms. Larsen for clarification, if she was speaking on behalf of the School District. She said no, but from an insider viewpoint. She said she has so many students she does not know their names. Without the proper facilities to educate students it is difficult to provide an education, When you can't get a bond issue passed in order to be able to build and provide the proper tools it makes it more difficult. Then to add a renter population to the neighborhood, who does not have the motive to vote for what is necessary for the community. Ms. Larsen stated she has turned in her letter for the Commission. It was noted she wrote the letter on CVHS letterhead, but the letter is not from the Central Valley High School or the Central Valley School District. There was an outburst of a noise and Chair Stoy reminded the audience about demonstrations and outbursts. Kathryn Cote, 7 S Barker: Ms. Cote said she was opposed to apartments because of traffic and crime. She said she spoke to a traffic engineer who told her when they need to do a traffic revision at the intersection, the City would require a sliver of her property. She said currently it feels like attempting suicide to cross Barker just to get her mail. She would not like to have any of her property taken, for any reason. It used to feel like living in the country and now it was starting to feel like Portland where she moved from. She is totally against apartments. She does not want a roundabout on the corner either. Cathy Scott, 19004 E Nixon: Ms. Scott thanked the Commissioners for their service; she did not know they were volunteers. Ms. Scott said Ms. Barlow had commented previously that the School District had been contacted about the proposal. Ms. Scott said she called the School District and they told her they were unaware of the proposal. She said the School District told her they could quote them as saying "this was a really bad idea." The schools are overflowing already. Greenacres Middle School is bussing kids to other schools. This is not the only development Viking Homes has in the area. There is another which would add approximately 70 homes to the area. Greenacres Elementary is one of the best in the state. Ms. Scott said her area is a snow plow priority 4 in the City. In the last two years they have not seen a snow plow in their area once. Where would everyone in the apartment building park with the extra cars they would have. There would be no place for the children to play. She felt the Commission had a responsibly to the citizens, to the developer and to the City, she understood that. But the children were the most important things and it was the Commission's responsibility to protect the children first. Planning Manager Kuhta asked to respond regarding the School District notice. The School District was notified at the time of the SEPA Checklist distribution. However, staff would research who specifically they needed to contact in regard to these notices to make sure they were more aware of what the notices were and what they meant. Myra McElwain. 16 N Arties Court: Ms. McElwain said she is against this proposal. She said she does not think enough notice was given, she did not become aware until Sean Barnes told her about it. She said she heard it was in the paper but she doesn't get it so she doesn't feel that is enough, She feels there will be no place for the people in the apartments to park. It is an older, retired, fanning neighborhood. She wanted the Commission to consider what would happen if 300 to 400 low income people were added to the area. She asked where the snow would go. She had heard there would be a roundabout put in at the intersection and it would not work there. She did know that low income people needed a place to live, but that 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 20 many in one place, she was opposed to it. She did not want that many people and kids in that small of an area. She would be fine with ten houses. Deb Farnsworth, 18808 E Sprague Avenue: Ms. Farnsworth said she and her husband decided to retire at this address in a rural area with few houses. With development coming across the street, they are considering moving to Idaho. Since they have moved in seven years ago, many homes have been built in the area. She works with single parents who are low income families and the average is three children per household, which is a greater number than people are talking about now. They currently have people using their yard as a turnaround with a circular driveway, but that many people in the apartment complex will have no place to park and will use the streets for overflow. Ms. Farnsworth said she spoke to the property buyer and she said he lied to her when she asked what would be going in. Her understanding is it would be single family homes, not low income housing or apartments. Zita Smith, 16 N Harmony Road: Ms. Smith said it has always been a peaceful quiet neighborhood. It has been a rural community since they moved in. She said the staff report talks about arterial street system and public transit system. She said Barker is a narrow two- lane road with no curbs, sidewalks or cross walks and it is not an arterial meant for heavy traffic. Barker is the only access road to the freeway between Sullivan and Harvard Roads. It is going to create a lot of traffic problems especially at peak times. She mentioned all of the apartments going in at Sullivan, Conklin, on Broadway across from Kohl's, new housing going in at Sts' at Hodges, at Henry Road. Barker is the only way all these people can get to the freeway. She said medical facilities are too far away. There would be no merit or complement for our single family residential area to have a three-story apartment to look at every day. We voted for members of the City Council to represent the people, not the big business or developers. We do not want apartments there. Clyde Smith, 16 N Harmony Road: Mr. Smith said he was appalled by"this" report. (Mr. Smith held up a report which had Whipple Engineering Consultants letterhead on it.) He said he thought the report should have been non-partisan and all for the developer. The report did not address any of the concerns mentioned. He said page 3, item II should have merit and value for the community as a whole,the only thing this will have value for will be the builder and the developer. Mr. Smith made a reference that the proposal was possible because it was next to another parcel which was already high density, and implied the parcel already designated could be developed with apartments because apartments would be on the proposed parcel, ending up with 200 apartments. Mr. Smith said the report referred to parcel number 55173.1018 would become an island of low density, he said of course it would, because that is the type of development which is in the area. He said the island would really be the apartments. The report says the map amendment should not affect the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Smith felt the change most certainly would affect it. Mr. Smith asked if a 7-11 qualified as a shopping center. The audience laughed and Chair Stoy asked for order from the audience. Mr. Smith said he went to the Sherriff's office to ask about the crime which would come with an apartment complex. He said the response given to him was if you build it they will come, it is the nature of the beast. Diana Smith, 810 S. Joel Road: Ms. Smith said she had emailed the Commission and she was against the proposal. She said she knows there are many other places laces which have open vacancies, Barker on the other side of the freeway, Sullivan and 4th Avenue, Conklin and Broadway across from Kohl's, all which always have vacancy signs. She said she agreed with everyone about the traffic. She said it has increased since the opening of Chapman Road from the Morningside development. She mentioned she has friends who live in the development who have commented to her about how much faster it is for them to go up Barker than Sullivan to get to the freeway. She said the School District owns property south 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 20 of Twin Bridges where they have plans for a high school, and Barker Would be the access route for that school; this would just make the traffic for the school worse. George Kovacs, 19122 E Valleyway: Mr. Kovacs said he understood the mobile home park was next to the high density residential parcel, and designated medium density residential. He wondered what would keep someone from coming in and taking the mobile home park out and putting in higher density residential because it is `already there.' Mr. Kovacs wondered if the City was going to pay for the improvements which would be required, commenting that the streets are not plowed now. Mr. Kovacs said Greenacres Elementary is in the top 5% in the state and some of the neighborhood kids can't go there. He said the traffic gets off the freeway at Barker so they can avoid the exit at Liberty Lake. He is concerned the crime will increase and the police will not be able to respond in time. He said he takes his children to school because he will not allow them to walk, it isn't safe for them. He asked the Commission to come out and look at the traffic at peak hours. Dale Poffenroth, 19905 E 8°i Avenue: Mr. Poffenroth said both Pines and Sullivan are five lanes north-south. Barker is two lanes north-south. He wasn't sure it can be changed now without taking peoples' property. He named six developments which have gone in recently and the road has not changed. Sunday morning if you are not going the same direction as the traffic from the church on the corner, you can't get anywhere else. He wanted to know how to make the developer pay for the road changes, and could it be done without neighbors having to give up their yards. He said a comprehensive traffic planning study needed to be done so fire,police and the people who live there now can get into the neighborhood. Deb Johnson, 110 N Harmony Road: Ms. Johnson said she is a special needs bus driver for the Central Valley School District (CVSD). She said she is raising her grandchildren at her address and they attend CVSD schools in the area. She said she was not speaking for the District, but as a driver and a parent raising children. Ms. Johnson said she travels through the intersection at Sprague and Barker in her personal vehicle four times a day and in her school bus eight times a day. She said Barker is a two-lane, unimproved road, incapable of handling any more traffic, not to mention the Barker Bridge. The area is meant for single family homes not apartments. She mentioned the kindergartens of Greenacres and Liberty Lake Elementary schools both bus their kindergarteners to the Barker Center. The Barker High School was moved to Broadway to accommodate them. Overloading at Greenacres Middle School requires that many children are bused to other middle schools because there is no room. She also believes the crime will increase. Jackie Williams, 18903 E Sprague Avenue: Ms. Williams referred to the island property and likened it to Mary's House at Sacred Heart Hospital. Ms. Williams thanked her neighbors for showing their commitment to their community and asked the Commission to reject the proposal and show their commitment to the residents. Chris Harvey, 19205 E Nixon: Mr. Harvey said by listening to everyone, he could only see the developer would be the only one who would benefit. Mr. Harvey said he looked up 52 related studies of the impact of low income multifamily housing on residential surroundings. He shared that approximately 12% of the studies showed little impact, 3% showed positive impact, 85% showed a decreased in property values and an increase in crime. Mr. Harvey stated he was opposed to the proposal. Scott Jutte, 18722 E Sprague Avenue: Mr. Jutte stated when he lived in Snohomish, Washington, a proposed development for low income families was proposed. Two years after it had been built it was in disrepair. Mr. Jutte said he knows this development will lower his property values. He wanted to know why it was fair for Viking homes to profit and 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 20 his property value to decrease. Mr. Jutte asked who would be paying him back his decrease in property value. Some people left the meeting and a very young man yelled as he left, "please don't do this, I don't want to move." Bruce Gunn, 318 N Hodges Road: Mr. Gunn said he appreciated that the Commissioners are volunteers. Mr. Gunn asked the Commission to be accountable and for them to ask the Council to be accountable. He found the fact that the property surrounding the neighborhood to the north and west to be of a higher density and could be developed similar to what is being proposed, to be abhorred. Mr. Gunn said this would not only change the neighborhood but the entire valley. It is wrong to be able to take a 30-foot easement to add more apartments. Mr. Gunn said no one in the room wanted this proposal and that young man leaving the room was begging. Mr. Gunn turned to address the audience and Chair Stoy asked Mr. Gunn to only address the Conunission. Mr. Gunn said if you asked the group of people the same thing it would be a chorus singing no. Jim Johnson, 1315 S Barker Road: Mr. Johnson said he served on a Planning Commission for six years in Arizona. He said one of your jobs is to take the heat for the City Council. The Planning Department also answers to the City Council. Mr. Johnson said for an appeal, there would need to a violation of the process, which he felt the audience should know. Mr. Johnson said after the Planning Commission, he served on a school board. He shared that often the cities and school districts do not talk. He feels this is a big change to the area, and should require more than just a letter in the mail, but to have a meeting with the right person. School capacity is a big issue. He appreciates the work the Commission is doing. Rosemarie Adamson, 18507 E 5th Avenue: Ms. Adamson said when she moved into the area five years ago, there was concern regarding bussing her children because of overcrowding at that time. She said when she went to pick up her children from the elementary school in the past two days, the police had been there asking people to move while parked waiting to pick up a child. There is no place to park while trying to pick up a child from the elementary school. She also said she has a granddaughter who is bussing to the kindergarten center. She agrees with other things voiced regarding the traffic. She feels it would be unfair for her neighbors to have to give up their property in order to have to put in the traffic device at the corner in order to accommodate the project. She is opposed to the proposal. Elizabeth Fisher, 19222 E 6'"Avenue: Ms. Fisher stated she was opposed to the proposal. Travis Pierce, 18611 E Turtle Creek Lane: Mr. Pierce said the traffic is self-evident how bad it is. Mr. Pierce said previously he lived on the other side of the freeway and noted the difference in traffic is drastic. Mr. Pierce said it isn't that the•proposal is going to dump however many more cars into traffic, it is going to dump the cars right into the worst, most congested part of the road. Mr. Pierce said he has spoken to several people who do not think this is a good idea and he believes there are ten people per person who did not bother to show up who feel the same way. Jayme Pesnell, 18613 E 11t" Avenue: Ms. Pesnell said she is opposed to the proposal, mainly because of the schools. Her daughter currently attends Greenacres Middle School. She shared that Mr. McCaslin had been her daughter's kindergarten teacher. She is opposed for the traffic as well. Timothy Lutt, 18816 E 11th Avenue: Mr. Lutt wanted asked two rhetorical questions: How many of the Commissioners Iived near Barker and Sprague and how many had lived in low income housing. He felt if the Commissioners lived near Barker and Sprague,they would not 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 20 be considering this proposal. Mr. Lutt said he has lived in low income housing and it breeds Iow income. There is no incentive to increase skills, no incentive to get a better job, no respect for property, no respect for neighbors. The property will breed a mentality which homeowners do not have. Mr. Lutt said he completely opposes this proposal. He shared that he feels money talks in Spokane Valley. Based on that, he feels the proposal will pass, and his property value will decrease. He would like to know who will pay him for his decreased property value. He said only two entities will benefit from this proposal, it would not be the neighbors, it would be Viking Homes and the Spokane Valley City Council. William Debenna, 19116 E Riverside: Mr. Debenna wanted to comment regarding roundabouts. He feels they are very dangerous. He feels people do not understand how they are supposed to be used and they try and drive through them too fast. He said he had spoken to a friend who builds roundabouts and they need 10-feet of property from homeowners. His feeling is only a traffic light would work there, with sidewalks for the kids, and four lanes. He disputed the description of the roads as main roads instead