Loading...
Agenda 02/12/2015 Valle H Siia5kane Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 12, 2015 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 22, 2015 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: • Continued Deliberation - CPA-2015-0001, Comprehensive Plan Annual amendment. • Study Session — CTA-2015-0001, Beekeeping • Planning Commission Training - Open Public Meeting Act, Public Records Act X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, January 22,2015 Chairman Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:02 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 Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Heather Graham Cary Driskell,City Attorney Tim Kelley Martin Palaniuk,Planner Mike Phillips Christina Janssen, Planner Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 22, 2015 amended agenda as presented. The motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 08, 2015 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was seven to zero, the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Wood reported he attended the Spokane Home Builders Association government affairs meeting. He said the discussion was about form based codes and walkable urbanism. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Sr. Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the Planning Short Course had been scheduled for February 25, 2015 and was open for all to attend. She also said the Commissioners had a copy of the postcard which had been mailed city-wide announcing the two public meetings for the Comprehensive Plan visioning meetings. City Attorney Cary Driskell said although the Short Course would have some training on the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act,the legal staff would be bringing forward more in-depth training for the Commission on both of these subjects at the February 12,2015 meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: CPA-2015-0001 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines and Mamer Roads. Before beginning the public hearings, Ms. Barlow asked the Commission how they would like to handle the public hearings. Options were to have the public hearings and deliberate after each public hearing or hold the public hearings and then deliberate after both were closed. The Commission chose to deliberate after both public hearings were closed. Chair Stoy opened the public hearing regarding CPA-2015-0001 at 6:17 p.m. Planner Christina Janssen gave her staff report regarding the citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to change four parcels from Office to Community Commercial. The property is owned by Jim Cross and Rainyday Dagaory LLC. The request is located on Nora Avenue between Pines and Mamer Road. The properties are bordered on the east and west by Office, south by High Density Residential and north by Regional Commercial. The site has remained vacant for some years and the owner believes the change will make the property more marketable. Commissioner Tim Kelley said the law firm of Witherspoon Kelly does community work with veterans which he recently had the opportunity to take part in. Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 Driskell if having worked with Witherspoon Kelly would disqualify him from participating in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Driskell explained it would be a matter of bias. In a case like Mr. Kelley had explained, a Commissioner would explain the circumstances to the rest of the Commission, and then determine if they would be able to consider the matter without bias. If not he would recuse himself and step out of the room while the matter was being discussed. If he could review the matter without bias, then he would state he could review the matter without bias and the Commission business would continue. Mr. Kelley said he felt he could review the matter without bias and stayed on the dais. Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify. Stanley Schwartz,W. 422 Riverside Ave.: He was also an attorney for Witherspoon Kelly and had never met Commissioner Kelley, nor had he had any dealings with Mr. Kelley. Mr. Schwartz stated he was a representative for the property owners James Cross and Rainyday Dagator, LLC. Mr. Cross has two high-end dealerships. One is located in Spokane; the other is located in Boise,ID. Mr. Schwartz said he is an attorney in municipal real estate and planning law, is the City Attorney for Cheney and Airway Heights as well as he had a previous relationship with this City. Mr. Schwartz stated that the property had been posted, and the surrounding properties within 400 feet had notices mailed to them. He said he had checked with staff and was not aware of any comments which had been submitted in regard to the proposal. Mr. Schwartz stated the site was unique, with high density residential to the south up a steep slope, some commercial development to the west, and a Steinway showroom to the east. He said the site was at grade but subject to significant freeway noise and light and bordered Nora Avenue and the freeway to the north. Mr. Schwartz stated this area is not appropriate for residential. Mr. Schwartz stated he had submitted three documents for the record a letter from his client Mr. Cross, who owns two high end dealerships in Spokane and Boise, a market study he requested from NAI Black and a letter from himself summarizing the points in the other two documents. He said Mr. Cross' dealerships sell high end motor vehicles, such as Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, which are considered destination type of a dealership where customers search them out. The amount of traffic which can be expected would be for a destination type of dealership. Mr. Schwartz said this would be like someone searching out a specific department store for a specific item. He said this was different than how most people shop for a car up and down Sprague Avenue. He said this is significant in the sense of the amount of traffic which can be expected, and the draw which would be coming to this property. He said his client is requesting support of the map change to Community Commercial which is a bit of a down zone or a different zone than the Regional Commercial, which is across the street, in terms of what is allowed. This is a change in regard to the land use,which is for the future. Mr. Schwartz also said when it comes time for a building permit the property owners are prepared to meet with staff and perform all mitigation and traffic improvements warranted, as well as all on site improvements. Mr. Schwartz also submitted a market report from NAI Black regarding office vacancies in the valley. He said he had requested the study which summarizes in fall 2013 the City had the largest amount of office space at 3,280,000 square feet and the largest amount of vacant office space in the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane and Spokane's South Hill for market purposes. The vacancy rate for Spokane Valley was 21.56% in 2013; in 2014 it did decline to 18.32%. He said no one would be building for office space at this vacancy rate,unless it will be a very specific build to suit. Mr. Schwartz said this zoning still had a long way to go to recover to get to a healthy office market. He said he believed the property could be put to a higher and better use. The report also says retail is improving. The report supports the property will not be developed as office within the foreseeable future. He said with 632,000 square feet of office space available, the report suggests why the office zoning is not working. Mr. Johnson, President of NAI Black stated in his letter Spokane Valley had a long way to go to recover to get back to a healthy office market. The property owner does feel the change will not interfere with the uses in the area but will create jobs and create 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 stimulus in regard to sales tax. The property owner feels he can put the property to a higher and better use. The use will be more compatible to the surrounding area and uses. Mr. Schwartz said the staff report is comprehensive and supportive. The application meets all of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that one of the criteria for the change was the property must be adjacent and contiguous to the same or higher commercial use. When looking at the zoning code adjacent also means corner touches and it includes the corner touching and in the conjunctive includes property located across the public right-of-way to the same or a higher zoning classification (SVMC 19.30.030). He said there is no question I-90 is a public right-of-way, there is no question Nora is a public right-of-way, and this is then across the street. He said he included the definition of adjacent in this letter,which is lying near or close to but not necessarily touching. He also noted that the case law is that there is the presumption is that the property owner has the free and uninhibited right to use their property in a manner to make it economically feasible and viable. He said since 