Agenda 05/28/2015 S1o1 ane
Salle
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
May 28, 2015 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 14, 2015, May 18, 2015
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall,
May 14,2015
Chairman Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the
pledge of allegiance. Ms.Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present:
Kevin Anderson John Hohman,Community Development Director
Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Tim Kelley Cary Driskell,City Attorney
Mike Phillips Christina Janssen, Planner
Susan Scott Marty Palaniuk,Planner
Joe Stoy Karen Kendall,Planner
Sam Wood Micki Harnois,Planner
Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission
Elisha Heath,Office Assistant
Bill Miller,IT Specialist
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the May 14, 2015 agenda. Staff explained the public hearing
for CTA-2015-0004 would be moved to a future date in order to accept as much public testimony this
evening on the site specific Citizen Amendment Requests for the Comprehensive Plan Update. The vote
on the amended agenda was seven in favor,zero against, the motion passes.
Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the April 23, 2015 minutes as presented. Commissioner Stoy
noted in two votes, regarding the agenda and the minutes it should reflect six votes, not seven.
Commissioner Scott noted the heading on page 5 was incorrect, and on the last page regarding
subdivision standards, there is a correction regarding "asked if anyone drew out a corner lot "
Commissioner Graham stated on page 4, top of the page, her statement "if this request had not come
forward would the consultant still have looked at this request". Ms. Horton stated she would amend
these noted changes. The Commission approved the amended minutes with a vote of seven in favor, zero
against, and the motion passed.
COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelley reported he attended the Valley Chamber of
Commerce meeting. Commissioner Wood reported he attended the Spokane Home Builders Association
Government Affairs meeting. Commissioners Phillips and Scott reported they attended the City Hall at
the Mall function.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
Community Development Director John Hohman stated the purpose for the evening's public hearing was
to accept public testimony regarding the site specific Citizen Amendment Requests (CARS). The City is
engaged in it's Comprehensive Plan Update, which is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA)
every eight years. These requests are not the same as the request received during an annual
Comprehensive Plan update, in that these requests will not be recommended for approval or denial.
These requests will be looked at on the basis of do they have merit for further analysis. They should be
looked at to be included in the Comprehensive Plan Update and have further analysis done on the
suggested areas and surrounding areas. Mr. Hohman also said there had been an issue with the
notification of the text amendment and zoning overlay applicants. A special meeting would be noticed
for June 8,2015 in order to accept testimony on the text and overlay amendments.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 16
Public Hearing - CAR-2015-0001 through CAR-2015-0020 - Citizen Amendment Requests for further
analysis during the Comprehensive Plan Legislative Update:
Chairman Stoy read the rules for holding a public hearing Chairman Stoy opened the Public Hearing at
6:18 p.m.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow, gave the Commission an overview of the purpose of the meeting which is to
conduct a public hearing on the Citizen-initiated Amendment Requests (CARs) which have been
received. Ms. Barlow welcomed and thanked the public for attending the meeting. Ms. Barlow set the
stage for the process for the review and decisions which will be made. The Update is required by the
Growth Management Act(GMA), causing the City and other jurisdictions planning under the GMA to do
periodic updates. The City is required to complete its update by June 2017. We are required to look at
our plan and make sure that it is consistent with the laws that have been changed since our
Comprehensive Plan had been adopted. The City adopted a public participation program to make sure
we are engaging the public in the process. The CAR application process is one way to engage the public
in the process. The City received 26 CAR applications. Nineteen were site specific requests, five text
requests, and two overlay requests. Tonight public testimony will be accepted and the Commissioners
should only ask clarifying questions of the public as they testify. If the public has questions they should
contact staff for more information. She stated this would be the most efficient way to allow as many
people as possible to testify in the time allowed for the meeting. Ms. Barlow stated each planner will give
a brief overview of the site and then testimony can be taken for each amendment. She suggested leaving
the ones which were more controversial toward the end of the evening.
The following minutes have been taken verbatim. Only minor corrections have been made to allow for
readability.
CAR-2015-0001 —Addressed as 1618 N. Sargent Rd. Requesting to change from Office to High Density
Residential.
Al Payne, 905 West Riverside: I'm the proponent; the only thing I can say is that I have a property that
is zoned for a Garden Office,which is single story. It is inappropriate now, at one time we owned the lots
on this side of Sargent and had planned to expand into it but 2007 defeated that. So the only thing I can do
with it, I can't building anything but one story office building. I could use it for parking, joining my
current lot to the east. So this would make it more useful and compatible than a Garden Office.
Dwight Hume, 9101 North Mountain View Lane : Mr. Payne and I have worked on this property and
the adjoining office complex, zoned Office to the east of it over the course of time before the City
incorporating. This particular lot as you found is vacant and what you'll hear in the theme in all these
request for High Density Residential, especially those from Medium Density Residential is that if there is
a house on the property it is too valuable and too small to implement the MF-1 zone. On the other hand if
it becomes MF-2 it becomes usable. In this case we have a vacant piece of property that is more suitable
in bulk and scale and whatnot adjoining the office to be either MF-1 or MF-2 and as Mr. Payne said he
has other lots around Sargent, the houses that are on them they are not cost effective to convert unless
they went to High Density Residential. Is not necessarily interested in doing that on all of those
properties, this one is vacant you could probably get a triplex out of it, if it was zoned appropriately for
that.That's it.
CAR-2015-0002—Addressed as 115 and 117 N McDonald Rd. Requesting to change from Low Density
Residential to Corridor Mixed Use.
Howard Herman, 117 N. McDonald.: I have two houses that you saw in the picture, they have been
there about one of them about 50 years and the other about 40 years. The street used to be a single lane
gravel road now it is a four lane road with 7,000 cars a day. So I would like to be able to do something
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 16
different with it then have it for residential property. Everything is in the written materials. I thank you for
your consideration.
CAR-2015-0003 — Is a vacant lot east of Conklin and south of Broadway, just to the east of the
Kohl's/Lowes development area. Requesting to change from Low Density Residential to High Density
Residential.
Glenn Wells, 324 West Bay Drive, Olympia, WA.: My client owns this property, has owned it for a
long time and clearly it is zoned improperly because it is so close to big box retail. Typically in good
growth management standards you have a transitional zone between large scale retail centers and single
family homes or low density residential.And so this application is really for that whole region adjacent to
Kohls,Walmart and my client would not be interested in developing single family because it is so close to
that. There is too much activity in this particular case it is very close to the bus lines and so I believe that
rezoning this property and the surrounding properties adjacent to the big box retail would help prevent
urban sprawl and focus the growth that is going to occur in Spokane Valley to those areas that are ready
heavy,heavy retail.Thank you.
CAR-2015-0004-0009—Addressed as 226 and 302 S. Sullivan and adjacent vacant lot; 15411 and 15423
E.4th; and 15410 E. 2nd Ave.
Randy Tetter, South 224 Newer Road: What they are showing on your map is showing just a small
section of what is there. We are in a neighborhood of 30 single family dwellings. Nobody in the
neighborhood knew when changed this to Multifamily. We are looking at the adverse effect from
apartment houses,basically is what they want to put in there. They want to put an entrance on 3rd Avenue
which is right in the heart of a. Looking at we had no complaint with having single height one building
office now they are trying to expand it and take more chucks out of our neighborhood and force more
multifamily down. They are trying to change the zoning on a piece of propriety on a gentleman here who
does not want it. We're like a I said a single family area. We've been there 32 years the only multiple
family unit we have in our area is a duplex being built right now that no one knew about. Or we would
have been complaining about it. Looking since I've been there 32 years we've watched crime, traffic all
go up because of the apartment houses on the other side of Sullivan we don't want those problems
expanded over to our area. We have roving bands of kids coming through. We have people tearing down
2nd to avoid the light on 4th or on Sullivan and Sprague. It's not conducive to a single family
neighborhood. I'm sorry the developer might lose some money. It's not a very big chuck of property but
how would you like apartments a hundred foot from your door. That's all I have to say,thank you.