describing them as `back country roads' which people are still driving on. Mr. Debenna said a traffic device also belongs where Barker turns toward Liberty Lake. He feels it is inappropriate to put apartments on the proposed parcel. To change it for money is a ridiculous reason. Jackie Stalinga, 19025 E Riverside: Ms. Stalinga said she wanted to discuss the children who would be living in the apartment complex. She was concerned over the lack of places to play, green spaces,and parks. If children are idle,they will get into mischief,which will lead to crime. Skylar Belfry, 18807 E 2" Avenue: Mr. Belfiy has lived 24 years at his address, and in the last ten to twelve years the changes in the neighborhood have restricted the ability to be able to roam the neighborhood as freely as before. The children cannot be left alone to play in the front yards any Ionger. Mr. Belfry is a bike rider, it is a hassle to ride your bike on the road without being honked at, yelled at, or pushed off the road. Mr. Belfry is a teacher at CVHS and echoed Ms. Larson's comments regarding the portables and crowding at the high school. Sherman Belfry, 18807 E. 2"d Avenue: Mr. Belfiy said he is the younger brother to the earlier Mr. Belfiy and he had attended Greenacres Middle School. When he was middle school age, he was unable to attend Greenacres middle school and was bussed to Evergreen Middle School. His route would take him from Evergreen Middle School to Adams Elementary to pick up and deliver those kids, then to Greenacres Middle School to pick up, then he would wait for his drop off. He would arrive home approximately one and a half hours after school had gotten out. He has also seen an increase in crime having had property stolen from his home. Lena Fuller, 19116 E Riverside Avenue: Ms. Fuller said when she bought her home she was very proud to be a homeowner, and she can't believe the idea is being entertained to put low income housing in this area. She believes the property values will decrease. Marian Moseman, 630 S Michigan: Ms. Moseman said no one has addressed the construction company. Ms. Moseman stated she purchased a Viking home eight years ago and is currently in discussions with the City because of issues in and around her and her neighbors' homes. She stated the sidewalks are deteriorating, the houses are sinking, the yards are having compaction issues. Her concern is allowing the same company to construct 100 low income apartments. She said the company will not back their guarantees. When she has requested that Viking come and fix a problem,they waited until after the warranty period passed and then responded by saying they can no longer help. Ms Moseman said she had contacted the City about the planning, the construction, the inspections and sign-offs. She said the City told her after sign-offs no one is responsible. Ms. Moseman said the neighbors 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 20 have an investment in their property. She said she moved to the area for her and for her nine great-grandchildren, and she is concerned they will not be able to attend the neighborhood schools. She said there has not been snow plowed in the area in two years. The year the City received 36 inches of snow, there was a two fire trucks and an ambulance stuck in the streets for five and a half hours. When the fire department needed more fire trucks, she wondered why, if a truck could sit in the street for that long. Police had a stand-off up the street for eight hours, it turned out to be drugs, they towed all the cars away and excused the woman off because they could not be taken to court. These are the kinds of things we would be facing. The City does not have enough money to enforce what you are responsible for now, how will you pay for more. She feels it will be pushed off onto the taxpayers and they pay for more than their share now for what they receive in return. She said she is opposed and hopes the Commission will listen to the people and give them what they want. There was an outburst of applause and Chair Stoy asked for order. Stephanie Colombo, 18912 E Valleyway Avenue: Ms. Colombo stated she was a low income homeowner, and does not have anything against low income people. When she was "there" one day, she asked "how do you make it," She said the response from the person at the Welfare Department was "if you had another kid that would help you." Ms. Colombo stated she felt if Welfare was telling her to do it,then they would be telling other people to do it to receive housing benefits to live there. So she believes the schools are just going to be more crowded. Paul Bonner, 19224 E 2"d Avenue: Mr. Bonner said he went to enroll his daughter in school a couple of months ago. He was told his daughter will be bused to another school. He said there is no place for the kids in the schools, there is no infrastructure; it isn't time yet. Donna Leestma, 710 S Beige Lane: Ms. Leestma said the new apartments on Conklin are barely finished and she doubts they are full. Near Flora along the river, the apartments there are not completed yet and are not full. There are many in the area which are being built or have space. She said there are adequate homes for people to live in at this time. She feels the schools are too full. Barker is not wide enough. The neighborhood was told Barker would be widened when the sewer went in and it wasn't, there wasn't enough money. There is no place for the kids to ride. There used to be a path the kids could ride on which went to Liberty Lake, now it has signs which say keep off. There is no more room for growth at this time. Until schools can handle more and the roads are improved,how can you put more people into our little tiny area. Sean Kim, 18321 E 9th Avenue: Mr. Kim said he was opposed to the proposal. Mr. Kim said he moved into their home five months ago, and they live close enough for their kids to walk to school, but they have to be bused to another school. The traffic is hon'ible. Sundays if the church is getting out,you cannot enter Barker. This proposal is not fulfilling the needs of the community. There are plenty of apartments in the area with vacancies. This is not fulfilling the needs of the community; it is only fulfilling the greed of the developer. The Commission took a break at 7:41 p.m., and returned at 7:51 p.m. Todd Whipple, Whipple Consulting Engineers: Mr. Whipple handed out a memo for the Commission. Mr. Whipple said he would like to address the low income innuendo about the apartments. He said these are not low income apartments, they are market rate apartments. He said in the application there was mention about young families, so if all young families are low income he apologized for the innuendo on his company's behalf. These were never proposed to be low income apartments, but market rate apartments, $800 to $1200 per month. 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 20 Mr. Whipple just wanted to make sure it was understood, if we get to the project stage, since this is just a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Whipple said he would like to address the roundabout. He said the roundabout is not of his company's proposal. It is a City design idea. Since the mid-1990's there have been Morningside, Turtle Creek, Turtle Creek South, and Twin Bridges; all of the projects which have been built in the area have continued to analyze the intersections. He understands living in the area that the traffic is a horrible thing, he is aware the City counted it recently. The level of service is between C and D, which is not considered failing by City standards. He understands the perception,and how it has changed. Chair Stoy interrupted Mr. Whipple to ask a gentleman in the audience to sit down. The gentleman wanted to dispute something Mr. Whipple said and Chair Stoy called for order and asked the man to stop speaking, explained that the man could not speak from the audience nor argue with Mr. Whipple. Something someone from the audience said was unclear. Mr. Whipple responded to something the gentleman said "if that's in the staff report, then that's a typo and should never have been." Then the audience erupted with disagreement and the Chair called for order, more than once. Mr. Whipple said they looked at their application, the Commission can look in the City's files, and there is nothing in the applicant's specific application which denotes low income. If it made it into the staff report, he does not know how that happened but it was not part of the application. He wanted to make sure this was clear to the Commission. The audience outburst again, and Vice-Chair