2006 this property and the property next to it has been underutilized and underserved. He thanked the Commissioners for the time to go through the information he provided. He said again there were no objections from staff or other property owners. He said he hoped the Commissioners would make a positive recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Anderson asked if the applicant purchased the property knowing it was zoned office. Mr. Schwartz responded this was correct. Commissioner Anderson then asked if Mr. Schwartz's client accepted Nora Avenue as sufficient for his proposed business as he plans. Mr. Schwartz said at this point he did not know. However,what he did know and felt staff would support was the question at this point does not relate to what improvements are going to be necessary on Nora Avenue, or next to Evergreen, or Pines Road, or another adjoining roadway, as a result of the development. What his client will do and what standard practice is when the building permit is applied for,the client will fill out a SEPA checklist which will likely include a transportation study. Staff will look at the transportation study and determine what mitigation, and what improvements will be necessary in order to make Nora Avenue able to serve the adjoining land use. He said it will be incumbent upon his client to spend money and resources to hire professionals and fix or build-out Nora Avenue according to the studies which will be obtained from traffic engineers as approved by the staff. This could include off-site improvements all the way to Evergreen Road, it may include Pines Road, it may include the payment of impact fees, all these things his client is fully aware of and fully prepared to undertake in order to use this land as he has requested. Commissioner Anderson said he understood the requirements at the time of development but what he was asking was, does Nora Avenue as it currently sits meet the client's transportation needs to operate his business. Mr. Schwartz said he was not trying to dodge the answer, Mr. Anderson said it was a simple yes or no question. Mr. Schwartz said he was not privy to a transportation study because one was not required at the time of this application or at any other time as this process has proceeded. Mr. Schwartz said it was his understanding when development occurs, his client will adjust Nora Avenue. Mr. Schultz stated everyone was aware that motor vehicles would be moving in and out of semi-trucks, he knows Nora Avenue is of a certain width. He said he could make an assumption semi trucks already travel on Nora Avenue because Steinway Piano must get deliveries somehow. Commissioner Anderson asked if the market study from NAI Black,was studying what was in the Office zone,which the City allowed more than `offices' uses in it, or was the study just for offices. Mr. Schwartz confirmed it was just"office buildings"in the study. Commissioner Stoy asked if the marketing study mentioned marketing was a problem in area along Nora. He commented the properties along Nora Avenue do not have for sale signs on them. Mr. Schwartz commented he knew the residential properties had for sale signs; he also said any buyer would do their due diligence and check the zoning of the property. Commissioner Anderson asked if the NAI Black study equated vacant office space, not vacant property. Mr. Schultz this was vacant office square footage within office buildings. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 Commissioner Wood commented he had driven by the property, which cannot be accessed when heading south on Pines. He said there were two for sale signs on the property which have been there for some time, so they were marketing the property. Commissioner Scott asked if Mr. Schwartz's clients looked at any property which was zoned for a car dealership. She said there are areas of the City which are zoned for car dealerships; the city has an Auto Row and property along Sprague Avenue where dealerships are allowed. Mr. Schwartz said he had actually worked on the CARMAX deal, and went through the due diligence for that purchase, so he does know about that area of the City. He said his client did look at the area along Auto Row, and his client did not feel his brand would fit into that area, nor did the client find the location or configuration for the type of dealership he would be developing. Therefore his client looked at this property and felt it was an ideal opportunity, given the state of the zoning since 2006. Commissioner Scott asked if he had looked at any other property with freeway exposure. Mr. Schwartz said he was not aware of other property along the freeway. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners although it was interesting to consider the possible development on the property they should be focusing on the land use designation, and the question is the location suitable for the uses under the proposed designation. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chairman Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA-2015- 0001 at 6:53 p.m. Public Hearing: CPA-2015-0002 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Rd. Chairman Stoy opened the public hearing for CPA-2015-0002 at 6:54 p.m. Planner Marty Palaniuk presented the staff report regarding this citizen initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment to change two parcels from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use Center (MUC). The applicant is Patricia Abraham. The site is located on the northwest corner of Mission Avenue and Flora Road. It is bordered on the north and east by Low Density Residential and south and west by Mixed Use Center. The site is just east of the street vacation which the Commission just recommended for approval. Mr. Palaniuk commented the staff report had been updated to reflect the Spokane Transit Authority (STA)route is one mile from the area,and STA plans to add service to the area which is noted in the STA Comprehensive Plan. The staff report also added the other subdivisions in the area to show the impacts on the area. The staff report had been revised from the draft which the Commissioners had received for the study session. Mr. Palaniuk said staff had not received any written comments as of that evening. Mr. Palaniuk pointed out Flora Road is a minor arterial south of Mission Avenue. North of Mission Avenue,Flora is considered a collector. Mission Avenue is also considered a minor arterial. Commissioner Anderson commented he understood the staff report had been modified,but he wanted to point out STA would only be adding a bus route if voters approved a 0.03% tax increase. Mr. Palaniuk said STA does have a plan, and this was listed in their plan. The City could not say if they would or would not be able to implement the plan. Mr. Anderson stated again for the Commission this(the tax)would be how it would be implemented. Commissioner Wood asked for some of the uses which would fall under the Mixed Use Center zoning. Mr. Palaniuk said some of the uses which would be allowed would be multifamily residential, self-service storage units, some small scale commercial uses, convenience store. He said without the use matrix in front of him he did not want to guess any further. He said there would not be any industrial or light industrial type uses in this zoning. Manufactured home parks would not be allowed in the proposed zoning, but would be allowed in the R-3 zoning which the property is currently zoned. Commissioner Wood asked about retail stores, gas stations and marijuana stores. Mr. Palaniuk said some retail stores, gas stations in relation to a convenience store would be allowed. 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Marijuana stores would be permitted in the zone but would need to meet all other special criteria before it could be sited. Commissioner Graham inquired as to where access from the property would be taken. She wondered if it would only be onto Flora Road or if it would be allowed onto Mission Avenue as well. Mr. Palaniuk responded this would be determined at the time of the building permit, and would depend on what was being proposed. Commissioner Kelley asked if low income residential would be allowed. Mr. Palaniuk asked what he considering, Mr. Kelley said he was referring to an apartment complex. Mr. Palaniuk said multifamily is an allowed use in the Mixed Use Center zone. Ms. Barlow commented she understood the question was about if apartments would be allowed, but the City's residential zoning districts do not distinguish between the types of residential units are being proposed. Chair Stoy asked for anyone who wished to testify. Patricia Abraham, 1920 N Greenacres Road: Ms. Abraham stated she was the applicant and representing the property owners, Jayn Courchaine and Donald Fisher. She said the intent for requesting the change is to create continuity in the zoning throughout the area, along Mission and Flora. It would also increase their options for future development, which would complement the growth happening within our neighborhood. Ms. Abraham said she was a