James Holmer, 15410 E. 2" Avenue: I'm tonight respectfully asking that my property at 15410 E. 2nd
be removed from this application. And that this CAR application be excluded from further analysis from
the Comprehensive Plan Update. I oppose this application because the area most affected houses all single
families on 2nd, 3rd and 4th joining north and south streets. The west side of Sullivan that they show here
is very different than the east side. The eastside has apartments and businesses as shown the west side has
one office on each corner of 2nd and 4th and all the rest of the residences are single family houses. We
don't oppose economic growth the zoning for Office or Garden Office provides a good transitional buffer
between needed economic growth and the existing established neighborhood we have. This CAR
application is just not in theme with our adjoining properties and would significantly alter the essential
character of our community. In addition this application contains many glaring errors it included my
property without my knowledge or consent. This at the very least is unprofessional and disingenuous for
an attorney. It states commercial use is the best use for my property since that, he states that and that all
the adjoining properties also. Well the best use for my property is probably for my family and every
house; every place that is adjoining that area is all housed by single families, every one of them. He states
that we simply don't need more office buildings,this is wrong again.A cursory trip up Sullivan and down
Sprague each way show no empty stand-alone offices and opening in almost every multiunit commercial
building. So I conclude that this rezone area is not as simple and none impactful as the applicant asserts. It
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 16
does impact many families, I've canvassed the area myself and not one is for this. The rezone would be
inconsistent with current zoning on the Westside of Sullivan from the railroad right-of-way up to 4th. This
rezone he says would not impact neighbors, roads, or(Chairman request that speaker wrap up). Not one
neighbor is for it. You would have to do major traffic revision on Sullivan because you can't turn out of
those properties without crossing a left turn lane or illegally crossing double yellow line. Density would
be affected. He also said that Office is under performing. I content that his office is under performing due
to poor property management. The best example is S. 226 Sullivan with no front step, composting trash,
dangerous fencing and abandon appliances. So please remove me from application and exclude this CAR
application from further analysis.Help the families grow within reasonable development.
CAR-2015-0012—Is a vacant lot which faces Skipworth just north of Sprague Ave. Requesting to change
from High Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use.
Diane Torrelli, 11309 E. Sprague Avenue: Ms. Torrelli's business is just south of the proposed,
easement is what it used to be and O'Reilly is putting a warehouse in there and the only thing I'm
concerned about which I don't know anything about is the semi trucks going through there.And idling all
day doing the things that semi trucks do at these kinds of businesses. So I really don't know,I want you to
consider having a warehouse in the middle of Sprague with apartment buildings that children play behind
and businesses are in front of that if that is what they are going to use that ally way for. That's all I needed
to know.
Commissioner Scott stated she had a business which could be considered competitive and so would be
recusing herself from CAR-2015-0014-0015
CAR-2015-0015 — Addressed as 15316 and 15324 E Valleyway Ave. Requesting a change from Low
Density Residential to Community Commercial.
Brian Chavez, 15302 E. Valleyway.: I am one of the two adjoining property owners requesting this
Comp Plan change. I'm here to reaffirm what I said in my original application that my property under its
current zone Low Density Residential is a poor fit for the neighborhood. My property is long and narrow
it would be difficult to do a residential development on along with its odd size and shape the same reasons
it is a poor fit for the Low Density Residential are good reasons for the Community Commercial zone.
Impacted by the Sullivan corridor its property line is adjacent to an established tavern,the rear property is
bordered by commercial development. Thanks for your consideration.
Carla Marshall, 15311 E.Valleyway.: And I live directly across from Brian's property that he acquired
and I am just here to support him.And I agree with everything that he wants to do on that property. Thank
you.
Mark McManis, 15125 E. Valleyway: I'm a neighbor concerned about a commercial property there, it
seemed like we had a good buffering zone with the R-4 and if the whole parcel went to a R-4 zoning I
always believe that is good buffering to residential. We do have traffic problems on Valleyway there are
no exits,reasonable going west which evidently they left the west picture off of these three,there is north,
south and east. West is single family residential narrow roads and no support with arterials and traffic
would come that way especially if we had a large tavern or casino on the property. We're all the up
zoning that these people are asking for is affecting the neighbors. You're supposed to be helping us.They
it was designed the Comp Plan was designed with buffering and the Medium Residential it buffer
between commercial because builders want to make gross profits we shouldn't be punished. You're here
to protect us from that. I think all those should be thrown off this agenda. Thank you.
Cindy McManis, 15125 E. Valleyway.: I am a brand new resident at 15125 E. Valleyway. I've been in
the home maybe two weeks and was caught off guard to see that you want to put a commercial business at
the end of my street. I took a look at some of the other businesses not necessarily understanding all the
codes but knowing that just because we have a business down the street that was grandfathered in many,
many years ago. That has RV storage on it doesn't mean that is all that is ever going to be on it be down
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 16
my street. I bought my home to retire in. I don't want to have five houses down from me a night club or
according to what the codes say somebody can go grow a field of pot down my street if they want. I've
got seventeen grandchildren in this town and they come and visit all the time. My street is barely wide
enough for two cars to go down one in each direction. I think adding more commercial to my single
family residence is an inappropriate thing for the City to approve.Thank you for your time.
Bruce Kempe, 15301 E.Valleyway.: I'm actually here I'm I live across the street. I support the decision
that Brian is trying to do there on the property. I think it would bring in less traffic. I don't see any kind of
big structure being built there. So I support him one hundred percent.
Adam Merifield, 15308 E. Valleyway.: I currently am living right beside the grandfathered in RV
storage unit and right in between the newly purchased property to the east. I am currently a proponent for
the plan but that Brian has in place. I feel that it would be better, more suitable use to have that added
onto the storage facility and become a better buffer between my current house and a big field and a huge
bar that gets partied at every night. That's all I have to say.
Kay Herlbet, 15205 E. Valleyway.: Right next to Cindy, we built that home 57 years ago its single
family. I'm concerned because yes it is a very narrow lane and people go bat out of hell down that street
because they are avoiding the big streets Broadway and Sprague. There is absolutely no way I want more
traffic down my street. Now if he keeps it a storage unit that would work. But I'm concerned about the
young children on our street as it is there are signs, multiple placing slow down kids playing. I'm
concerned also because right kitty corner, they keep talking about that bar there. Well remember where
Yoke's went belly up? Or went under that's going to be the brand new Preschool that's going to be the
Learning Center for Spokane Valley. They are going to bring in preschool kids there and I'm concerned
increasing that traffic is going to possibly cause more heartache than it's worth.Thank you.
Geraldine King, 15324 E Valleyway: I'm the one that's with Brian on this we have the joint properties
and my house we've been there for 30 years. And it has been surrounded, slowly creeping in all this
businesses. I've got a Pizza Hut, I've got a carwash, I've got a Wendy's, I've got a bar. There's just no
reason not to. I mean we are completely surrounded by businesses already and it's not that big of a lot.
It's not like a casino could fit in there you know? Anyway that's my proposal. I'm for it. Thank you for
your time and I'm sorry I was late and didn't get to sign up. Thank you.
Mark McManis: Again and I thought we were going proponents,opponents and I'm hearing people talk
about it'd be great if it was a storage unit. Which I'm assuming Mr. Chavez sold to his neighbors that's
not what the zoning says. He could have a storage unit and have it zoned much lower than what he is
asking for please check that out.
Commissioner Scott rejoined the Commission.
CAR-2015-0017 — Addressed as 807 N. Argonne Rd. Requesting to change from Office to
Neighborhood Commercial.
John McCollum, 5719 S. Cree Drive.: My wife and I are owners of McFreeze Corporation. We bought
that property 21 years ago. And when we bought it we rezoned from standard residential to commercial
B-2. When you folks rezoned the City in 2007, you reduced it to Garden Office. And it doesn't really
comply with what we are doing now and what we would like to do in the future. We prefer to upgrade it
to Neighborhood Commercial.