Carlsen warned anyone speaking from the floor again would be removed Mr. Whipple said the property to the north, which he felt Ms. Barlow had cleared up at the February 27, 2014 meeting, is not owned by Viking. He said Ms. Barlow has spoken to that property owner. The property is zoned MF-2 and the manufactured home park is zoned MF- 1, and these were requests made by that property owner, and done when the manufactured home park was created and it is something which is there on purpose. It is one of the deciding factors as it relates to this proposal as to the continuation of the MF-2 for your deliberations. It was not done on a whim, it was done purposefully. If people happen to live next to it and they are not aware of the zoning, he said he does feel for them but it is there. Just because what you see currently is not what the property is zoned, it is what it is. Mr. Whipple said the concept of Growth Management sometimes falls by the wayside. The Comp Plan the City of Spokane Valley has is an extension of the Growth Management Act as required by the State of Washington under which the City opted into. Annually the City is allowed to do updates such as this. There are a series of standards included in the Comp Plan which an applicant must meet in order to apply for an update. Growth Management is an extension of the built environment within a confined boundary. Mr. Whipple said when he has done public meetings, and he has done many, he has tried to inform people that Growth Management is, in his opinion, the vertical integration of the built environment over time because of the limits of the boundary. The City has to figure out how many people are going to live here, and they have to fit within the boundary. Mr. Whipple said the land analysis Ms. Barlow did for the Commission regarding the land available for multifamily housing was one of the best done by a public servant, short of a normal in-depth GMA (Growth Management Act) land quantity analysis. Mr. Whipple said his company is routinely doing a land quantity analysis trying to figure out how many properties are available, available for sale, and can any be combined. In order to bring a proposal forward there are a series of checks they must 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 20 have before it can come before the Commission; it must be adjacent to either commercial or high density residential, has to be on an arterial road, it has to be close to services generally. It does not have to be next door to a hospital, but close to an urban service. He understands the characterization of the area is rural but it is inside the Urban Growth Boundary or Area (UGA) but it is right up against the City of Liberty Lake's border. If you look at Liberty Lake's zoning, they have Mixed Use zoning right up to the border, which is higher density allowances, along with commercial. This portion of Greenacres is going to be in flux for quite a while while it catches up with Growth Management. Regardless of the decision of the Commission or the City Council there is going to be continued pressure to allow for the increase of residents who want to live in the City of Spokane Valley. Those people have the right to have the option other than being able to afford to live in a single family house to live in a decent neighborhood. He said this is why we bring these things forward. Mr. Whipple said there is a term called environmental justice: : "not here, put it someplace else, because that is really where it belongs." He said it isn't fair to the people who would live in an apartment house, or would live in a different kind of housing community (cottage houses, small lots, big lots). Mr. Whipple did not even feel large lots would be allowed at one acre or one and a half acres in the City any longer. He said he had Mr. Kuhta put up a zoning map to remind everyone of what the zoning is currently on the surrounding properties, before his request. He said Barker is a minor arterial, based on City standards, Sprague is a collector. (there was some grumbling in the background) Mr. Whipple said the Commission and the neighbors need to understand that even if they see cows or manufactured housing, the zoning is what is underlying and the property owner could come in tomorrow and get a building permit to build without a public meeting and build within twenty feet of the property line. He just wanted to remind the Planning Commission, and he knows they have heard a lot;, there have been a lot of emotions, he does not blame them, he does understand it, but the fact is the zoning is already in the area and that won't change. He said it would affect the people across the street, but he does not have a project today. He said this Comp Plan change meets all the criteria of the rules of the City and with Growth Management. Mr. Whipple said of all the projects he has done, the only other project he has done in Spokane which has had this many people come talk against it was when he sited U-Hi. (and a voice from the audience said, sand does it make sense) He said he sited University High School at Pines and 32nd and we filled a gymnasium. (The man in the background kept speaking and Chair Stoy asked the man to be quiet) Mr. Whipple, said he understood how that could be a big deal. He had met with Ben Small about the property the School District owns on Henry Road. He said Henry Road is intended to be the access road to the new CV site. He said he met with Mr. Small because of the Twin Bridges site next door, because it is an opportunity for the district to loop their water system and to be able to hook up to sewer without a pump station. So he does know a little bit about that property. He said he asked Mr. Small, when are you going to build the school, and his response was if we get a bond; if we don't get a bond, then we can't build it. So that is the issue with schools and school crowding, Mr. Whipple said he would like to respond to the traffic issue. He said he knows the City went out and counted the traffic. He said lie has seen traffic studies which have been done for additional Morningside projects. Barker is currently functioning at an acceptable level of service. It isn't great, especially if you have lived here a long time, but it is an acceptable level of service. Mr. Whipple said if the Commission read the last memo he had turned in, it would have been noted that if the property were to be developed, in any form, access would 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 20 be either north of Barker or east of Barker. He said people would enter and exit above the Barker intersection or east of the intersection but not at the intersection. (there was a comment from the audience `then how would they get to the freeway') Commissioner McCaslin asked people not to interrupt Mr. Whipple and someone from the audience said they would leave. Mr. McCaslin said he was not asking anyone to leave. He said however, Mr. Whipple never interrupted anyone one else while they were speaking, he is simply asking the audience to give Mr. Whipple a chance to finish. However, during Mr. McCaslin's attempt to make this request many people argued with him as well and disrupted the room. Mr. McCaslin asked the audience to please allow Mr. Whipple the chance to finish. There was a muted complaint from someone in the audience about three minutes, and Mr. McCaslin tried to explain. Chair Stoy said Mr. Whipple is the applicant and he has burden of proof Someone from the audience said "he is bringing these things up and we have no response to that"and complained that Mr. Whipple called theme Greenacres. There were many people speaking from the audience arguing with the Chair. Chair Stay used his gavel and again and said please calm down, and Vice-Chair Carlsen said there will be no more demonstrations from the floor. Chair Stoy asked for calm, Vice-Chair Carlsen said "we will ask you to leave now sir." A man in the audience said 'fine, I am out of here, "and he yelled from the floor that the dark part is owned by the planning commissioner right here, he was on the planning commission." Mr. Kuhta also asked people to please calm down. City Attorney Driskell said, "We are trying to have a respectful hearing where everyone has an equal opportunity to talk, we have respect for the opinion of each other, and we would appreciate the opportunity to do that." Someone from the floor wanted to know if they could ask a question and City Attorney Driskell deferred to Chair Stoy. Chair Stoy responded that someone else was test ding at this time. A voice from the hallway yelled "eight units is not 100 units, 12 units