Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 02-12-15 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, February 12,2015 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 John Hohman, Community Development Director Heather Graham Cary Driskell, City Attorney Tim Kelley Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Phillips Gabe Gallinger, Development Services Manager Susan Scott Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Joe Stoy Micki Harnois, Planner Sam Wood Christina Janssen, Planner Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the February 12, 2015 amended agenda as presented. Motion passed with a seven to zero vote. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 22, 2015 minutes as presented The vote on the motion was seven to zero in favor, the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Anderson, Kelley, Graham, Scott and Phillips attended the Comprehensive Plan Community Visioning meetings. Commissioner Graham also attended the Mission Road Improvement meeting as well as a press conference in Olympia representing the Central Valley school nurses and the school nurse organization supporting stronger legislation for e-vaping devices. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: John Hohman, Community Development Director, thanked the Commissioners who attended the Comprehensive Plan Visioning meetings. He said the follow up meeting would be March 4, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. The next meeting will cover the things learned at the Visioning meetings,where we are in the process and where the process is headed. Staff will evaluate the site specific requests, the deadline for submitting them is March 31, 2015, and then be bringing those forward after making an evaluation of them. He reminded the Commissioners of the City sponsored Planning Commission Short Course on February 25, at 6:00 p.m. He said the training provided is excellent. He also said City Attorney Cary Driskell and Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb would be providing training this evening which is required by state statute. Mr. Hohman also introduced Development Services Manager Gabe Gallinger. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Continued Deliberations for CPA-2015-0001 A Comprehensive Plan amendment located on Nora Ave. between Pines and Mamer Roads. Previously the Commission had a motion to recommend approval of CPA-2015-0001, then a motion to continue the discussion to this meeting was approved with a seven to one vote. Planner Christina Janssen reminded the Commission they had a study session on January 8, a public hearing on January 22 where they continued their deliberations on CPA-2015-0001 to this meeting. This is a citizen requested Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan and corresponding zoning from Office to Community Commercial. Ms. Janssen reminded the Commission the goal of the evening is to formulate a recommendation to forward to the council. The focus should be on the land itself, its current designation, the proposed designations, and the surrounding designations. Plans change so the proposed use should not be a consideration. At the 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 6 time of development, an extensive review will be performed and any improvements necessary will be addressed at that time, and the financial burden will fall to the person who makes application for those improvements. The Chair recognized Mr. Driskell who said he and Commissioner Kelley had a conversation and Commissioner Kelley needed to say something. Commissioner Kelley stated he would be recusing himself from the discussion of CPA-2015-0001. (At the last meeting Mr. Kelley stated he had received some volunteer services provided by the law firm of Witherspoon Kelly where the applicant's attorney works. Mr. Schwartz, the attorney, and Mr. Kelley both have stated they have never met each other.) Mr. Driskell said staff would come get Mr. Kelley after discussion of the matter closed, and Mr. Kelley stepped out of the room. Ms. Janssen said the Commission had the staff report which reviewed the amendment, adequate noticing had occurred and no comments have been received. The site is unique in location and landscape. It is located on a frontage road with visibility from I-90 with a steep slope to the south of about 30 percent. The site is affected by constant freeway noise and light and is not appropriate for residential development. There are more uses allowed in the Community Commercial zone, but less than the Regional Commercial directly adjacent to 1-90. Staff has also discussed the Office zoning is not working in general or in this area, and it will be reviewed during the legislative update of the Comprehensive Plan, currently underway. Mr. Hohman reiterated staff would be looking at the zoning in this area in particular because of the comments he and other staff members have received from people who either own the property or would like to develop property, around this area. He said the reason staff supported this amendment was because so many people have come to the City and said this area is a problem zoned as Office. He said we know from years of experience in dealing with this area we need to do something. He reminded the Commission the development issues would be handled at the time of a permit request and staff is here to answer any questions the Commission have. Commissioner Anderson said he had a list of items concerning the amendment. He said his personal beliefs are for minimum zoning and business growth, but he said we are all aware we are not here to address his personal beliefs. He said the zone change would add about 34 uses, 11 uses with conditions, over what is currently allowed. However later he reported there were 37 uses which were the same. He said he had analyzed the staff report and documents which had been submitted at the last meeting and his comments are as follows: • Staff report findings and conclusions (C)(1)(a)(i)(1) in the analysis "Analysis: The Community Commercial classification is intended to serve several neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan states that Community Commercial areas should not be larger than 15-17 acres in size and should be located as business clusters rather than arterial strip commercial development. The amendment is consistent with the size requirement; the location's visibility along the 1-90 corridor lends itself to regional services/business. However, the access to the area is limited and not conductive to regional development. The reclassification may improve marketability of the property and the public health, safety, and general welfare should be promoted by standards established by the City's development regulations." He said it may be true, but it is not our responsibility to worry about marketability. "Public health and safety and welfare should be promoted" He said he didn't see any support provided for that statement. • From the staff report (C)(1)(a)(i)(3) "The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies. Analysis: The location of 1-90 adjacent to the site does not appear to be conducive to residential