resident within the neighborhood, having spent a majority of her life in this neighborhood. She is aware of the growth which is occurring and of the traffic concerns other neighbors might have. Her intent is not to increase the housing or create a traffic problem for the neighborhood. Commissioner Wood asked if Ms. Abraham owned the parcel on the very corner of Mission and Flora. Ms.Abraham said her mother owns the larger parcel and when she went to talk to the neighbor who owns the corner parcel he did not oppose the change but asked to be included in the change. Commissioner Anderson asked if the residents would be moving from the property. Ms. Abraham said the residence on her mother's property is used as a rental and the current resident just bought a home. The home on the corner property is still being lived in by the property owner. Ms. Horton said she had been given three letters which needed to be entered into the record from Cecil Russell, 17504 E. Montgomery; Eric House, 1711 N. Flora Road; Joseph and Lynda House, 17406 E. Montgomery. All three letters asked that the request for the Comprehensive Plan amendment be denied and the zoning be left as is. Mr. House said the properties needed to remain Low Density Residential to create a buffer for the rest of the neighborhood. Seeing no one else who wished to testify Chair Stoy closed the public hearing on CPA-2015-0002 at 7:11 p.m. Commissioner Wood asked for the location of the addresses in the letters in relation to the subject properties,which were located for him. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not plan to recuse himself because he could make an open- minded decision, but wanted to let everyone know he knows Mr. Joseph House very well,and he did not know he was in the audience. Commissioner Wood confirmed the hearing had been closed so Mr. House would not be able to comments. Discussion regarding CPA-2015-0001: Commissioner Anderson wanted to know what the Commission needed to do in order to delay the discussion on CPA-2015-0001 so the Commission would have time to digest the information which was provided by Mr. Schwartz. Ms. Barlow said the public hearing has been closed; there would not be any action necessary. Commissioner Anderson asked it if was possible to request a zone change, is there any reason why there can't be a use added to an existing zone. Ms. Barlow said this subject was not before the 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Commission at this point in time. It could be a separate action unto itself. However, the two actions could not be combined. He explained he was just asking if the direction was to go either way in a system, if it was asked. Ms. Barlow said it could be a simple application for a code text amendment to add uses as long as it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the use was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan then a Comprehensive Plan request would be necessary to add that use. Mr. Driskell added it would be substantially different than what was requested by the applicant here and the deadline for making requests is November 1st of each year. He felt the suggestion would qualify as a different request and would need to go to a next year. Commissioner Anderson asked if a code text amendment could only be done once a year, or it any time of the year. There was much dialog to make sure the meaning of Mr. Anderson's question was clear. A code text amendment adding a use to a zoning district, as long as the requested use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,can be proposed at any time of the year. Chair Stoy asked the Commissioners their preference for proceeding with CPA-2015-0001. Commissioner Anderson said no motion was necessary to postpone the discussion for this amendment, and this is what he would like to do. Ms. Barlow said there was no motion necessary to delay any further discussion on the item, but a motion was needed to begin discussion. Commission Anderson asked if they needed consensus to delay the discussion, and Ms. Horton concurred. Chair Stoy asked the rest of the Commission how they felt and Commissioner Wood said he would like to move ahead. He felt he had gotten enough information in two meetings, a public hearing, all the documentation he had received he said he has reviewed it all. He sees no reason to delay his decision. He is prepared to move ahead on this and he feels it is appropriate for us to do so,based on the people who are applying for this so they can do whatever they have to do. Ms. Barlow suggested Commissioner Wood could make the motion regarding moving the amendment forward. Commissioner Wood moved to recommend approval of CPA-2015-0001. As a point of information Ms. Horton said a motion could be made now to postpone the discussion. Commissioner Anderson moved to postpone the discussion of CPA-2015-0001 to the 02-12-15 meeting. Chair asked for discussion on the motion to postpone. Commissioner Kelley said he felt the planner had done a good job presenting the material the last two weeks. Commissioner Graham said receiving Mr. Schwartz's information that evening she would like to have two more weeks to understand what she is reading. Commissioner Phillips said he was not in favor of getting all the information at the meeting and being expected to read it and make a decision, and he is in favor of waiting. Commissioner Scott stated she would like a chance to go through the information. Commissioner Wood said he was ready to move ahead. Commissioner Stoy felt he would like to have the opportunity to review new material. The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion to postpone was six to one with Commissioner Wood dissenting. The motion to postpone the discussion passed Discussion for CPA-2015-0002: The Commission paused and Ms. Barlow asked the Commission if they were ready to move forward with the discussion on the next amendment. Commissioner Anderson said he did not want the planner to feel like he was being picked on with this by the book, legitimate by the effort, discussing Mixed Use Centers, in the staff report. Commissioner Anderson said he looks at it this way and it (Comprehensive Plan) says we have ton of minor arterial intersections with public transit in the City that are all residential. We are not converting them to mixed use just because of that. He understands it is useable (criteria)but he doesn't understand it as a reason. He said he has lived by many of them (the intersections). He said he already mentioned STA,they do have plans to move out there but only if there are additional funds from the public. Commissioner Anderson said we are not reviewing a 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 land use, we are just looking a specific zoning change, and in his opinion a MUC multiple use will increase traffic more than residential. He continued during discussion there was a comment, 'if you look this way you will see mixed use,if you look that way you will see mixed use.' if you turn around and look you will see residential and even in the mixed use, the majority of the construction near Flora Road or near the intersection is residential. He said there is a medical facility down the road, but even where we have mixed use, the development we have is residential. He asked Mr. Palaniuk the staff report says landscaping separating mixed use from residential would be Type I, but he does not know what that means. Mr. Palaniuk stated any commercial development up against residential, would be required to meet setbacks and would require Type 1 screening which would be a six-foot site obscuring fence and a five-foot vegetative strip which at maturity would need to reach six feet. Commissioner Anderson said six-foot vegetation was only as tall as the fencing. Commissioner Anderson said his final the possibilities of uses on the property are humongous. The current land owners probably have good intentions, etc. But good intentions can fail, finances can change, new property owners can acquire property. He continued, on the edge of or even in a residential area we have the possibility of, he didn't think we will have a golf driving range but there is a possibility of one. Mr. Anderson said there is a very substantial list of uses(which are allowed in this zone) and he has a very difficult time saying ok we will just call this mixed use and whatever happens,happens in the future. This is where he fmds his difficulty. Ms. Barlow said she was not advocating one way or the other, however one of the key points Mr. Anderson made was this proposal is on the edge of residential. While the question being posed is determining what the best development options would be on this property, it is in a unique situation where there has been a considerable amount of development and it is along busy roads. There is commercial development in one direction,multifamily in another direction, single family surrounding a lot of it. What is the best way to develop this last little buffer piece? She said it could go either way. She said a case could be made for either to be that final bit of