is not 100 units, you can go a long ways." Chair Stoy asked the man to stop, Vice-Chair Carlsen said he was not furthering his cause by being combative towards the Commission. The man yelled "ya know what, these people need to know these things, he needs to know these things. As far as I am concerned this man is worse than a lawyer, and I am sorry about lawyers if any of you are, but you have to compromise your morals to do what this man is doing right now. " Mr. Kuhta told the man that was enough. A different voice asked again if they could ask a question, again they were told they could not ask a question at this time. Chair Stoy apologized to Mr. Whipple and invited him to continue. Mr. Whipple said he did not fault the man for being upset, Mr. Whipple said he is pretty sure that there is no one who has testified, and he has written down 65 so far, who had any idea they were adjacent next to MF-1 or MF-2 zoning. He said most people buy a house, look at the surrounding neighborhoods and think it will stay the same or if it changes it will be a similar type of development. He said he understands that. He said there are people here tonight who live in the Tuttle Creek subdivision. If the people across the street on 8th Avenue would have had anything to do with it, there wouldn't have been a Turtle Creek subdivision. Apparently it is an ok place to live now, but now those same people think there is a traffic problem on Barker. He said his office did a traffic study for Turtle Creek. Mr. Whipple said there were comments on crime. He does not have any crime statistics, and said the Sherriff did not comment. He said this is not a low income project. He said there have been comments about it being rural, but it is really not rural, it in low density residential. It is within the City's urban growth boundary. In low density residential 03-14-14 PIanning Commission Minutes Page 11 UM it is allowed to build up to six units per acres, MF-1 up to 12 and MF-2 up to 22 units per acre. He said he is sure the Commission has seen at another time, the School District's standard response which is they have capacity, it may not be at the neighborhood school but it has capacity in the district, but they did not respond to this proposal. Mr. Whipple said he spoke at the end of the Iast meeting about the trip generation letter to try and clear up any misunderstanding about the numbers it contained. He said when they created the trip generation letter it was written with the assumption that fifteen units would be built on the property. The greatest increase in traffic would be if there were a higher second number and a lower first number, that way the increase would be 85 units, which would generate the most trips, so the trip generation letter is conservative. Mr. Whipple said he wanted to make sure again, that although it might have been in the staff report, low income was not on their application. What was in the application was younger families starting out or elderly on a fixed income. Mr. Whipple said he felt staff did a good job. We have tried to make a good case for this to be HDR (High Density Residential). With the lack of available HDR and the lack of availability for additional apartment units,Mr. Whipple felt this proposal should be approved. Yes there are apartments out there, but they don't build them if there isn't a need. A woman from the audience said she had a question. Dallas Williams: Mr. Williams asked if Mr.Mark Krigbaum was in attendance this evening. Mr. Williams read from the minutes of the February 27, 2014 meeting: "The City's Comp Plan only has 4% of the City designated for high density residential use (your words). 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." Mr. Williams then turned toward Mr. Whipple and said `that is your employee that is low income; you stated it, fact of merit.' Vice-Chair Carlsen told Mr. Williams he cannot address Mr. Whipple and he must speak to the Commission. Mr. Williams continued to state that seniors would not be able to pay $800 to $1200 per month to live in a unit. Mr. Williams said this is and has been a low income plan, from day one which his employee right here stated in the minutes from the last meeting. Scott Jutte: Mr. Jutte argued the people should have known they were adjacent to high density. Mr. Jutte wanted to know if Mr. Whipple could point out where the high density was next to his property. (from the audience Mr. Whipple was heard to say that he qualified that as people who live on Harmony and Valleyway.) Another person from the audience wanted to know if they could ask a question. They were told they must come to the microphone. Deb Johnson: She said Mr. Whipple has said the entrance to the `project' would be to the east of Barker Road. She said this would go right through her neighborhood, right past her house. She said the traffic in the neighborhood is already scary. She thought there would be an entrance off Nixon. She said this would not be ok. Commissioner Carlsen said the property to the north which the end of Nixon is adjacent to is not the property which is being discussed. Ms. Johnson argued it was. Commissioner Carlsen stated she would not argue with Ms. Johnson but it was not the subject of the meeting tonight. Mr. Whipple stepped to the podium and said, the parcel Ms. Johnson is talking about is the property which the existing zoning is HDR and which allowed Mr. Whipple's proposal to come forward. Mr. Whipple said he would like to clarify his earlier statement the access 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 20 from this proposal would be east of Barker onto Sprague Avenue or north of the intersection at Sprague and Barker onto Barker. He apologized for that confusion. George Kovacs: Mr.Kovacs said does it matter what we put there if we don't want it. Does it matter if it is low density, high density, one million apartments, does it matter what it is if we the people who live around there don't want this, then does it matter what we put there. We don't want it, that is the end of it, and that is what the City Council is for. They work for us, this is what we want. Does it matter what we put there, no. So give us another alternative. No one wants this but the money maker. Deb Farnsworth: Ms. Farnsworth stated that Mr. Whipple said that people who can't afford to live in their own homes should have the option to live in apartments. Do we not have enough options in Spokane Valley as it is. Seriously, do we not have options. I don't think anybody here would say would say, yea, we need some more. So, Mr. Whipple you are wrong. People from the audience (hallway) said something about property levels going down, and Chair Stoy asked Mr. Palaniuk to close the door to the hallway. Vice-Chair Carlsen said the Commission has heard considerable testimony on this subject and unless someone has something new to add;and Chair Stoy added the Connunnissionr has other business to conduct. Kathryn Scott, 19004 E Nixon: Ms. Scott said she was going to ask a question and she was told she could not ask. She said she was a little upset. She said Mr. Whipple said the proposal was near services. She wondered what services in the area. She said there are two gas stations and a post office. What services are there to offer to a low income apartment building. She said it is rural,which is why they don't have services. She said Greenaeres is a money maker for Spokane Valley, no one puts any money into the area, they just take it away. Ms. Scott attempted to step behind the dais in order to try and point to the map on the screen. Ms. Horton explained no one is allowed behind the dais and that she needs to speak into the microphone for the record, and Mr. Palaniuk assisted her with a pointer. She said the parcel in discussion is 55173.1005. She said she tried to count parcels and determine where homes where in order to figure out where the access points to the property would be. Vice-Chair Carlsen explained this discussion was for zoning only; there was no project before the Commission so they would be unable to tell her where exactly the access points would be. Ms. Scott wondered if these were not things they needed to think about. Ms. Carlsen said, they are things to think about, but when they closed the public hearing, the public would then hear what the Commission had to say. Ms. Scott said she did not know the process, so it was good to know the Commission had an opinion. Chair Stoy explained the Commission takes an application and make sure it meets the criteria for land use issues only, which benefits are there like zoning in the area, otherwise they would not be able to do it. In this case we do have that. Ms. Scott said that Mr. Whipple already addressed that and we already do have that, but that doesn't mean we need more. Ms. Carlsen said that is why we are here for you, we make a recommendation to Council whether or not we think that should change. This is part of the process. Chair Stay added that but all we do is make a recommendation, City Council makes the change. Ms. Scott said she understood that part of it. Ms. Scott said Mr. Whipple commented North Pines was available but what about the elementary and high school kids, where would they be bussed. They wouldn't be able to go to North Pines. You can't put little kids in with that group, it has to be balanced. 