development or office uses since the land has sat vacant. Residential uses in the area have been converted to office or commercial uses while the remaining residential uses appear to be on the decline. Other commercial uses located in the area have been successful." He said he did not see any support for the statement. He said technically we could say the new owner is creating 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 the condition change. He continued, under the analysis it states "the site does not appear to be conducive to Office use since the land has sat vacant." He did not see any support for the reason for vacancy and wondered if vacancy is a justification for a zone change. • From the staff report (C)(1)(a)(ii)(3) "The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region Analysis: The proposed site-specific map amendment should not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood and will likely promote the most appropriate use of property. Commercial development of this property will support the existing commercial uses in the area. Vacant property does not create a population base necessary for businesses to thrive." He said the neighborhood is currently zoned office, and it still has several residences, which are now zoned office, a new zone would not guarantee no effect on the surrounding neighborhood. • From the staff report (C)(1)(a)(ii)(4) "The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; Analysis: The land has sat vacant and it can be concluded that the property's current land use designation does not meet the desirable market criteria for office uses. The City has ample office designated land along the Argonne/Mullan, Pines, and Evergreen Corridors available for development or redevelopment. The proposed amendment should create a marketable piece of property that is more compatible with uses located in the vicinity." He said he did not think the City used vacancy as a criteria for change. • From the staff report (C)(2)(c) Compliance with Title 19 "The map amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare; (staff analysis)As stated in previous analysis the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare." He said he did not see any support for this statement and said there could be no change and there could be a negative change depending on what is developed on the property. • From the staff report (C)(2)(d) "The map amendment is warranted in order to achieve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zoning district classification, or because the proposed zoning classification is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; (staff analysis) The proposed amendment and zone change is reasonable for the development of the property." He said he did not see any support for the need or appropriateness. • From the staff report (C)(2)(e) "The property is adjacent and contiguous (which shall include corner touches and property located across a public right-of-way) to property of the same or higher zoning classification; (staff analysis) The property located north of the subject property has a Regional Commercial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan and a Regional Commercial zoning designation. The subject property is adjacent to these properties over Nora Avenue and Interstate 90, both public rights-of-way. The subject property meets the requirement." He said there is right-of-way, which is Nora Avenue. He said what is across I-90 has no bearing on this rule, he saw nothing in the intent of a rule, of a public right-of-way being the plural of public-right- of-ways, as a touch. He stated he thought everyone understood public right-of-way went from one side of the street to the other. He said this was his opinion, and the way he read that rule.. • From the staff report (C)(2)(f) "The map amendment has merit and value for the community as a whole; (staff analysis) The amendment will provide an opportunity to redevelop a property that is currently vacant with little chance of redevelopment as currently zoned. The Community Commercial designation would allow for a wider variety of commercial development with prime freeway exposure." He said little chance of development was not supported with any needs. • Referring to the letter from Mr. James Cross (submitted at the public hearing), Paragraph l 7 "To realize the highest and best use of this property, we request approval of the requested change to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance in order to allow the development of commercial use." He said he believed every owner desired to use their property to the highest and best use, but he did not think it was the City's responsibility to make decisions based on that factor. 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 • He said in addressing the letter from Witherspoon Kelly (also submitted at the public hearing), many of the items have been addressed but it refers to the NAI Black study (also submitted at that public hearing) regarding the averaging of office vacancies in the Spokane Valley. He said the discussion was about vacant office property and he didn't see anywhere in the report a discussion of vacant office property. He said it would have been a great report if it would have compared vacant office zoned property to commercial zoned property. The report talked about office floor space and vacant office floor space. • From Mr. Schwartz's Letter, "Section D, Considerations. The following legal principals are offered for your consideration. 'We also recognize that although zoning applies a degree of permanency, municipal authorities must be responsive to changing conditions and circumstances which justify revision of existing zoning classifications. Otherwise, the outdated land use restrictions may become unreasonable and refusal to amend or modem zoning ordinance could result in arbitrary and unreasonable conduct.' Bishop v. Town of Houghton, 69 Wn2d 786, 480 P.2d 368 (1966)" He said the threat was understood but he would counter that changing the zoning would allow all other vacant property owners to bring the same threat if we didn't rezone their property also. He said he did not have any fear of not approving this rezone as a problem for the City. He said based on the rules for making Comprehensive Plan amendments, he did not see the necessary requirements had been met. With the change we would be injecting a new zone between Office zones, which consist of office and residential uses. With this change we would be allowing all uses which are allowed under the Community Commercial zone, not one specific use which may exist in harmony with its neighbors. He did not know what the past zoning for the area was, but because we are considering a Comprehensive Plan amendment and not a code text amendment, he could not support the change. Commissioner Scott said she looked up the land use for adjacent when using an eight-lane freeway and then Nora Avenue as an adjacent right-of-way. She said the definition said 'the two objects would not be widely separated' and she said the land use definition said having a `common border.' She said one was on the Interstate and one was on Nora, without it, you lose the