development,but it is not going to be perfect either way. However when you are contemplating the uses allowed in the mixed use zone, it is not going to pull them into the neighborhoods. It is only going to pull them to a point where there is already that traffic passing by. Commissioner Graham said she would agree with Ms. Barlow's suggestion to some point,except part of one parcel goes behind another property owners land. She said the property owner facing on Flora would have mixed use behind them, when now they have residential behind them. She said she walked the area this afternoon and currently there is an empty field behind them. Potentially they could have multifamily or a commercial development bumping up to their property line, or within the setbacks. Mr. Palaniuk informed the Commission this parcel fronting Flora Road is owned by the same person who owns the large parcel in the request. Commissioner Stoy wanted to know if fuel (sales) would be permitted in the Mixed Use Center. It was confirmed it is allowed. Commissioner Graham asked to revisit the transportation issue and lack of sidewalks if they are using the STA as their form of transportation. If and when STA receives their tax she said, then it would be fine, however until then services are a mile away down Mission and there are no sidewalks. She said a mile away south on Flora,there are no sidewalks. The only access with sidewalks is to the west towards the mall. She said this was one of the things she is taking into consideration. Commissioner Stoy remarked sidewalks come with development of property. Commissioner Graham said she understood but only in front of that small portion of the property. She said this does not address the safety concerns for the public which may be accessing the property from the bus routes which are only available a mile away to the south,east and west. As the Commission paused, Ms. Barlow asked them if they needed additional information, if they needed more time. Commissioner Stoy commented he was trying to read the information from STA. Ms. Barlow said the STA proposal to add service in the area is not predicated on whether or not this piece is developed, but on their funding and the use by persons who live or work in the area already 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 occurring. Part of the reason we only require the improvement for the frontage associated with development, she said, is because the City looks to offset the cost of the impact. There is already impact going on based on the existing residential development and the existing businesses which are developing in this area. They (the property owners)would only be required to pay for their fair share of improvements. Mr. Driskell added he looked at an overhead map and of the area to the east. He said there are interspersed sidewalks in different areas. The reason for this is the area is developing in bits and pieces. He explained the way the City gets its sidewalks is when we have development we require frontage improvements for that property for their impacts. Then over time, we get connectivity. You will see there is a fair amount of sidewalk to the east, but this is just part of the process. If this were approved, the City would consider the frontage improvements along Flora, and this would become yet another piece of sidewalk connectivity, said Mr. Driskell. Then there was considerable discussion regarding the impact of making a positive motion opposed to making a negative motion, and the need to be able to create findings to support the motion which is made. After the discussion it was determined the best course of action would be to make a motion to approve, take a vote and determine the outcome. If the motion does not pass, then a motion to deny could be made. Mr. Driskell said this would give a more natural flow for findings. Commissioner Kelley moved to recommend approval of CPA-2015-0002 to the City Council. Commissioner Wood said he foresees this corner of Flora and Mission to be a busy corner, especially when the bus comes through. He said the parcel on the corner seems a natural flow for MUC. He said if you look at the corner it is south MUC and it seems like a natural transition to MUC. It does not seem odd or like spot zoning,making the change ties it all up. He does not feel there will be any more negative impacts than is already there. He said he did not see any reason to deny it. Commissioner Scott asked if the request is approved, does it approve all the possible uses which are allowed in the zoning district. She said some will have a bigger impact than others but we can't know what use we are approving this for. Some could be more acceptable than others, but it is all or nothing. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The Commission was approving the range of uses which may be possible in the zoning district. Ms. Barlow said the fact the Commission is aware of the use being proposed in the other Comprehensive Plan amendment is irrelevant information. She said once the decision is made, it does not bind a person to the use which you thought was being proposed. Commissioner Stoy said he felt this was a natural progression, and the progression will stop at Flora Road. He said the amount of additional traffic this small portion would add would be insignificant to the rest of the area. He said eventually bus stops would come out there, and eventually sidewalks would be extended out. The staff report states landscape are buffers required, and he said there are height restrictions,which he thought was 50 feet in this zone. Mr. Palaniuk said there is a height limit in the Mixed Use zone, and there is a relational setback for multifamily. Commissioner Stoy said he was in favor of the change. Staff clarified the setback would be 20 feet for this zone, and the height would be 60 feet for Mixed Use Center. The Chair called for the vote. The vote on the motion, by the show of hands, to recommend approval of CPA-2015-0002 was four to three with Commissioners Anderson, Graham and Phillips dissenting. Planning Commission Findings of Fact for STV-2014-0001: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations for STV-2014-0001, as presented. Ms. Barlow distributed revised findings of fact. She said the change between the findings just handed out and the findings which were provided in the packet were on page 2 of 3, under the recommendations, item 5 in the document which was just handed out, contains the language from the original item 5 which the Commission voted on at the 01- 08-15 meeting. Ms. Barlow explained Item 5 under the recommendations states "the surveyor shall 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 locate at least two monuments on the centerline of the vacated right-of-way, with one located at the intersection of the centerline of the vacated right-of-way with each street or right-of-way in accordance with the standards established by the Spokane Valley Street Standards." She said this condition is a standard condition for street vacations, so it was incorporated into the conditions which were provided for your consideration. However in this unusual case where this isn't developed right- of-way, just an oddly shaped piece of property, which obviously has no centerline of the vacated right-of-way and this condition isn't appropriate. After you voted and approved the conditions, as attached,it was recognized this condition wasn't necessarily appropriate in association with this street vacation request. After you voted on it, it was dropped off the findings, without considering you had already taken action on this item with this condition as part of it. So the findings before you which now contain all the conditions which were acted upon and reflecting your motion to recommend approval with attached conditions. So this is consistent with what you acted upon. Ms. Barlow said staff would like the Commission to approve these findings as the findings of fact, if that is the Commission's direction. When the item is moved forward to the City Council, staff will recommend in their fmal action they drop this condition since it is not appropriate. She added the reason staff is doing it this way is,it is the cleanest way to move this item forward,rather than making a new motion and eliminating item 5, then having new findings to consider. Staff felt this would leave the cleanest trail as to what has happened. Commissioner Anderson clarified it would not change the motion currently on the table. Ms. Barlow confirmed this was correct. The vote on the motion to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendations was seven to zero, the motion passed. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the Good of the Order ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business,the meeting was adjourned at 7:59 p.m. Joe Stoy,Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 1441,1•11s) -s 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: February 12, 2015 Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ®old business ❑new business ❑public hearing ❑information ❑admin.report ❑pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Deliberations — CPA-2015- 0001 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: A public hearing was conducted on January 22, 2015; Deliberations were deferred. BACKGROUND: CPA-2015-0001 is a privately initiated Comprehensive Plan map amendment requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Office (0) with and Office (0) zoning classification to a Community Commercial (C) Comprehensive Plan designation with a Community Commercial (C) zoning classifications. If approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment (CPA), the site will automatically receive a zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation. Further development of the site will be reviewed during the building permit process and improvements to the site and the surrounding area will be required pursuant to the City's adopted development regulations. The Planning Commission held a study session on this item on January 8th, 2015, and a public hearing on January 22n1, 2015. At the public hearing the applicant submitted a significant amount of information for consideration. This includes an analysis of the City's office and commercial property vacancy information and a comparison of the City's office and commercial inventory to other jurisdictions in the region. Also included in the information was a statement from the applicant and research conducted by the applicant's representatives. The Commission voted to defer deliberations to the February 12 meeting in order to review the information. The Planning Commission should deliberate on the merits of the request, taking into account the surrounding land uses, as well as all uses allowed in the proposed zone, and make a recommendation to City Council. Staff will prepare the findings of fact for consideration subsequent to the Commission's decision. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen, Planner ATTACHMENTS: All attachments previously provided Exhibit 1 —CPA-2015-0001 Staff Report Exhibit 2 — Presentation — Note: A single presentation is provided for CPA-2015-0001 and CPA-2015-0002. 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 12,2015 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ® new business n public hearing n information® admin.report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER CTA-2015-0001 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session—Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminology and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 BACKGROUND: Hobby beekeeping has emerged as one of the latest trends of urban agriculture. SVMC 19.40.150(C) allows a maximum of 25 hives on lots 40,000 square feet or larger. Staff has reviewed the regulations and presented the information to Council. It has been determined that the lot size is unnecessarily restrictive, and that certain development regulations pertaining to beekeeping are appropriate. Council directed staff to initiate a code text amendment (CTA) modifying the beekeeping regulations. The proposed CTA allows the number of hives based on lot area, requires setbacks from property lines,fly away barriers and sources of water. The proposed regulations are similar to the interim regulations used by the City from 2003 until 2007. When the City incorporated in 2003, Spokane Valley adopted Spokane County's zoning regulations on an interim basis.The beekeeping requirements specified that the number of hives was limited to one hive per 4,356 square feet of lot area,up to 25 hives. Therefore, a one acre lot could have a maximum of 10 hives. Beehives were to be located a minimum of 25 feet from all property lines and be isolated from public access by a security fence, or otherwise secured platform. In 2007, Spokane Valley adopted its own regulations which allowed a maximum of 25 hives on a minimum lot area of 40,000 square feet, and no setback requirements.A memo was prepared on July 17,2014 that detailed the establishment of the city's beekeeping regulations. The document is attached for your information. Staff will present an overview of the current and proposed regulations, including a comparison of City requirements to that of other jurisdictions,and discuss beekeeping issues. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. A public hearing has been scheduled for February 26,2015. STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois,Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Code Text Amendment 2. Staff Memo July 17,2014 3. Presentation CTA-2015-0001 RPCA for Study Session 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping. Where permitted, the keeping of poultry and livestock(excluding swine and chickens) is subject to the following conditions: A. The lot or tract shall must exceed 40,000 square feet in area; B. The keeping of swine is not permitted; C. Beekeeping for noncommercial purposes is limited to 25 hives; Any building or structure housing poultry or livestock including,but not limited to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be located not less than 75 feet from any dwelling habitation; &D. No building or structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway,pen, or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be located within the front yard nor be closer than 10 feet from any side property line; &E. The keeping of animals and livestock is limited as follows: 1. Not more than three horses, mules, donkeys, bovine, llama or alpacas shall be permitted per gross acre; or 2. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acres; or 3. Any equivalent combination of subsection (F)(1) and(F)(2) of this section; Small Animals/Fowl. A maximum of one animal or fowl (excluding chickens), including duck, turkey, goose or similar domesticated fowl, or rabbit, mink,nurtria, chinchilla or similar animal, may be raised or kept per 3,000 square feet of gross lot area. In addition, a shed, coop, hutch or similar containment structure shall must be constructed prior to the acquisition of any small animal/fowl; and I4-G. Structures,pens yards, enclosures,pastures and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. LH. In residential areas, the keeping of chickens is subject to the following conditions: 1. A maximum of one chicken may be raised or kept per 2,000 gross square feet of lot area, with a maximum of 25 birds allowed:,., 2. The keeping of roosters is prohibitedi 3. Coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall must be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line, five 5 feet from side and rear property lines, and 15 feet from flanking streets:,- 4. Coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall must be kept a minimum of 25 feet from dwellings occupied structures on neighboring propertiesi-and 5. All chickens shall must be rendered incapable of flight. I.- In residential areas, beekeeping is subject to the following conditions: 1. The number of beehives shall be limited to one beehive per 4,356 gross square feet of lot area. 2. Beehives shall be setback a minimum of five feet from a side or rear property line and 20 feet from the front or flanking street property line. 3. A flyaway barrier shall be provided that shall be at least six feet high and consisting of a solid wall, solid fencing material, dense vegetation or combination thereof, that is parallel to the side or rear property line(s) and extends beyond the beehive(s) in each direction that bees are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the beehives; and 4. Beekeepers shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to each colony. 4. Coops,hutches,or similar containment structures shall must be kept a minimum of 25 feet from dwellings occupied structures on neighboring properties and 5. All chickens shall must be rendered incapable of flight. I In residential areas,beekeeping is subject to the following conditions: Formatted:Font:(Default)Times New Roman, 12 pt 1. The number of beehives shall be limited to one beehive per 4,356 gross square Formatted:List Paragraph,Indent:Hanging: feet of lot area. 0.13",Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style: A,B,C,...