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 20 Mr. Kuhta interrupted and suggested the Commission discuss if they feel they have heard enough on both sides of this issue or if they feel they need more. Chair Stoy said he felt they had heard enough,everyone was repeating the same things—schools,traffic, services. A man stepped up and said he had something different. Chair Stay said he would be the last speaker on CPA-03-14. Clyde Smith: Mr. Smith said Mr. Whipple blew off the crime statistics. Mr. Smith said he looked up the crimes at different apartment buildings before he left to attend this meeting and there are more crimes where there are more people. Another woman font the audience requested to speak, saying she had not.spoken before and has something new to offer. Chair Stoy asked her if she had something new to add and she responded yes, she felt so. The chair assented and allowed the testimony. Lena Holcomb, 18920 E Nixon: Ms. Holcomb said she is concerned about traffic in her neighborhood. She said she wondered who would be benefitting from the project. Her opinion is the public is not benefitting, the City, Viking construction are. She offered that Whipple was creating a monopoly in the area and someone should look into it. She wanted to know how Whipple had a say over the area just because he had a big construction company, and she said monopolies are not good. She wanted to know why a demographic study wasn't done. She said she had contacted Ms. Barlow and had been told it wasn't necessary. Ms. Holcomb said if the Commission wanted to be thorough this should have been done. She also said she did not receive a notice about the hearing. She said she has also heard other people closest to the property did not get a notice, so she feels things have not been followed to the letter. Vice-Chair Carlsen tried to make Ms. Holcomb understand which parcel was the subject of the discussion. She said she understood that, but that she did not feel making the road go through at Nixon was safe. Ms. Carlsen explained again, it was not the same property, not the same land owner. Ms. Holcomb thanked her for clearing that up, but the entrances were just mentioned and said you need to know the entrances Mr. Whipple is planning in order to make a full evaluation. Ms. Carlsen reminded everyone again, there is no proposed project. The Commission is discussing land use at this time, not a proposed building. Ms. Holcomb wanted to argue that the Commission needed to examine a project to make a decision. Chair Stoy asked for a consensus if the rest of the Commissioners felt they have heard enough testimony on CPA-03-14. Commissioner Anderson had stepped out of the room at 8:15 to attend to a medical problem. There was consensus from the Commissioners to move forward and stop testimony on this amendment. Chair Stoy asked for testimony on the remaining text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; CPA-04 to 10-14. Seeing no one who wished to testify on these amendments, Chair Stoy closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Vice-Chair Carlsen stated that before the audience leaves this would be the time they would be able to hear what the Commissioners have to say about the amendments. Mr. Kuhta also reminded everyone the public testimony is closed at this time; that there would be no questions from the audience although the Commission is allowed to ask staff clarifying questions but that is all. Chair Stoy began with CPA-01-14. Vice-Chair Carlsen moved to forward CPA-01-14 to the City Council. Commissioner Carlsen stated for those who might not be aware, this is a parcel located near Mirabeau Park. Commissioner Carlsen read a statement which said, although she agreed mixed use developments were a positive form of development for the City. In this location she did not agree with the zoning change from Parks and Open Space to 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 of 20 Mixed Use Center. The land use designation on this parcel is opening it up to development directly next to the Centennial Trail. The site has been identified in the City's priority habitat map as urban natural open space and the Comprehensive Plan states urban landscaping, parks and open space supplement natural areas in providing habitats for a wide variety of wildlife. The eastern half of the parcel lies within the Shoreline Master Plan jurisdiction and is designated as pastoral. Ms. Carlsen said according to City documents this site has significant benefit to the environment in its current state as open space. She said the site next to the Centennial Trail and future sidewalk development will present challenges for development because of setback and access. According to the City's analysis the sidewalk will likely require a border easement. In its current configuration the property is approximately 1.1 acres. She felt the required buffers would leave a developable area of 32,000 square feet. Buffer and screening would be necessary due to its proximity to the Trail. This would negatively impact the Trail users' visual enjoyment of the Trail. Land is available for development to the east. State Parks commented they would prefer to have this parcel remain as open space. Zoning would currently allow for a building 60 feet in height to be built on the site. She does not feel this meets the requirement of bearing a substantial relationship to the public health,safety,welfare and environment and she intends to vote no on the proposal. Mr. Kuhta asked to clarify the motion which Commissioner Carlsen had made. Commissioner Carlsen clarified the motion to say approve CPA-01-14 to City Council, which was again clarified to say, recommend approval to the City Council. It was discussed that the maker of a motion should not argue against their own motion. At 8.36 p.m. Planning Manager Kuhta also informed the Commission that Commissioner Anderson had a medical emergency which required him to leave the building. Commissioner Carlsen moved to excuse Commissioner Anderson, this motion was passed unanimous. Commissioner Neill said he agreed with all of the comments given by Commissioner Carlsen regarding this amendment. Commissioner Sneider wanted to know if City Parks had commented on CPA-01-14. Planner Marty Palaniuk said no comments were received from City Parks, but from State Parks, requesting it remain as it is currently zoned. Commissioner Sneider asked if the Friends of the Centennial Trial had commented, Mr. Palaniuk replied they had not. Mr. Palaniuk said the City is required by state Iaw to provide notice regarding Comprehensive Plan amendments. The City does it in three different ways; it is published in the City's paper of record the Valley News Herald, a notice was posted at the Valley Library, in the City Hall reception area and at the Permit Center Reception area and that notices are mailed to addresses within a 400-foot radius of the property boundaries. The City requires the applicant to submit a list from a title company which shows all parcels within the 400- foot boundary to which notices are to be mailed. Mr. Palaniuk said the City is very meticulous about these requirements. Mr. Palaniuk continued saying all required parties regarding CPA-01-14 were notified. He did not know if the Friends of the Trail were notified, staff did not receive any comments from them. Commissioner Stoy clarified that the notices in the 400-foot radius are mailed to the property owner. If a person was renting property, the notice would go to either the property owner or to the tax payer. Mr. Palaniuk said if the owner and tax payer are separate, both parties are notified. Commissioner Stoy commented he was agreeing with Commissioners Neill and Carlsen on this amendment. He likes to use the Trail, he uses the parking lot located next to this parcel and he does not feel he can support the change. Commissioner Stoy asked for a vote of all in favor of recommending approval by a show of hands, one in favor (Phillips), and five against (Sneider, Neill, Stoy, Carlsen, McCaslin), so the motion failed. 