Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 01-22-15 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, January 22,2015 Chairman Stay 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 1' 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 Stay 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 finds 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 Iarge 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 Stay 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 Iooks 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 final 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. 2 ? I I'S. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed kG,~a-V/Of&-) Deanna Horton, Secretary 01-22-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9