+Start at:1+Alignment:Left+ 2. Beehives shall be setback a minimum of five feet from a side or rear property Aligned at: 0.25"+Indent at: 0.5" line and 20 feet from the front or flanking street property line. [Formatted:List Paragraph 3. A flyaway barrier shall be provided that shall be at least six feet high and Formatted:List Paragraph,Numbered+Level: consisting of a solid wall,solid fencing material,dense vegetation or 1+Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+ combination thereof,that is parallel to the side or rear property lines and Alignment:Left+Aligned at: 1"+Indent at: P P Y ( ) 1.25" extends beyond the beehive(s)in each direction that bees are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the beehives;and 4. Beekeepers shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to each colony. poidium*ane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall®spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager From: John Holunan, CD Director Date: July 17, 2014 Re: Beekeeping This memorandum responds to your request for information on Spokane Valley's beekeeping regulations, including a comparison to adjacent jurisdictions. Upon incorporation in 2003, Spokane Valley adopted Spokane County's zoning regulations on an interim basis. Hobby beekeeping was permitted in the UR-3.5 zone,the predominant residential zone at the time. Hobby beekeeping was defined as: "An activity, generally engaged in for personal use, where twenty-five (25) or fewer beehives are kept on a lot." The number of beehives was further limited to one hive per 4,356 square feet of lot area, up to a maximum of 25 beehives. A beehive is defined as a structure to contain one colony of bees and registered with the Washington State Dept. of Agriculture. Therefore, a one acre lot could have a maximum of 10 beehives. Beehives were required to be located 25 feet from all property lines and be isolated from public access by a security fence, or otherwise secured platform (see attached regulations). In 2007, Spokane Valley adopted its own zoning regulations. Beekeeping is included in the broader "Animal Raising and/or Keeping" category of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SVMC Chapter 19.40.150 allows a maximum of 25 hives. Animal keeping, including beehives, is permitted in every residential zone but is limited to lots with a minimum of 40,000 square feet. The beekeeping issue was debated at the March 16, 2007 and April 12, 2007, Spokane Valley Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission discussed why bees are important, why they should or should not be allowed in residential areas, how many hives should be allowed, the size of the hives, location on a lot and whether it should be an allowed use within the City. At the April 12, 2007 meeting the Commissioners voted 4-3 in favor of allowing a maximum of 25 hives, but required a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The Planning Commission's recommendation was later confirmed by the City Council upon adoption of the City's zoning regulations. The current code does not include any special setback requirements for beehives. Spokane Valley 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping. Where permitted, the keeping of poultry and livestock (excluding swine and chickens) is subject to the following conditions: A. Minimum Lot Requirements. 1. In residential zones,the lot or tract must exceed 40,000 square feet; 2. In mixed-use zones, on lots or tracts with legally established residential uses that exceed 40,000 square feet; C. Beekeeping for noncommercial purposes is limited to 25 hives; City of Spokane The City of Spokane allows beekeeping on all residential lots, limited to one bee colony per 4,350 square feet of lot area, up to a maximum of eight colonies. A colony is defined as a natural group of bees having a queen or queens. Spokane has setback regulations, operational regulations (adequate water supply, abating aggressive bees by re-queening hives, etc.) and beekeeper certification requirements (see attached regulations). Earlier this month, the Spokane City Council voted to ban the city purchase and use of neonicotinoids, or "nicotine-like" insecticides which have been proven to be harmful to bees. The ban applies only to city purchase, and does not extend to private use. Spokane County Beekeeping is permitted in all residential zones, limited to two hives for the first 4,356 square feet of lot area and one for every 4,356 square feet thereafter. There is no maximum number of hives specified in the regulations. The regulations include a 25 foot minimum setback from property lines, except that hives may be placed 5 feet from side or rear property lines when a "flyway barrier"is established. A flyway barrier is a 6 foot tall solid barrier that forces bees to fly at an elevation at least six feet above ground level over property lines (see attached regulations). City of Liberty Lake Beekeeping is classified as similar to Dangerous animalllivestock keeping and is not permitted in any zone. City of Spokane Title 17C Land Use Standards Chapter 17C.310 Animal Keeping Section 1.7C,3I4,130 Beekeeping A.Where Permitted. Beekeeping is allowed as an accessory use on any lot occupied by a single-family residence that is in the RA, RS'',RTF,RMF and RHD zones.Beekeeping for educational or research purposes by an institution such as college,high school or agricultural extension office is allowed as a Type II conditional use permit in all zones,subject to the requirements of subsection(B)(t)through(5) below. B.Standards Applicable to Beekeeping. Beekeeping is subject to the following standards: I.Location,Density and Maintenance of Colonies, ri,Tlte number of colonies is limited to one colony per four thousand three hundred fifty square feet of lot area, up to a maximum of eight colonies; and b.Colonies shall be setback a minimum of twenty-five feet of any property line,except that a colony may be situated within ten feet of a side lot line or rear lot line provided the following provisions are met: i,The beehives aro isolated from public access by a security fence as required under SMC 17C,110,230(F);and ii.The beekeeper establishes and maintains a flyway barrier at least six feet in height consisting of a solid wall, solid fencing material, dense vegetation or combination thereof that is parallel to the property line and extends ten foot beyond the colony in each direction so that all boos are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the colony;or colony is situated ten feet or more above the grade of the nearest adjoining property line. 2.Colonios shall be maintained in movable-frame hives with adequate space and management techniques to prevent overcrowding and swarming. 3.In any instance in which a colony exhibits aggressive or swarming behavior,the beekeeper must ensure that the colony is re-queened. Aggressive behavior is any instance in which unusual aggressive characteristics such as stinging or attacking without provocation occurs. 4,Every beekeeper shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to each colony. 5.Regislralions and Training. a All colonies shall be registered with the director of the state department of agriculture pursuant to ROW 15,60.021 no later than April 1st of each year. b.The beekeeper shall lmv4 completed the requirements for apprenticeship level of the Washington State Beekeeper's Association master beekeeper certification program Date Passed: Monday, September 24,2007 Effective hate: Saturday,November 10,2007 ORD 034109 Section 4 Spokane County Bcokeeping LDR,LDR-P, MDR,HDR zones) a,Beekeeping is allowed as an accessory use on any lot or parcel occupied by a singlefainily residence. b.The keeping of hoes shall meet the requirements of the Washington State Departitient of Agriculture RCW 15.60 or as hereafter amended. c.The number of colonies allowed is limited to two(2)for the first 4,356 square feet of lot area,and one(1)for every 4,356 square feet of lot area thereafter,There is no limit on the number of Nues/Nuelei, d.Beehives shall be setback a minimum of twenty-five(25) feet from any abutting side or rear property line or public right-of-way, except that beehives may be setback up to live (5)feet from any abutting side or rear property line when the beekeeper establishes and ntaintttiits a flyway barrier as provided in section(e)below. e.A flyway barrier shall be at least six(6) feet in height consisting of a solid wall,solid fencing material,douse vegetation or combination thereof that is parallel to such side and/or rear property line(s)and extends beyond the beehive(s) in each direction so that bees are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six(6) feet above ground level over the property lines in the vicinity of the colony, spoklule�V,,ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TtANNING DIVISION! . Planning Commission Administrative Report February 12, 2015 Hobby Beekeeping Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 19.40. 150 (C) j�;�Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT °" ly�visiory Purpose of Presentation 1) Overview of beekeeping code text amendment � iep�;,ry� /iv 2) Discuss beekeeping issues and regulator seowevf purpose ,,/,';';‘dw 3) Discuss miscellaneous proposed clarifications to animal raising and keeping terminology 2 SPOkane`` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING DivrsIary Amendments to Section 19 .40. 150 ( C) Beekeeping Modifications Miscellaneous • Eliminate : • Clarification of various — 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size terminology; e.g. shall — Maximum number of hives vs must, dwelling vs allowed habitation or occupied • Add requirements structures — Flyaway barrier • Prohibiting the keeping — water source of nutria — setbacks j�,,� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT = °1AN NG divi�ioN -.000 City of Spokane Valley Current and Proposed Beekeeping Regulations Cur . _ . , do ..s - d Re: ula • Maximum # of hives 25 No Minimum lot area 40,000 square feet 1 per 4,356 gross square feet of lot area No Side & Rear yard --minimum 5 Setbacks Front & Flanking yard—minimum 20' Flyaway Barrier No Yes Source of Water No Yes i i v COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4P1ANNING DIVISION WhatisBeekeeping ? • The maintenance of honeyRoof _40Porter escape bee colonies, commonly in Crownboard %� Super hives. �� ��� frames Super • A beekeeper keeps bees Queen excluderlioBrood .