Tim Castell, 601 West Main: And I've been familiarized with the property from John and Bert
McCollum who have employed my help to find the best and highest use for this property. And I think
you'll find if you take a look at the allowable uses are in the zone that they are requesting it's a much
better fit for that property. Probably play a role in bringing more businesses to the Valley and providing a
better service for the area. Thanks for your time.
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 16
CAR-2015-0020—Addressed as 12717, 12725, 12803, 12815, 12823 and 12903 4th Ave. Requesting to
change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.
Charlie Cox, 422 S. Vercler Road: I'm 67 years old and have lived my entire life in Spokane Valley,
except the three years I was in the Marine Corp. The appeal of living in the Valley has been rural where
the word neighbor meant something more than just the person living next to you. When these apartments
come in we are destroying that integrity of that rural atmosphere we've had. And it is sad to see. I also
was a teacher in the Spokane Central Valley School District for 41 years. I watched the schools become
over come with students, over population. And when you let these apartments in, you're going to put a
burden on the school districts,with students,with gas prices to bus them because you're going to have to
bus them. I would just like to see the Valley stay rural with the single family homes.Thank you.
Dwight Hume, 9101 N. Mountain View Lane: I'm here on behalf of my client who owns the westerly
two lots of that series of six running east and west. There are five houses out there and a vacant lot on the
east end.Tentatively we have a little bit more than seven acres in that situation.My client has rented these
houses ever since he purchased them years ago and they were zoned MF-1. We request MF-2 for that full
series for the reason as I mentioned earlier when I was at the podium is the fact that most of these lots are
occupied individually with houses and the MF-1 zone and the size of the site are not sustainable or cost
effective is a better word for implementation of the MF-1 zone. MF-2 on the other hand is a something
that is probably doable, certainly it is the only other option you have for density. It doubles it. Is it
suitable for that area? Yes, you have in a bird's eye view of all of that on the Appleway Corridor, the
Milwaukee right-of-way and 4th Avenue. You have over and over again High Density Residential and
Medium Density Residential the reason being you have amenity of the corridor, trail system, walk to
commercial on the other side of that. Trying to fit a population which you have an obligation to do in
Growth Management Plan, in fill of High Density Residential is one of your easiest ways of
accommodating the population submitted to. You have that under the MF-1 on an individual lot home
bases. So presumably and that's all this is, that a developer would then look at the attractiveness of a
seven acre site as High Density Residential and could afford to buy out those houses and develop at twice
the density. (Chairman informed that need to wrap up).That's it thank you.
Julie Leeman, 12605 E.4th Avenue.: I've lived there since 1994,I oppose this rezoning request. For the
following reasons there simply is no shortage in Spokane Valley of multifamily residences, the need for
additional new construction does not exist. As my neighbor already mentioned local schools are currently
filled to capacity.North Pines Middle School is currently absolutely bursting at the seams and it continue
to build ever more multifamily residences which will include families with children and expecting the
school system to just absorb all these new students is an irresponsible attitude. But the most serious
consideration in my opinion is this request to be denied out of the six property owners that desire this
change only three of them actually live in the neighborhood and we have a long petition list of all the
other neighbors who oppose this. So the desire of six owners, three of which do not even live there, to
change the zoning is negated by the desire of the multitude of the rest of the neighborhood who request
that it not be rezoned. Thank you.
Tom Dewer, 12621 E. 4th Avenue: The objection that I believe is going to show up most important is
the capacity of 4th Avenue it is right now,when I go to back out right now I might have to wait quiet some
time, if we've got a large number of multifamily units on both sides maybe I'll not be able to make it. 4th
Avenue doesn't have enough land on each side to make it into a four or five lane highway. Which I
believe is going to be necessary if these things are done. Thank you.
Sara Powell, 12911 E. 3rd Lane.: I'm also speaking for my neighbor across the street who was unable to
be here for physical reasons. They are Sandy and Duncan Brown at 12906 E. 3rd Lane. The area is
currently zoned at Medium housing which says is up to 12 units per acre. When we had purchased the
house that we currently live in we looked at the areas around us to see what they were zoned at currently
because we understood that with the open field that,that would be developed so we figured that would be
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 16
developed to single family or town houses or fourplexes. And that's what its currently zoned at. That and
I do feel that would be appropriate zone for what should be built in those areas. With this High Density it
would be plus 12 units per acre which I think would be too large. We don't have sidewalks. It's only a
two lane street at 25 miles per hour. I am....I do not... So I protest the zoning because it would negatively
affect the neighboring property values. I for one,my property line is adjacent to the property so I feel that
if I was next to apartments that my housing would, the value of my house would go down. Without
sidewalks I think the extra traffic would be a threat to the safety of pedestrians and I do not feel that it is
the desire of the surrounding neighborhood to have High Density housing. I think that the current
Medium Density housing is just great. Thank you.
Robert Durham, 12823 E. 4th Avenue.: First of all I got no notification at all in the mail. I knew
nothing about this till some of my neighbors came over and talked to me about this. I'm one of those
houses and I don't want it. We already have an apartment building there. Sure they start out nice but then
they go downhill. I've had things stolen out of my vehicles, I followed the foot prints in the snow. Where
do they go? Right to the apartment building. 4th Avenue is horrible with traffic as it is now. I mean 60
miles per hour is nothing up and down that street, all the time. It's ridiculous, it can't go on. So I just
oppose this.
Charles Kienholz,421 S.Vercler Road.: Just off of 4th. I definitely oppose what's going on here. One of
the safety concerns that I have is the access exit to 4th Avenue from these units,proposed units. That will
be going, supposable going in. There is not enough exits the only other possible exit is 3rd to Pines and
possibly over to Sprague and that would have to cross the new bike path over there. So this is my
concern, more congestion means less safety to pedestrians, bicyclists and children exiting school buses.
As somebody use said 4th Avenue has become a raceway track and people running up and down that street
40, 50, 60 miles per hour. So this is a concern with other people going in the area, these units going in.
The added population would cause a burden to the school district as someone else mentioned. And we
would like to see this left at MF-1 or maybe possible a 55+ community of 62+ community. Thank you
very much.
Dick Grove, 411 S Vercler Road.: I feel very out of place and I have a stutter. So if I stutter please feel,
please accept it. Ok? I handed you my file three pages of residents who live on 4th Avenue that is
connected to the 4th Avenue. I have tried to reach every house on 4th Avenue to see if they were in favor
of having it rezoned multiple High Density dwelling and I was not able to reach I'd say six people. I'm
sorry 16 homes on the whole 4th Avenue. The list that you have are people who live in the area and they
would like our zoning to stay at the regular zoning and not be changed to the High Density. Thank you
very much.
Teresa Evans, 12824 E. 4th Avenue.: This empty lot is right across the street from me. And I would
rather you know have it just single family. I don't want more apartments in the neighborhood at all. I've
lived there all my life. Still live there. I want to remain living there.And that's it.Thank you.
Les Bokanyi,S.416 Vercler Road.: I'm here to oppose this. I've got three primary reasons. We've got a
huge bottle neck on 4th between Pines and McDonald. I don't know if any of you have come down that
road before between 7:30 and 8:00 in the morning. It's next to impossible to get on Pines Road or go
across the street on either end McDonald or Pines. Second of all safety issue we've got a bus stop there
for children. Kindergarten,we've got three bus stops there and that happens twice a day when get picked
up and in the afternoon. Our road can't sustain any more traffic then it's already got on there to start with.
Adding those apartment complex or adding High Density apartment complex will create more havoc for
us. Not to mention, you know God forbid if a child gets hit or something because of the excess traffic.
The estimation is going to be anywhere from 150 to 400 additional cars going down that road. That's
ridiculous. I ask that the Commission keep that in consideration when you are making your decision.
Thank you.