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 of 20 Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend denying approval of CPA-01-14 to the City Council. By a show of hands, the vote on the motion was five in favor(Sneider, Neill, Stay, Carlsen,McCaslin), one against(Phillips), motion passed. Chair Stoy stated the CPA-02-14 was the amendment to change the property owned by SCRAPS from Iow density to commercial mixed use. Vice-Chair Carlsen moved to recommend denial of CPA-02-14 to the City Council. Commissioner Carlsen read her statement saying she felt the change was an unnecessary encroachment of high density development into an existing single family neighborhood. While there is a strip of Corridor Mixed Use to the south, and Light Industrial to the west, the character of the neighborhood is still low density single family residences. The vacant property serves as an appropriate buffer to the single family houses. The change would allow a large commercial building to be built and she did not feel it was appropriate. Commissioner Neil said he understood the home owners' view who are opposed to the change. He felt their properties were already so impacted with the brick makers, the train tracks, Trent Avenue. and the airport, he did not feel the dogs walking on this property would not make much of a difference. Commissioner Neill said with so many homeless animals, they deserved every opportunity to be able to be adopted. The facility needed to be somewhere, and the animals deserved a chance. He felt worse uses could be there. Commissioner Carlsen argued that right now walking dogs and a meet and greet is great, but if the property is changed to Corridor Mixed Use it could mean large buildings and commercial development later. Just because they say it will be a dog park, does not mean they can't sell it and have a building built next year. She said the land use is the issue, a dog park is great, but the change will open it up to a lot more development. Commissioner Phillips stated he agreed with Commissioner Carlsen. He commented when SCRAPS came in and wanted to put the animal shelter in that location, they should have addressed the property at that time instead of waiting to come in and change it. He also believes the home owners deserve a buffer. There is no guarantee SCRAPS will not get into a financial straight and sell it to some other commercial venture. He did not feel the commercial needed to go that far to the north. Commissioner Stoy said he agreed with Commissioner Neill, the property was part of the original purchase by SCRAPS. They testified at the February 27 meeting they were in a hurry to get the building opened up. This is just an oversight that the property wasn't zoned appropriately. There is a required minimum six-foot foot high sight obscuring fence and a minimum of a five-foot very heavily landscaped buffer into the property already. There are 20-foot setbacks which are required. A large commercial building can't happen there, there is not enough property to do it. He agrees the homeless animals need the opportunity to be adopted, and he will support this proposal. Chair Stay asked for show of hands of those recommending denial and three (Carlsen, Phillips, Sneider) were against and three (Stoy, Neill, McCaslin) were for, resulting in a tie, therefore the motion failed. Commissioner McCaslin suggested waiting on this vote for Commissioner Anderson. After conferring with City Attorney Driskell, Mr. Kuhta discussed the options with the Commission. The options would be making another motion hoping more discussion might persuade someone or the amendment would move forward as a tie, with no recommendation. After the Commission conferred,the consensus was to forward CPA-02-14 to the City Council with no recommendation. Commissioner Carlsen moved to extend the meeting to 9:30 pin. Commissioner Carlsen said she felt the Commission needed more time to get their business finished. This motion was passed unanimously. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend denial of CPA-03-14 to the City Council. Commissioner McCaslin said he felt there were seven issues, the first being property rights 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 20 and home values. Another is public officials,whether appointed or elected_are accountable to the public,they need to listen to the public's concerns. There is the good possibility of crime increasing. He has lived in both and seen it happen first hand. There will be traffic issues, whether we want them or not. The fact that it is currently zoned for single family, it is incumbent on the developer to be sure you can change the zoning if you invest there. Mr. McCaslin said he does work near the proposal, and he does not speak for the CVSD, he wanted it to be clear, but the schools are overcrowded. They would not be able to handle that many kids. Commissioner McCaslin stated he was for denial. Commissioner Carisen said she appreciated the community involvement in the process. She thanked the public for attending. She has heard the concerns. She appreciates those who have conducted themselves in a polite manner. She stated it helps the Commissioners to help the public if they come in respecting the Commissioners' positions. The concerns she has heard have included traffic, noise, increase in crime, the impact of overcrowding on public schools, decrease in property values, increase in emergency response times, and lack of public services. Her first major concern with the proposal is that the potential approval of this requested change would strand parcel 556173.1018 the `island' property. She is concerned it would leave this lone piece of land low density in this area. This individual landowner has participated in our public hearings as well by sending a letter and he is very much opposed to this change. According to staff, this would be an undesirable zoning situation and would require a change to this parcel as well. She believes this is an unfair result to this particular homeowner,to require a change in their current zoning to fit the needs of someone who is not a resident of the neighborhood and looking to their economic gain and not the living conditions of the current residents. According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, she continued, the demand for single family housing is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Also, the City expects that development will occur as infill development of vacant or underdeveloped Iots throughout existing neighborhoods and subdivisions. She claimed that is what this is. Changing zoning of these vacant and underdeveloped lots within established neighborhoods to a land use of multifamily directly opposes the City's own plan to use these areas for development of additional low density residential. With a current allowable density of six dwellings per acre, this is an opportunity for 30 units on this particular parcel. In the City's land use goal LUG 1 and Policy 1.1 the City states that existing lots sizes and community character will be strongly considered when developing the City zoning. In this case the existing lot sizes and community character are not high density or even low density R-4. The development of the parcel to its current potential is already higher density than some of the surrounding areas. An apartment complex of any size would not fit the character of this community. The City also has a policy for minimizing land needed for multifamily zoning, to accommodate the City's population growth projections, by allowing for a reduction in overall lots sizes to enable the City to maintain its existing single family character. The City also states it will adopt strict criteria to evaluate zone changes to ensure future development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. She went on to say our own Comprehensive Plan states that we will try to ensure that future development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Our City land use policy LUP 1.7 directs us to changes within the low density residential category only when specific criteria are met. In her opinion, this request does not meet the criteria. Additionally, on HDR designations, according to our Comprehensive Plan consideration should be taken for them to be located in areas near high density development and in close proximity to businesses and commercial centers. She does not feel that this is the case with this location. The Planning