- fra mes — to collect their honey and Dummy board �- other products that the hive Brood body a} produces (including beeswax, -- propolis, pollen, and royal r4 Entrance . — l block jelly), , . ' Floor — to pollinate crops; or k `' °` '' -' — to produce bees for sale to -- t- A. other beekeepers. 5 . -� . -. Val� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT = °1AN NG diviSioN J Survey of Typical Beekeeping Requirements from other Jurisdictions axmum Minimum o size e • ac s yaway Y ater of hives Barrier Source Proposed No 4,356 sf 5-20 ft Yes Yes Spokane Valley Current Spokane 25 40,000 sf No No n/a Valley City of Spokan 8 colonies 1 colony/4,350sf 10-25 ft !Yes Yes Spokane County No 4,356 sf 5-25 ft Yes n/a Kirkland 15 7,200 sf 25 ft Yes n/a Walla Walla No 21,780 sf No No n/a Ellensburg 2/4 7,000/over 7,000 10 ft No Yes sf SOkarie COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT °JAN NG DIV1510N J Va1ler What is the purpose of the Regulations—Number of Hives Jurisdiction Maximum #of • Perception that hives are a hazard hives Spokane Valley 25 • Research indicates no difference City of Spokane 8 colonies between 1 or 28 maximum hives if Spokane County n/a safety measures are taken Kirkland 15 EMI n/a • Recommendations vary - Home Ellensburg 2/4 Beekeeping Guide recommends no - §tuoierki more than 4 hives on Xacre lots to ‘'Nt#,-4 avoid neighborhood nuisance issues. e-. r ka COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Y t _r Val le..: PLAN NG divisioN What is the Purpose of the Regulation—Minimum lot area Jurisdiction Minimum lot, size • Minimizespotential Spokane Valley 40,000 sf City of Spokane 1 colony per conflict between 4,350 sf and hone bees Spokane County 4,356 sf peopley Kirkland 7,200 sf • A feasible use on NRA, Walla Walla /NG 21,780 sf *Y _ large lots „ , t 4 Ellensburg 7,000 sf/over '_. 4;;t. *4;11 . 7,000 sf • ” Re 4f A Hi ve ...„0 A. 4,,,, _ivot toroach -. Akan COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT =' °tAN NG DIvIsIoN J What is the purpose of the Regulation--Setbacks Jurisdiction Setbacks • Helps in lesseningthe fear factor Spokane Valley n/a of bee stings , . City of Spokane 10-25 ft • 141111 Spokane County 5-25 ft • Keeping bees ikwilwiti_i. R • k, 4 Kirkland 25 ft lilt MEIR n/a I" out of sight helps ,. . - ,-,,~7e.,. ., .N„ p Ellensburg 10ft avoid neighbor's concerns . ..,,1 .... 9 ...-F-"---__ ice: -. Val� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IAN NG DIVISION -y J .000 What is the purpose of this regulation—Flyaway barrier Jurisdictio Flyaway Barrier Fix*' " • Forces the bees' .4104, `i.i� +*`!+`�41i+ $*i*i*i# ;#i. 14460* # Spokane n/a b 4' f .0 41 f 1 "It F M4#4+44 t f*,0#$# ## / 44� d, 1�1 iEi#,4y'■ i w ■ a#i #i##a # Valle f 7} City of Yes flight path above ' ll' I III Spokane � I peoples heads I ' 'Spokane Y2S �, . . . nt .• - - - - - Cou y 011 ! _ _ - _ Kirkland • Typical 6 high YesXr, Walla n/a fence or *** iiie 14, , , - Ellensburg n/a • Bees travel in a straight path to hive • Out of sight-out of mind 10 11,11.11 -1,4 ,� . COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT °tANNG divisioN - J What is the Purpose of this Regulation—Source of Water Jurisdictio Source of Water • Bees will look for the nearest Spokane nio Valley water source which could City of Yes Spokane Spokane n/a include neighbor's pool or County Kirkland n/a birdbath, e . g . Walla Walla n/a Ellensburg Yes • Honey bees need to collect water for pollination: . • • Recommendation : Place at least 20 feet away from hive SpokaneCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING Divrsiory Minor Text Amendments to Section 19.40. 150 (C) • Clarification of various terminology — shall vs must — dwelling vs habitation or occupied structures • Prohibiting the keeping of nutria SPokane�V,,�y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MNI� G Divrsibro -" Proposed Beekeeping Regulations • One beehive per 4, 356 gross square feet of lot area • Setbacks for hive : side and rear yard — min 5 feet front and flanking - minimum 20 feet- • Requiring a flyaway barrier • Requiring a source of water Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DJ-ANNIE. DIVISION City of Spokane Valley Beekeeping Interim Regulations Current (2003-2007) Regulations Maximum # of hives 25 25 Minimum lot area 4,356 sf 40,000 sf 5 ft with a 6 ft barrier No Setbacks 25 ft with a security fence 5 ft if hive is 10 feet high with a security fence Flyaway Barrier Yes No CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: February 12,2015 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information® admin.report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Open Government Training GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30); Public Records Act (RCW 42.56);RCW 42.23 BACKGROUND: In Washington,there are numerous laws to promote transparent and open government by the legislative and appointed bodies that serve the people. These laws include the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30), the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) and various laws setting forth ethics requirements for municipal officers. As members of an appointed body, Planning Commission members are subject to the requirements set forth in these laws. Staff will provide training and overview on the various open government laws for Planning Commission members to meet training requirements for the Open Public Meetings Act and to educate members on the other open government requirements. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell,City Attorney; Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation RPCA for 2015 Open Government Training Open Public Government Training Office of the City Attorney Cary Driskell Erik Lamb Overview of topics Training Requirements Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.3o) Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) Conflicts of Interest Appearance of Fairness Code of Ethics Training�equiremen� � PRA Training Elected Officials Public Records Officers Within go days of taking office or taking over responsibilities Must be completed again within 4 years Must be based on State Attorney General's model rules (WAC 44-14) Open Public Meetings Act Training Elected Officials Officials for every other governing body - so appointed boards or commissions, such as planning commission Within go days of taking office or assuming duties Must be completed again within 4 years The Open Public Meetings Act Washington State law enacted in 1971 Set forth in Revised Code of Washington 42.3o et seq. Applies to all city and town councils, and many subordinate city and town boards and committees Applies to planning commissions. AGO 1971 No. 33. Purpose of Governments "exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business." RCW 42.30.010. "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." Id. "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what isgood for the people to know and what is not good for them to p p know." Id. "The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." Id. Purpose of OPMA ( cont . ) Maintain public's control over the government Public should have all the information on which government action is based unless specifically exempt Transparency Public trust OPMA requirements OPMA requires that: All meetings of the governing body be open to the public All actions taken by such bodies be done at meetings that are open to the public What is a " meeting " There must be a "meeting" in order to trigger the requirements of the OPMA "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions Physical presence not required Majority (quorum) implicates "meeting" rules "Serial meetings" may collectively add up to a "meeting" What is a " meeting " ? ( cont . ) Email communications can constitute a meeting which violates the OPMA Solely receiving information is not a violation. Responding to email could be a violation. It is not necessary that a governing body take "final action" for a meeting to be subject to the OPMA Discussion regarding City matters is "action." Requires a public meeting if a quorum of members are present for the discussion. What is not a " meeting " What is not a meeting: If City matters are not discussed, then the gathering is not a "meeting" subject to OPMA (even if a quorum is present) Examples: Social gatherings if City matters are not discussed; Gatherings before or after official action (such as the time prior to Council/Commission meetings) so long as City business is not discussed; Meetings of other government agencies, so long as the Council/Commission members do not discuss City business amongst themselves OPMA exceptions and