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 16
James Johnson, 13224 E 4th Avenue: I apologies for not getting my name on the list. I obviously haven't
been paying attention well enough. I assure you that has changed and we are going to become very close
over the next couple of months.Having lived on 4th Avenue for 22 years,I've kinda become a piece of the
fabric of the Spokane Valley. During the time I lived in Pasadena Park and while I lived there I was a
member of the Pasadena Park Citizen Advisory Committee. We wrote the long range plan for Pasadena
Park that was later incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan as we wrote it. One of the key
considerations we had was to make sure whatever growth we plan for, and growth has to be planned for,
we know that growth has to be planned for, it's what a strong community needs. But we were advised
and spent a lot of time making sure that any growth that was allowed blended with the existing
development. I couldn't be where you had low density of one side of the road and high density on the
other side of the road. During our deliberations,two years worth,there were several developers that came
and testified that if they didn't get the High Density designation they wouldn't be profitable. They argued
about it over and over again all the way through the process till it was accepted into the Comprehensive
Plan. Amazingly enough immediately after that all that land was developed at the lower density that we
designated it at. Its not as profitable, people don't make as much money. But every penny that ends up in
that developer's hands came out of someone else's pocket. And that would be the neighborhood. 4th
Avenue as you've heard the testimony is very busy, if you allow these to move forward that traffic flow is
going to be insane. There is no way it is going to be a low density on one side of the road and high density
on the other side of the road and be compatible. Simply won't work. Thank you.
Jeremy Burg, 417 S. Leta.: Just moved in to 417 S. Leta approximately the middle of March. When we
were looking for houses we had no idea that this was going to be considered. I lived in the Cedar
Properties off of Mission and McDonald for seven years to save up money to try and get out of that
situation. For anyone who has lived in an apartment that long you know the High Density apartment
complex there is crime,traffic, its loud, it's really a nightmare. We moved,we moved in and a week later
our neighbor brought us muffins, brought us muffins and we never talked to our neighbors at the
apartment complex. To find out this is happening is really infuriating and depressing. I'm 29 years old, I
don't make a lot of money but when I got into this neighborhood its very nice. The folks around me the
average age is a lot older than me probably but it's really nice the way it is. That rectangle of property if
you look to the east you can see the single family homes, it's a nice development the road is paved nice
the houses are all nice there. As a compromise if that were to continue to the west for the people who
don't want to move if they would allow it that would be better in my opinion or to connect that trail to a
park or something or literally anything would be better than this High Density apartment. The space
between Cedar Properties A,B, and the Whimsical Pig over there it, I mean there is a reason we left,you
know. It was a lot cheaper to live there but it was not fun, it wasn't a good experience. Thank you for
your time.
Commissioner Graham moved that a five minute break be taken. The vote on the motion was seven in
favor, zero against, motion passed.
CAR-2015-0010 and 0011 — Addressed as 13215 and 13313 E. 4th Ave. Requesting to change from
Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.
Jim Fluegal, 13401 E. 4th Avenue.: Thank you for letting me speak to you Commissioners. We are the
other side of 4th. You've already heard. I'm the actual development house that the development sits next
to and I've you can see by the stuff I'm going to talk about how much of a distraction for better or words
this is. Talk about property values, if you look I passed out everything you probably won't get to read it
tonight but I want you to try and keep in your mind. On page one and two is a recent flyer of our listing.
We had a house that was listed before he started development. It was listed for 192,500 okay. On page
three you're going to have an email from the County Assessor Paula who said wow the pictures you
provided me with those apartments there has definitely decreased your value and tax,property tax will be
adjusted accordingly next year. I had a recent appraisal that I was going to refi my house my property
value went down according to the appraiser based off of some of the events of the new construction over
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 16
$20,000. I've lost since this has started okay? On pictures four and five on page four and five you'll see
pictures of how my private life and my wife's private life is completely destroyed in our backyard now. It
is butted up right against my backyard. I have put in $5,000 of trees to try and get some kind of blockage.
Which are included in the pictures. Okay? Diamond Rock is in compliance according to the Planning
Department but you'll see on pages six through ten some of the stuff that really isn't done. I have a hole
in the front of my property that wasn't there before. That some child is going walk in and break a leg or
an arm that hasn't been fixed. His edging that he did for the landscaping is over in my yard. So now every
time I cut the grass rocks fly everywhere. It would be nice if he was a good neighbor he would at least put
the edging up in the backyard where he put the (Chairman reminded him he needs to close) Ok. So I'll go
back fast. So you can look through those. I did a quick trip five mile radius,we talked about High Density
apartments,I actually went and asked there are a lot of vacancies.We talked about traffic.All I would ask
the committee to do is talk about zoning, talk about traffic control, talk about emergency vehicles, talk
about everything that needs to be done on 4th. You've heard it from our neighbors both sides it doesn't
matter it's the same. Thank you.
Allan deLabenfels, 13120 E. 6th Avenue.: You have a piece of paper with my name on the top of it,you
can follow along with what I'm going to say. Which is a little bit different that what others have said. I
will try to keep is short. I live at 13120 E. 6th Avenue which is about 800 feet south, southwest of this
property. I ask that the Planning Commission defer action on CAR-0010 until after the completion of the
Comprehensive Plan Update. The requested zone change to High Density Multifamily will be possible
right away after this CAR is approved because permanent buildings quickly follow the grafting of zone
changes this is a very practical issue. This is not theoretical. On my block there is what the owner calls a
hobby auto repair shop. That neighbor is considerate and does not damage the quiet of our block a new
owner could use the CAR procedure to get incomprehensive change to the Comprehensive Plan so that a
zone change will be possible to make this hobby auto repair shop into a commercial auto repair shop. He
would argue that the shop has been present for years and that he is not proposing a substantial change I
would say this would be an end to our quiet neighborhood. Any incomprehensive change to the
Comprehensive Plan is a potential disaster for all the reasons that the Growth Management Act was
considered and adopted. The GMA was not the first or even the second planning enabling law for our
state. It is the third effort to get it right. Please do not approve CAR-0010 or related zone request until
after the City wide Comprehensive Plan is finished. And then only if the rezone is not inconsistent with
the updated Comprehensive Plan to use the words of the growth management act.Thank you.
William Berg, 13310 E.4th Avenue.: I've lived in this Valley all my life. When 16th was a dirt road
and they had to put pickle juice on it to keep the dust from rolling. I've watched the Valley explode with
people. 4th Street has always been 20 feet wide, its 20 feet wide today. The population has quadrupled or
more. That street is a drag strip, the speeds people achieve on that street including the police is mind
boggling. It takes a good deal of arrogance for a developer to come into an area and build High Density
buildings on a Medium Density property. That he already knew was Medium Density because he is
assuming it is going to be High Density before his is done. That calls my,his integrity into question in my
book. Is it, so as it becomes to be about what's right and what's legal? Is it legal to overload the
neighborhood with, with a denser population, higher probability of drug use, higher probability of
domestic violence, crime, unsafe roads for our children, to stand at bus stops, school class sizes,
pedestrian signs,bicyclists the road is 20 feet wide. Give us a break. Is that legal?Yes. Is it the right thing
to do?No.Unenforced traffic speeds that everyone knows that it can't be taken care of because the police
force is already over extended. Even though we need to,even though we need a stop sign on 4th and Blake
desperately to slow this traffic down all in the name of to make a for-profit business function in our
neighborhood is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. Is it legal?Yes. (Chairman reminded to wrap
up).No,it's not the right thing to do.Yes,I will close up. Sorry my No came out at the wrong time there.