connection for the higher zoning on the other side. She has observed in the Comprehensive Plan and on the maps, Community Commercial is generally located along arterials or the intersections of arterials. She commented, 'you could do all the roadwork you wanted' but she did not think Nora would ever qualify as an arterial. She said to her, changing these parcels in the zone could be considered 'spot zoning' without the other supporting criteria. She said she believed the residential zoning was in place under Spokane County, stayed the same when the City incorporated but changed to Office when the City adopted its first Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Barlow asked where Commissioner Scott had gotten the definitions of`adjacent.' Commissioner Scott said she had gone to Black's Law,which had been cited in the letter from Mr. Schwartz. She said it goes further to state `laying near, or close to, but not actually touching.' She said it goes further on to say the difference between adjacent and adjoining is the former applies to "two objects which are not widely separated." Ms. Barlow said it sounded like a viable definition however, she would direct the Commission to the definition staff is using,which is in the SVMC 19.30.030(B)(5). Using the City's definition is how this property is able to meet the criteria, because it is contiguous, and the definition in the Municipal Code specifically states that adjacent includes public right-of-way. Ms. Barlow stated staff had conferred with the City's legal counsel to confirm it was appropriate to be able to use both right-of ways as contiguous. Ms. Barlow also spoke to the character of changing neighborhoods and residential uses in transitioning neighborhoods. Mr. Driskell commented he did not know if there were two contiguous rights-of-way or it is shown as one right-of-way which was wider than most but was still right-of- way. The legal interpretation is this meets the criteria set forth in the SVMC as adjacent. He also cautioned the Commissioners about using legal terms such as `spot-zoning' because this does not meet the legal requirements of a 'spot zone' and did not apply in this case. Commissioner Anderson 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 asked if the separate ownership would make a difference in classifying them as two separate rights- of-way. Mr. Driskell responded he did not think the code contemplated different ownership, but regardless there was no intervening use between them. Commissioner Stoy clarified the Regional Commercial across the right-of-way, was a higher intensity commercial use, allowed larger scale commercial uses than the Community Commercial being proposed. The request is for a less intense use than Regional Commercial. Commissioner Phillips said he came ready to support the amendment. He said Mr. Anderson made some valid points. He disagreed with staff that going across two separate right-of-ways is adjacent or concurrent to, but he was still willing to support it so hopefully there would be more development in the valley rather than vacant lots just sitting there. Commissioner Wood said he would like to see the property develop and have some use. The (for sale) signs are lined up along there. Steinway has semi trucks to haul things in and out of their parking lot. He said the road has good access in his opinion. He would like to see the City develop more businesses along the freeway, (the proposed use) would seem appropriate to him. The amendment seemed practical, new business energizes the community. He said whenever possible we should support these businesses. He was supporting the motion. Mr. Hohman reminded the Commission their options were to recommend approval, recommend denial, or recommend an amendment. If an amendment is the recommendation, a new public hearing date would need to be set. Mr. Driskell confirmed these were the options. Ms. Horton reminded the Commission they had a motion on the floor, to recommend approval of CPA-2015-0001 to the City Council. The Chair then called for the vote. The vote on the motion by a show of hands was three in favor, Commissioners Phillips, Stoy and Wood Three against: Commissioners Anderson, Graham, Scott. The motion fails. The amendment moves forward with no recommendation. Staff will return at the Feb. 26, 2015 meeting with the Findings of Fact for the Comprehensive Plan amendments. Commissioner Kelley then returned to the dais. Study Session: CTA-2015-0001 Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal (SVMC)19.40.150(C)Animal Keeping: Planner Micki Harnois explained to the Commission the City is proposing to change SVMC 19.40.150(C) animal keeping regulations by adding beekeeping requirements, clarifying various terminologies to keep in line with the rest of the code and prohibiting the keeping of nutria. Ms. Harnois stated a nutria, also known as a Coypu or a river rat, is classified as an invasive aquatic animal species and it is prohibited to keep them in this state. Currently the code also allows for the keeping of nutria, so they needed to be struck from the City's code. Ms. Harnois explained beekeeping is becoming a popular home hobby and industry. Currently the SVMC allows a maximum of 25 hives only on lots 40,000 square feet or larger. The proposed language would require the number of hives be limited to one hive per 4,356 square feet of lot area. Beehives are to be located a minimum of five feet from side and rear property lines and twenty feet from front or flanking street property lines. A six foot high flyaway barrier, which forces the bees to fly up and away, and an adequate supply of water for the bees will need to be located close to each colony. Planning Commission Training: Open Public Meetings Act,Public Records Act,Appearance of Fairness Doctrine: Mr. Driskell and Mr. Lamb gave the Planning Commission an extensive training session regarding the Open Public Meetings Act, Public Records Act, and Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. They explained how and when to use the City email system, how to guard their personal emails systems, 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 what a serial meeting is, how to handle conflicts of interest, what an open meeting is, and how to avoid the problems of perceived meetings which are not held in public. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Scott asked for clarification for the difference between findings and conclusions in the staff report and the Planning Commission findings. Ms. Barlow explained the findings in the staff report supported the analysis staff did on the proposed amendment. After the Planning Commission conducts its hearing and deliberations, the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact support the decision the Planning Commission made regarding the subject. The two could be similar but are not going to be the same, because they support two different processes of the procedure. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business,the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. ` (e' tPI1 Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 02-12-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6