exemptions No City business = no OPMA Where no official business of City is transacted, the OPMA does not apply Perception is important Pr or Meetings Outlined in detail in the Commission Rules of Procedure. Some general requirements: Notice - posted online Open to public Votes cannot be by secret ballot Member of public cannot be forced to give their name or other information as condition of attendance (can condition a person's ability to speak at the meeting on providing information) OPMA penalties Effect of penalty The penalty for a violation of the act is direct: any action taken in violation of the OPMA is null and void "Any person" may bring the action in superior court Individual liability $100 penalty if they attend with knowledge that the meeting is in violation of OPMA City liability Liable for all costs, including reasonable attorney fees Washington 's Public Record Act Obligations of Planning Commission Members Overview of topics Washington's Public Record Act - RCW 42.56 Spokane Valley's implementation of the Act - SVMC 2.75 Policy & Procedure for Planning Commission E-mail Use Stronglyworded mandate The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments they have created. RCW 42.56.030 The PRA is the "preservation of the most central tenets of representative government, namely, the sovereignty of the people and the accountability to the people of public officials and institutions." Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington, 125 Wn.2d 243, 251 (1994) " Public Record " definition Relevant portion of definition states as follows: "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics " Public Record " definition Most important parts are: (i) "relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function", and (2) "prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency "Writing ,/ "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated. "Writing " definition — 2 . 0 E-mails Texts Tweets Transitory postings on Facebook Meta-data " Meta - data " Metadata is automatically-generated information, embedded in an electronic document, which shows the document's history, tracking, and/or management. It is basically an historical journal of a document. It tells when it was created, when it was modified, by whom, when it was opened, saved, its size, etc... O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wn.2d 138 (2010) Location of record Location not critical factor, nature of record is what is critical (relates to conduct of government or performance of governmental or proprietary function) City has provided Planning Commission e-mail through City system View by accessing remotely through City's website Viewing remotely on personal computer will not make new public records (already stored on City system) More details on Location of Record Planning commission e-mails sent from personal e-mail account are still public records, subject to disclosure Relates to conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function and prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency Planning commission work done on a personal computer (e.g., creating new documents) will be public record, and personal computer may be subject to search Relates to conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function and prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency Exemptions Initially only 10 in 1972 Now over 300 Personal email addresses are not exempted when used for governmental business See Mechling v. City of Monroe, 152 Wn. App. 830 (2009) Penalties ; Attorney fees Requestors who prevail are entitled to penalties that range from so to $100 per day from the day the requestor was denied the right to inspect the record. The prevailing party is entitled to "reasonable" attorney fees and costs of suit. Conflicts of Interest Appearance of Fairness Code of Ethics Conflicts of interest RCW 35A . 63 . 020 "If any person or persons on a planning agency concludes that he or she has a conflict of interest or an appearance of fairness problem with respect to a matter pending before the agency so that he or she cannot discharge his or her duties on such an agency, he or she shall disqualify himself or herself from participating in the deliberations and the decision-making process with respect to the matter" Cpnth4n=terst 42 . 23 . 030 "No municipal officer shall be beneficially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract which may be made by, through or under the supervision of such officer, in whole or in part, or which may be made for the benefit of his or her office, or accept, directly or indirectly, any compensation, gratuity or reward in connection with such contract from any other person beneficially interested therein." Various exceptions, including when connection is too remote. Note also that this restriction involves contracts only (not necessarily planning decisions). onflicts of interest - continued "The general rule for specific prohibitions against conflicts of interest is that a public official may not exercise his or her office to confer a personal benefit upon him or herself. This rule is grounded on the fundamental principle that public officers hold a public trust. Under this principle, public officers are held to a standard of behavior that does not undermine, provide an opportunity to undermine, or appear to undermine that trust." Excerpt from publication on conflicts of interest by Bob Meinig, Municipal Research Services Center Conflicts of interest - examples If a development regulation is being considered by the Planning Commission and a member has a financial interest in getting the development regulation passed, the member would likely have a conflict. Conflicts of interest - examples If the Planning Commission, upon request from the City Council, were to review potential annexations to the City and the member had a personal interest in having (or not having) the area annexed, the member would likely have a conflict. Conflicts of interest - examples If the member's child, spouse, parent, sibling, etc., could stand to receive a direct or indirect personal or financial benefit derived by the member voting or acting in a certain way. See Fleck v. King County, i6 Wn. App. 668, 558 P. Zd 254 (1977) . Conflicts of interest — generally This is not intended to bean exhaustive list, but is instead intended to demonstrate that there are many different types of potential conflicts. Each Planning Commission member should be attentive to such potentialities, give thought to whether a specific factual circumstance is a potential conflict, and try to resolve conflicts of interest in a manner that ensures the Planning Commission and each member continues to hold the public trust. Conflict of interest — now what ? A Planning Commission member who has a conflict of interest problem should announce the conflict, then leave the room while that matter is being considered by the Commission, and not participate in any way in communications or in the decision-making process regarding the matter. Appearance of Fairness Doctrine Applies only to quasi-judicial matters and not to legislative ones. RCW 42.36.oio Doctrine requires government decision-makers to conduct hearings and make decisions in a way that is fair to others in appearance and fact Test for Fairness: would a fair minded person in attendance believe that (i) everyone was heard who should have been heard, and (2) the decision-makers were impartial and free from outside influences? 35 What actions are quasi -judicial ? Those actions of a legislative body or planning commission that determine the legal rights, duties and privileges of specific individuals in a hearing or contested case. RCW 42.36.01o. Indicators that action is quasi-judicial: Decision applies policy to a specific situation rather than setting policy. Decision has a greater impact on a limited number of people, and has only a limited impact on general public. Purpose of the proceeding is to reach a fact-based decision by choosing between two distinct alternatives. 36 xam es oquasi -judicialactions . Quasi-judicial: Subdivision approvals Preliminary plat approvals • Conditional use permits • Variances • Rezones of specific parcels Discretionary zoning permits if hearing required. Not quasi-judicial: Adoption, amendment, or revision of comprehensive plans Adoption of area-wide zoning ordinances. Adoption of area-wide zoning amendments. Building permit denial. 37 Appearance of Fairness applied Disqualifies decision-makers from the quasi-judicial decision- making process who: have prejudged the issues; have a bias in favor of one side in the proceeding; have a conflict of interest; or cannot otherwise be impartial Prohibits "ex parte" communications between a decision-maker and a proponent or opponent of the matter being decided during the pendency of a quasi-judicial proceeding. RCW 42.36.060 38 MLthicipaI Officer Code of Ethics - RCW 42 . 23 . 070 Prohibited Acts for Municipal Officers: Cannot use position to secure special benefits Cannot receive gifts related to scope of position No disclosure of confidential information 39