Frank Neiland, 3905 S. Union Court.: I admire, respect, and appreciate what you have to go through in
planning. I worked for a utility for 30 years,in the construction area and I worked with developers quite a
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 16
bit over time so I've really seen, you know both sides of the spectrum. I see some time when developers
get aggressive and then I see other cases when there's a lot put on them, you know and they're expected
to meet expectations that you know aren't always reasonable. So, in this case I happen to know the
Fluegals, I visited them recently. And listen to them start listening to their concerns, they live on the
southeast corner of this property or adjacent to it. At first I thought I'm going to have to show them the
balance here and describe that to them and the more I looked at this. This project is really disturbing. The
back property line, I've dealt a lot with swales and drainage. I've never seen a swale against a fence at a
one-to-one sloop. It's being undermine, you know it's fallen in,that's not right. On the west side, excuse
me, yeah the west side of their property there is no buffer there. I mean you go in the backyard and these
things are right up against the property line. There should have been a buffer provided there and as a
utility worker I notice that the power pole and the guy wire in their front yard that serves this project, is
placed for that project is in the asphalt approach that cuts across the front of their property and that can't
stay like that. Can it? You can't have a power pole and a guy wire in the asphalt it has to be, that span
should be eliminated as a utility designer I know that is going to cost between $15,000 and $20,000. So I
oppose this project based on those things.Thank you.
Lyle Bartel, 13209 E. 6th Avenue: I grossly oppose this development. I try to get across 4th several times
a day and it is almost impossible. It is getting quite congested. There are several school bus stops, along
4th if they add another80 units that would be 160 cars added. They just finishing up a 40 well 30 some unit
apartment complex on what I would say is less than an acre. I don't know how they got the permits to do
that because I don't think that fits the current zoning. Cannot allow them to build and then rezone. This
isn't going to work. We don't want High Density zoning in and this close to our neighborhoods. It's
going to add fire trucks, have to add schools, there is going to be street lights there is going to be lots of
taxing that we have to pay for so some developer can make a bundle of money. I'm not opposed to
making money but I think if its already Medium Density let's keep it as such and keep it under control.
James Johnson, 13224 E. 4th Avenue: I've lived there since 1993 you're going to hear a lot of people
testify tonight literally centuries of people who have lived in this area, centuries. They are the fabric of
what is the Valley and why we incorporated. I'd like to point out in your meeting minutes that you
approved earlier today page 3 of 7 when it discusses the CAR there is a statement that Commissioner
Anderson questioned whether or not a person who does not own the property may apply for the division.
And there was a statement that says one of the parcels is owned by the requester and the other is not but
the requester has an option to purchase the other piece of property. I don't know if you've checked with
Lee the owner of the property but there is no agreement. He was surprised to see the sign pop-up in his
yard. He's talked to the man but it hasn't been all that cordial. It's pretty much the same if you look at the
map there is one lot that is kind of completely surrounded that homeowner was contacted by the
developer, nice way to put it. The developer and again there was conversations to buy the offer was
turned down. The meeting was not cordial. I think you guys have dealt with this gentleman before,I think
you have an issue out at Shelly Lake. He doesn't seem to care about his neighbors too much, like the rest
of us do. In your narrative for this proposed change several times it talks about how an MF-2 designation
can act as a proper buffer between the Commercial and the Low Density per the statutes.And I quote MF-
1 the current designation provides a transitional zoning between High Density land use such as
Commercial and Office to lower density single family neighborhoods. In other words there already is
compliance. There is no need to change, unless you want line the pockets of one guy. At the expense of
everyone who lives there.
Lars Lundberg, 13209 E. 4th Avenue: I'd just like to say that I'm strongly opposed to this zone change.
It's going to be right up next to my place. And you've seen if you drive down there what it has done to
other neighbors. I don't need to talk about the traffic. You've gone down 4th you've seen the traffic. They
come down there at 50 miles an hour. And I've called the Sherriff many a time this is just going to
increase all of that. I'm not opposed to growth, but there is other places better than a little bedroom
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 16
neighborhood to build big three story structures and this is in the plan. So I would just like to say, I'm
opposed to this and I don't want it.Thank you.
Dennis Crapo, 2602 N. Sullivan Road: Good evening staff, Planning Commissioners. I just want to
stand and face my neighbors. My name is Dennis Crapo and I own Diamond Rock Construction. I have
no intention of getting into a, I've taken some personal attacks which is their right but I just want to say a
little bit about myself. I'm a Spokanite. I've lived in Spokane since I was three years old. I grew up in
East Valley out in Otis Orchards and I love Spokane. I love Spokane Valley, I love the people, I love all
you people regardless of any personal issues or innuendos you want to throw out. I'd just like to say that a
lot of people were involved in the project here at the Blake it is beautiful project a lot of people have an
opportunity to live in a nice neighborhood. A lot of people would like to share and live in nice
neighborhoods and be able to enjoy nice schools. There are some concerns that have been brought up and
I've been here many,many times and I respect the opinions of those who brought up their opinion.Traffic
as an example we built the apartments there on the bottom side of Central Valley High School, 248 units
in. 4th Avenue there is traffic analyst who have analyzed it we don't have a traffic problem per just as an
example there is two sides, and I realize that both sides can be never ending but per capita according to
the Sherriff's Department Officer Johnson who is the officer,that's his beat,we have less crime per capita
in our apartment complex than the rest of the area. If you look at our, we have people out there every
morning picking up trash, so on and so forth. There is nothing I'm going to say that is going to make
people happy about the fact that we are building apaitinents here. But the reality is in our economy there
is there are not a lot of single family homes being built, people are renting that's the way it's going. If
there wasn't a demand for it, it wouldn't happen. We have a very low vacancy rate. I and many I would
venture to say take hundreds of people are very proud of the product we've built and I'd just like to thank
you all for your time and consideration.
Commissioner Graham recused herself due to being a vocal opponent of a similar development so not to
jeopardize the process.
CAR-2015-0016 — Located at the intersection of Barker and Laberry. Requesting to change from
Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential.
Deb Farmsworth, 18808 E. Sprague Avenue.: I'm here again to say I oppose, nothing has changed
there since we've been here last fall. We have no hospital, no doctor, no additional grocery stores that
have popped up. But what has increased again is traffic and the number of kids that would be coming into
the school district would,they are already bussing the kids out of kindergartens no less,bussing these kids
out of our schools for transit people to come in and where they might be there six months, they might be
there, their children might be in our schools for a year. I don't know. But anyway I just want to say that
you'll be seeing me throughout the whole process.Thank you
Shirley Milka, N. 205 Barker.Road: I have a real concern about having a developed across the street
from me. I live directly across from there. The school bus stops not only on Barker just past my house
north of where this lot is and on the corner of Laberry and Valleyway is the school bus for the elementary
kids. They walk there they cross the street,it's very busy. At certain times of day the traffic has increased
not only from Turtle Creek but also the new housing past 1 1th up on the hill. We have multiple vehicles
we have heavy equipment going up and down the road. It's not wide enough. We don't have sidewalks,
the so called sidewalk that Turtle Creek did put in it is paved level to the road. So that when the neighbor
across the street goes to pull in his driveway the cars are going around. We add more vehicles from
apartments, you figure a two to three to four hundred apartments that's like 800 more vehicles just right
there on the corner of Appleway and Barker. And the traffic already is too much. You know and I just I
feel sorry that schools are exploding just like the other lady said. You know we have kids that are getting
bussed that live not far from the schools are getting bused to a different school. That's crazy. You need to
build more schools before you need to build apartments. So I oppose this. Thank you.
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 16
Frank Roberts,N. 213 Barker Road.: I am opposed to this and I've got too many things to say in two
minutes. I'll leave you with this when making your decision think about would you okay this if you lived
next door to the proposed apartment complex.