Commission has received testimony from many concerned citizens at the February 27 meeting as well as this evening, countless letters and two petitions opposing the zoning change. This indicates this close knit neighborhood would like to retain their current low density environment. She 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 20 • wanted to acknowledge the concerns the public has addressed, and say she shared the concerns. Overcrowding of the schools is a very real concern. Site is also concerned with the impact on property values on single family residences. With these concerns in mind, she asked the other Commissioners to also vote to recommend denial on the amendment. Commissioner Neill stated the public outcry against the amendment has been extremely well organized and successful. He said the public had done a great job in engaging the Commission in their jobs, also thanking them for participating in the process. Commissioner Neill wanted to address the `view'. He used an analogy of his own backyard and no longer being able to plant roses and a garden because the maple trees from his neighbor's yard shades his too much now. He can't cut down the neighbor's trees. He said the neighbors have a right to their property values. Mr. Neill stated he went to the neighborhood on a Saturday afternoon,the traffic was very busy. Adding a 100 unit apartment complex it would be even busier. He said he felt if the City had the money to build the infrastructure to support the proposal it would help,however they do not. The City does not have the money to get the Sullivan Bridge done. If they cannot afford that project,they can't afford the traffic project at Barker and Sprague. He said the neighbors have a right to be able to get to their homes. It can't be done when traffic is backed up to the freeway. Mr. Neill said he was firmly against the proposal. Commissioner Sneider said the proposal is not adjacent to any public transit lines, it might be near them, and it is not next to commercial areas either. The proposal hinges on if there is high density zoning on the property just to the north. He looked at the zoning in the area,and it looks out of place. So much emphasis has been placed on it being adjacent to high density zoning, but it just doesn't seem right that there is low density residential zoning to the south and to the east. Based on the other items mentioned by Commissioners Carisen and Neill,he is against this proposal. Commissioner Phillips said this proposal caused him some trouble. He felt it was probably a good place for high density. However, Greenacres itself is fairly rural and based on that he has a hard time supporting it to be a high density piece of property. He understands the neighborhood and he has listened to the many neighbors who get upset about change. However change is inevitable. In this case you can't help what is happening on Barker, you can't help they opened up Chapman Road. He is going to support denial because of the efforts of the community more than anything else. He said according to the text books, it is probably the logical place to put apartments; it is on a couple of arterials. In this case, at this time, he does not feel it is appropriate, Commissioner Stoy said the Commission has read all of the correspondence they have received; we have listened to the testimony. We understand the Iot to the north, which was rezoned high density in 1996, allows this proposal to be brought forward. Commissioner Stay said he does not feel this is the right spot for an apartment complex either. He is against this proposal. He said he thought the neighbors did a great job organizing and bringing the concerns forward. This is what the Commission is here for, to listen to what the people have to say be it proponent or opponent. Chair Stoy said the motion is to recommend denial of CPA-03-14 to the City Council. By a show of hands the vote is six in favor, zero against. Motion passed, the recommendation is to deny CPA-03-14. Chair Stoy asked the audience to keep order. Commissioner McCaslin wanted to remind the public to attend the City Council meetings. Planning Manager Kuhta informed the audience 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 of 20 that notices do not go out regarding Council meetings; and said the public hearing is before the Planning Commission. They will accept comment on the reading of the ordinances. He suggested staying in touch with Ms. Barlow, himself or checking the City's website (www.spokanevalley.org)for the posting of the Council agendas. He said it would likely be mid-April before these items are on the Council agenda. He said there would be no more questions this evening; the Commission had more business to attend to. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-04-14 to the City Council. Commissioner Sneider wanted to ask a question about LUG-3. Encourage the development of underutilized residential areas to improve connectivity. He wondered if there were unintended consequences in this goal. He said we are looking for creative ways to infill but we want to make sure we infill in ways that meet the character of the neighborhood. He wanted to make sure someone cannot come in and change the character of the neighborhood. Would there be any consequences from this. Commissioner Stoy said this would be addressed at the project stage. Mr. Sneider said he understood that, but he said people can interpret things differently. It might say we want mixed housing types, apartments, houses. Mr. Kuhta said the way this would work out, is if the proposal moved forward, Staff would come back with regulations which would implement the goals and policies. As staff had shown before, the most likely result would be a deviation in the width of the road. We encourage public roads to be built, they might be a little bit narrower but still be a public road. In exchange we might offer a little bit more density. Staff is only talking about single family development; there is no talk about allowing this in multifamily development. It would allow the developer a little more flexibility to be able to use the land a little more efficiently. He told the Commissioners they still needed to be ok with the policy, and that it would be implemented in a fashion similar to what staff has described. It would still be up to the property owner to make the decision. It just allows another option for development. Commissioner Carlsen said she felt the policy itself was a good idea. The regulations will come later on and the character of the neighborhood can be addressed at that time. In general she felt the goal was a good one. The vote to recommend approval was six in favor,to zero against, motion passed. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-05-14 to the City Council. Commissioner Stoy said this was an annual update to the transportation chapter of the Comp Plan. The vote on this motion was six in favor,zero against, motion passed. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-06-14 to the City Council. Chair Stoy explained this was an annual update to the capital facilities chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The vote on the motion was six in favor,zero against,motion passed. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-07-14 to the City Council. Chair Stoy explained this is an annual update to the utilities chapter of the Comp Plan. The vote on the motion was six in favor,zero against, motion passed. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-08-14 to the City Council. Chair Stoy said this is an annual update to the economic development chapter of the Comp Plan. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, motion passed. CPA-09-14 was withdrawn by the City. Commissioner Carlsen moved to recommend approval of CPA-10-14 to the City Council. Chair Stay said this is an update to the maps which are associated with the bikeway network system which was developed last year. The vote on the motion was six in favor,zero against, motion passed. 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 of 20 GOOD OF THE ORDER: Chair Stoy said that this evening had been an interesting public hearing. The comments for and against the amendments this evening had been well thought out and well taken. He felt this was a good session for this year's Comp Plan amendments. Vice-Chair Carlsen thanked the neighbors who attended and participated. AD OURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Joe Stoy,Chairperson (Z/CJIC1-Wihk-). Deanna Horton, secretary Date signed 0''l//r _ 03-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 20 of 20