David Columbo, 18921 E. Valleyway: Thank you all for your time. First of all this is absolutely no
different than the last time any of us were here. I recognize several of your faces. And all the same things
apply to that and the reasons that did not go through all those same things applied that time, the schools
absolutely cannot take it. I've never been so opposed to anything in my life more than this mainly because
of the schools. I have a, I have two kids and I took them out of the schools because the schools have
already failed them. And they are failing many, many more children. And that's the main thing. The next
issues obviously is traffic until they start making plans on widening the road or making Barker a north-
south highway of some sort. The traffic absolutely cannot take, it just can't. Fire and police they get
confused trying to make it through there, let alone actually making it to where they need to go. If you add
even houses it is going to be difficult. But to add three story apartment buildings is going to be
impossible. I'll tell you that right now. Impossible not to make those roads before they build anything,
make those roads safer for kids, as well as traffic and people are walking around. The next thing if you've
notice any of your pictures that you guys have there is absolutely nothing around that area for quite a few
miles anyways that block the view like these buildings will. There is no three story or whatever high rise
apartment buildings anywhere that are within my view of my house and you're about. You know if this
goes through there directly behind my house. They'll be looking into my backyard basically. So I oppose
this and I hope you guys are able to take everything into consequence and realize this is a horrible,
horrible idea. Thank you.
Stephanie Columbo, 18921 E.Valleyway Avenue.: I've got a couple of things to say. The original time
when this was rezoned the one next to it and what she's saying this was on the original plans for filed
number ZE 496 says it was suppose to be a retirement center. And so I feel like it is misleading that they
can go in and get something rezoned as a retirement center and then go to change it now 20 years later to
something different. Because if it was a retirement center I feel like that wouldn't burden the schools as
much or maybe add as much traffic as an apartment building. That makes me annoyed. In the notes it says
it's not going to affect traffic at Barker and Appleway but I don't understand how because now there is 17
single family homes and on that three and half acre lot where they want to put 22 residences per acre
that's 77 and increase of 60. Each one would likely have more than one car all coming out at that
intersection that's congested. There's not a lot of distance before the light before Laberry there and also
Valleyway there is a cul-de-sac so it just seems like it's not even a real road to develop to High Density
Residential and it says that to change it to High Density provides a buffer. But when you look at the map
as it is right here is what it is already zoned as and then they are going to try and make this developed
more. So I don't see where the buffer is,cause you skipping over what is already there. It's in the middle,
not as a buffer. Doesn't make sense to me. And then so along with the schools that would be burdened,
the traffic that would be burdened. I personally use the post office quite often and as you leave Laberry to
turn onto Barker it's a hard intersection to see the way it's developed. I can't even imagine if there was 50
foot tall buildings. That would be very difficult. And also a very big concern for me (Chairman reminded
to wrap up) If they change HDR they could put transitional housing on that and I really don't want that in
my neighborhood and my kids.
Scott Jutte, 18227 E. Sprague Avenue: I live at 18227 E. Sprague Ave., which is two blocks south of
the property in question. Over the break Attorney Driskel told me that we are a city now not a county and
we need to start acting like it.And I agree with him. I feel like a city wouldn't even consider putting High
Density Residential on a County Road. I feel like a city would build it into a city road. I also feel like a
city would consider the overcrowding in the schools, consider the existing context of the neighborhood. I
live on an acre and half and I've got one of the smaller properties in that area actually, most of my
neighbors have goats and chickens. That High Density property that is just to the south of this property
that's supposable the reason for all of this happening is a big open field with cattle running on it right now
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 16
and they run irrigation out there so they can, they can cut hay and keep the cows feed. So I mean it is
quite obvious for anyone who goes out in that neighborhood you look around and you can't see its flat as
a pancake you would think if there were any three story apartment complexes around you'd be able to see
them. You have to drive for a long time before you find them. The application says something about it
being on a transportation hub it mentioned light rail which kinda made me giggle a little bit, but I don't
know what transportation hub they are talking about because Barker Road is just a county road, it's a two
lane road.Big trucks going down the road clap mirrors all the time.All of the other applications that I saw
here today with the exception of one or two you're talking about five lane roads, you're talking about
roads that are big that have the capacity to do this. Barker doesn't have that. And I would submit that we
have no business adding more people to this neighborhood till we add the infrastructure to deal with it.
Thank you.
Verona Southern, 18421 E. Sprague Avenue: I am the owner of this property. I feel that I'm asking for
some fairness here originally this property was zoned UR-22 in 1996. It has remained, it retained that
zoning until 19..2006. I feel that it's an oversight on the City's part to have raised the zoning of all the
mobile homes around my area and downgraded my zoning. I spent considerable amount of money in
getting this rezoned. And I also provided for transportation by giving up almost 500 feet on Barker Road
as to allow them to widen the road to provide property, provide transportation, facilitate transportation.
I'm asking for the zoning that was taken away from me which was now currently M2 to be replaced,to be
given back to the property. I've lived in this community for a long time. I've heard rumors that I'm going
sell the property. I have not been approached by anybody. I did not do this to sell the property. I feel like I
have been deprived of my money. I feel like you've taken my money away and given me nothing in
return. While I have given you considerable amount of money to rezone this. And I've also given a lot of
frontage on Barker Road. (Chairman reminded to close up) So I would like to have this restored to its
current,MF-2. Thank you.
Clyde Smith, N. 16 Harmony.Road: I've lived there since 1970. She just told you a little history about
this, you know she got the designation changed because she was going to build a senior citizen place
there. So they raised it to Multifamily. And the Hearing Examiner at that time put a lot of restrictions on
her project because he didn't want apartment buildings there. It some of the restrictions were 25 feet high
and nobody could leap frog on this and build apartments off her designation that was in the Hearing
Examiner's his report. Also we talked a little bit about the roads and the Planning Commission came out
to Greenacres Junior High about two months ago and started the process on the corner about Barker and
Sprague. Well this project they are discussing round-abouts and different projects but we are at least four
or five years away from any improvement there. They don't have the money. By time they've got the
money it's going to be out dated. There is homes going, everyone who's got five acres out there is putting
homes on it. They are going up fast.You know probably the only thing that is going to solve this problem
going down the road ten years is we are going to need a four lane road. So we oppose changing her
designation. Matter-of-fact I think the piece she's got R-3 now probably should have been downgraded to
R-2 when they downgraded her mobile home park. There is no reason that should be a three. It's out there
all by itself.Thank you.
Wayne Benson, N. 117 Barker Road.: And I agree with a lot of what Clyde said as far as the nursing
home that was suppose to been built there and there was specifications because we had a vote out in
Greenacres. I've been here since '72 and we had a vote, the County Commissioners had a vote of
Greenacres lot size and heights of buildings in the neighborhood. I don't know if that still applies here or
not or whether it's still as far as we the people still have to vote to resend this or not. I'm not failure with
that or aware of that. And as far as well that's about all I have to say I agree, I'm opposed to this also.
Thank you.
Jackie Williams, 18903 E. Sprague Avenue: I wasn't going to speak tonight but I feel the need.First off
I would like to say that I hurried from work to get here so I could hear what is going on and help my
neighbors anyway I could. I find it high offensive and very disrespectful that we were shoved to the very
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 16
back of the agenda once again. This is a continued thing and it my time is just as important as anybody
else's. I want to say I oppose this rezoning for all the reasons you've heard,that you will hear through this
whole process. We spent many months last year fighting the rezoning on Sprague, Sprague and Barker, I
live directly next to. Once again nothing has changed. And it's not going to change. So like I said we are
here to battle once again same situation. Yeah, different property, same players and same plan and with
the same complications. I know that the applicant spoke that she hadn't been approached by the
developers or whoever but in the application that there is an address of a spokesperson. And that address
I'm pretty sure is Vikings who also bought the property at Sprague and Barker. 305 something like that
Sullivan because that was their address last year on Barker and Sprague. Here nor there I just hope that
you guys don't think that we are naive enough to not recognize the attempt to rezone the trailer park is
only a piggy back to attempt to rezone the rest of that property. And that is a huge amount of property to
put apartment buildings and we will be surrounded. I just hope that you guys relook at it see why the
Planning Commission said last year no,we're not recommending it and why(Chairman reminded to close
up) and why the City Council and said no.
Charles Richardson, 18808 E. Valleyway Court.: You've heard from all the people who live around
the area,I live in the trailer park.When I came in I wasn't either for or against so I really haven't changed
that a whole lot. My concern is for the 16 residents in that park there has been no communication as to
what their plans are.Whether we're going to have to move? Whether they're going to relocate us or what.
Our concern is tell us what you're going to do before you do the rezoning. We have not idea. Are we
going to be, I'm 70 years old, I don't want to move. I've been in that park for 27 years. Like I say we
have no communications from the family about what they plan for that property around there. So that's
my concern,what's going to happen?Thank you.
Peter Higgins, 20221 E. 8th Avenue: I'm here because I know people in the neighborhood and I traffic
flow and traffic issues are a curiosity of mine. Barker Road south of the Sprague Avenue or Appleway
well actually south of the freeway is leaves a lot to be desired. Went to the Planning the traffic study
meeting about Barker, four-way stop at Barker and Sprague,here a few months ago. The Valley Planning
Department or not the department the Engineering Staff said there are three developments that they have,
the county, I believe their all county but they empty onto Barker. Chapman Road in the County plan of
years ago was to flow onto Chapman Road would become the new arterial. 32nd and Chapman to Barker
and the four-way stop would be an arterial with no stop signs, no nothing. Now what states that's in I
have no idea.But anyway Chapman is the new arterial going on to Barker.You have a major church with
major plans south of in the County south of 8th. You have a high school that empties in theory empties
onto Barker south of 8th. 8th Avenue or Barker Road has an awful lot of traffic on it that is going to appear
overnight. It's not going to be staged in,it's just going to be there.Just like it is right now. So anything in
curiosity now between four-way stop and a traffic light. North bound in the morning you can fill up from
stop sign to traffic light.And south bound in the evening you can fill up from traffic light to stop sign. So
Barker has a long way to go before any large any traffic flow particularly that close to the stop light.
You're going to add traffic onto Barker Road in the near term without an awful lot of planning and an
awful lot of money. Thank you.
Jan Southern, 5523 S. Conklin Road: And just as a way of trying to communicate I wanted to say that
the piece of property next to the one you are questioning now is my piece of property. I own it with my
husband, we are the only two owners. And we have no plans for it. We do not plan any developments
what-so-ever at this time. Who knows tomorrow if we are alive or dead but we do not have any plans
right now for that piece of property. However, I do not understand how the other piece that was rezoned
with it at the time was just arbitrarily changed and overturned.And I'm just here in support of my mother-
in-law as she had spent considerable time and effort in having that rezoned. I would like to support her in
that.Again to alleviate anybody's fears we have no plans.And not in the near future at all.
Harvey Brown, 1505 S. Barker Road: We've lived out about a mile from what I'll refer to as ground
zero to the south. I'm tempted to quote a planning guru sounds like deja vu all over again seems like we
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 of 16
went through this before and what I'm seeing is oh roughly 40 people who like us had other things that
were important to do tonight but this is important enough to us to come out here to see what we can do.
We've gone through the problems with the infrastructure.We've gone through anyway but the other thing
you are seeing with the 40 people this is a neighborhood and both a family is not this neighborhood.
You're significantly changing that character if you allow this. I've been trying to come up with a way to
summarize it with something that hasn't been said yet. But the only words I came up with was blocking,
block busting and stocking horse. So I'll leave you with that.
Denay Turnbow, 11 S. Barker Road.: I just bought a house on 11 S. Barker Road. I just moved there.
I'm really young. I worked really hard to get my house. I planned on moving and there and planting
myself here in Spokane so I could raise a family.And raise good people and that's going to be our future.
Those are the people who are going to be moving into this area. If we put housing and people who don't
work hard for their money and their future and plan it out. They are going to be taking things away from
me, things I worked hard for. I'm scared to keep my garage open right now because I'm right off Barker
Road. I have a hard enough time getting out of my driveway right now; I have to wait two to three
minutes for cars to stop to let me out to go to work. I'm completely opposed to this. It's not fair. It's not
fair to our future. It's not fair to the people who want to make this their home. I'm sorry that's it.
Rose Marie Bisiar, S. 1505 Barker Road.: I am very acutely aware that the Barker Road and the
Greenacres area south of the freeway is busting at the seams without any other rezoning to higher density.
There isn't the infrastructure; we don't have the schools to handle the higher density. We don't have the
roads to handle higher density. I you know I've been there since 1995 I believe we moved there and now
to try and go across the street to pick up my Sunday paper. As my husband says pack a lunch. You know
I'll be back for lunch because its solid I kid you not it is constant solid streaming traffic down there.And I
know coming off the freeway if you come anywhere near rush hour that intersection from the freeway to
the very short block, block and a half to where the post office is that gets totally backed up as it is with
low density. With traffic coming off the freeway. Or in the morning traffic trying to get onto the freeway.
So we are already stretched thin. And we live in the county and I feel very sorry for all you guys because
it's our County Commissioners that I feel are screwing the City of Spokane Valley because they illegally
went against the Growth Management Act which I when we first moved here was part of the citizen group
that tried to make some sense of all the how do you incorporate growth in the most sensible way.And so I
was very active in the Growth Management Act when it went through for the County. And to see that our
elected officials just disregard all the work that went into it and that did become law and that later the
state said they illegal made some changes. Hence, the growth, more growth across the street from us to
the south of us. We are already busting at the seams (Chairman reminded to close up) Yeah this is just
absurd to put higher density anything around there. Infrastructure concurrency is important.
Karen Oshogay, 105 S.Barker Road.: And I don't have anything new to say about any of it. Other than
I'm aware that we've voted on building four schools and we've worked on the traffic problem at Barker
and Sprague. I know there are committees going and I know that the City is aware that there is issues. I
haven't actually heard personally that there is any plans for that property for growing it or use of the
higher zoning. I would just like to say at the very least consider deferment. I'm strongly opposed to it but
at very least until we have businesses to support more people and transportation improvement and school
improvements or more room for them.At the very least deferment. Thank you.
Bill Currier, 110 N. Barker Road: Kinda well some of the you remember the island property from last
year. I just find it a little peculiar that after no changes for so many years this comes up a year after the
corner of Barker and Sprague and there is no connection. We were told as the island property that if the
corner of Barker and Sprague was changed that the City would try and change our property. That we
wouldn't even have to request you know that it wouldn't be up to us and they would try and change our
property to high density. Because they don't like to leave island properties and I think that the cow
pasture that is high density has been left an island property and I would strongly like to see that changed.
I'm not sure why it wasn't changed when the other piece of property was changed I'm also sorry that Mrs.
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 of 16
Southern feels like you guys have deprived her of money but everything isn't about money. We have a
beautiful community right there and to change this to R-2 I guess my question is to what end?Why?Does
changing it make her more money? Or does changing it allow her to sell it to a company who gets to
make a lot more money? So that's it.Thank you.
Stephanie Columbo, 18921 E. Valleyway: Mrs. Southern came up and she was talking about the
adjacent property that is already zoned saying that they have no plans trying to reassure the audience but
in the actual application in the narrative from the original Mrs. Southern 'my intentions has always been
to develop this property to its fullest density in conjunction with the adjoining acreage.' So they say they
don't have plans but their application says they have plans.
Commissioner Graham rejoined the Commission.
Having no one else who wished to testify, Chairman Stoy closed the public hearing at 8:57p.m.
GOOD OF THE ORDER: Nothing was offered for the Good of the Order
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
05-14-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 16
Minutes—Special Meeting
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall,
May 18,2015
Vice-Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:03 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 Cary Driskell,City Attorney
Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Tim Kelley Micki Harnois,Planner
Mike Phillips Christina Janssen,Planner
Susan Scott Marty Palaniuk,Planner
Joe Stoy,absent excused Karen Kendall,Planner
Sam Wood Sean Messner, Senior Traffic Engineer
Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission
Doug McIntyre,Planning Consultant
Chris Brieland,Traffic Consultant
Commissioner Graham moved to excuse Commissioner Stoy from the meeting. This motion passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Deliberations of Comprehensive Plan Legislative Update Citizen Amendment Site
Specific Requests:
Ms. Barlow began the meeting by explaining the framework for the evening's discussion. The
deliberations regarding the citizen amendment requests (CARs) should be focused on whether or not
the specific request should be included for further analysis in the legislative update of the
Comprehensive Plan. These CARs are not processed the same as the annual amendment process.
These will not be approved or denied, as they have been in the past. The City Council adopted a
public participation plan at the beginning of the update process. These CARs are another way to
engage the public by allowing citizens to suggest areas which they believe need to be looked at for a
change. This is another way for staff to hear from the community and to engage the public in the
process. The City has held four public meetings so far regarding the vision of the City, the report
back on those Visioning meetings, and the meeting to present the Vision Report. Tonight the
Commission will review the CARS to determine if they should be included in the update for further
analysis,deferred to an annual update process or not 'reviewed further. The Commission should keep
in mind the themes which have already been identified by the community as housing, transportation,
community character and economic opportunity. Staff have also noted in the memo the Office zone,
and multi-family zones needs further analysis. Ms. Barlow also reminded the Commissioners their
options for these requests were to 1) included the request in the legislative update of the
Comprehensive Plan for further analysis,2)defer the request to a regular annual Comprehensive Plan
update,or 3)not to include the request in the Comprehensive Plan update analysis.
Commissioner Anderson stated he had done some research on the Growth Management Act (GMA),
Comprehensive Plan updates and the public participation plans. Commissioner Anderson stated he
did not understand how this process(CAR) fit into the update process. Mr. Doug McIntyre, Planning
Consultant with Van Ness Feldman, explained as part of the public participation plan instead of
having the community submit letters suggesting areas which they believed needed to be reviewed
05-18-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4
they submitted CARs instead. Mr. Anderson was concerned the Comprehensive Plan does not
address zoning. Mr. McIntyre stated the Comprehensive Plan was the goals and policies and vision
for the City, the development regulations are the implementing rules, of which zoning is. (The City
allows the zoning to change at the same time the Comprehensive Plan designation is changed, rather
than having them be two separate processes, which would lengthen the time for a land use change to
be finalized.)
Commissioner Graham asked if the Commission were to decide not to move one of the CARS
forward could one of those areas get looked at anyway. She stated her concern was the Commission
was supposed to be the voice of the public. Mr. McIntyre responded it was possible however the
public would still have opportunities to comment on any changes proposed to the Comprehensive
Plan and the map.
Commissioner Anderson asked what would happen if all the requests were removed and none were
forwarded to the City Council. Ms. Barlow stated the Commission's statements, thoughts and the
process would be forwarded to the Council, including their recommendation, and the Council would
make the fmal decision on how to move forward. She also said the City has a certain population
allocation which it must accommodate in planning for future growth. The City has to accommodate
this growth in some way. Cary Driskell, City Attorney, asked if Commissioner Anderson meant he
felt these request should wait until after the Comprehensive Plan update had been adopted.
Commissioner Anderson agreed he felt they should wait. Commissioner Anderson asked if it was
legal to add property which was not owned by the applicant to a request. Mr. Driskell and Mr.
McIntyre both confirmed this was legal and appropriate at this time. Currently, the City is only
looking at the requests for inclusion for further study in the larger Comprehensive Plan update. There
will be no approval or denial of the submittals and changes could be made, or not made or could be
something different than what was suggested in the submittal.
Commissioner Scott asked if the public would get another opportunity to comment on these requests.
Ms. Barlow said they would not be coming back in front of the Commission as individual requests
but as possible changes to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map. The public will have
opportunities to comment on the changes to the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use map as the
process moves forward, however unless the Council directs differently, staff will not be noticing
individual parties. The City has created a webpage specifically for the Comprehensive Plan update
process and people can follow that page or subscribe to updates regarding the Plan Update.
Commissioner Wood said he thought he understood these are not individual request exactly, but part
of the process for areas to be looked at and reviewed. The information will be forwarded to the City's
consultants for analysis and then be returned to the Commission and Council as part of the process to
develop the Draft Comprehensive Plan. This was confirmed as correct. Commissioner Graham
asked if all the comments received would also be forwarded to the consultants. It was confirmed the
consultants would receive the public comment received as part of the record.
The Commission then reviewed each of the CAR applications:
CAR-2015-0001 — Addressed as 1618 N. Sargent Road: Request to change from Office to High
Density Residential. This is located near the old University of Phoenix site, faces R-3 zoning.
Commissioner Wood moved to recommend inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan update process for
further analysis. The vote on the motion is four in favor, (Commissioners Wood, Kelley, Phillips and
Graham), two against(Commissioners Anderson and Scott). Motion passes.
CAR-2015-0002 — Addressed as 115 and 117 N. McDonald Road: Request a change from Low
Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. Located one block north of Sprague Ave. Sites do have
homes on them. Commissioner Kelley asked, if based on this request and further analysis, could
more of McDonald Road be changed to Corridor Mixed Use. Mr. McIntyre said it would depend on
05-18-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
the analysis, but it could be possible. Commissioner Kelley said if the analysis did not support the
suggested change, then the applicant could apply later for the change in a regular annual
Comprehensive Plan amendment process. It was confirmed to him that yes the applicant could do
that. Commissioner Kelly moved to recommend inclusion. The vote on this motion was three in favor
(Commissioners Kelley Phillips and Wood) and three against (Commissioners Anderson, Graham
and Scott). This motion fails. A Comprehensive Plan amendment must have four votes. CAR-2015-
0002 will move forward with no recommendation.
CAR-2015-0003 — Is a vacant lot east of Conklin and south of Broadway, just to the east of the
Kohl's/Lowes development area. Request a change from Low Density Residential to High Density
Residential. Commissioners felt this was appropriate. Commissioner Kelley moved to recommend
inclusion. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against. This motion passed.
CAR-2015-0004—Addressed as 226 and 302 S. Sullivan and adjacent vacant lot; 15411 and 15423
E. 4th; and 15410 E. 2nd Avenue: Request a change from Office/Medium Density Residential to
Neighborhood Commercial. There was discussion from the Commission about the uses which are in
the surrounding area, and up and down the right-of-way along Sullivan. It was also commented how
future development will fill in between Sprague and 4th Avenue and also continues farther south.
Commissioners commented regarding commercial impeding into the neighborhoods on the east side
of the request. Commissioner Anderson moved to defer this request to a regular annual
Comprehensive Plan update. The vote on this motion was five in favor (Commissioners Anderson,
Graham, Phillips, Scott, Wood), and one against(Commissioner Kelley). This motion passed
CAR-2015-0010 and 0011—Addressed as 13215 and 13313 E. 4th Avenue: Request a change from
Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. Commissioner Wood stated he felt there
were apartments along this area in many places. He said there were fewer single family residences
being built. The Commissioner Graham confirmed the property was already Medium Density
Residential. She also noted she had done some research on vacancy rates for the City which she
stated was currently 15 percent. Commissioner Scott stated she felt because of the public comment
she thought this should be deferred. Commissioner Scott moved to defer this request. The vote on the
motion was three in favor (Commissioners Anderson, Graham, Scott), three against (Commissioner
Kelley, Phillips, Wood). This motion fails. CAR 2015-0010 and 0011 will move forward with no
recommendation.
CAR-2015-0012 — Is a vacant lot which faces Skipworth just north of Sprague Avenue: Request a
change from High Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. It was noted this property and parcels
to the east of it are owned by O'Reilly's Auto Parts who plan on building on the corner of Sprague
and Bowdish. Commissioner Graham moved to recommend inclusion. The vote on this motion was
six in favor and zero against. This motion passed.
CAR-2015-0013—Addressed as 8021 E.Broadway Avenue: Request to change from Office to High
Density Residential. This request is east of Centennial Middle School. The applicant stated they feel
there is too much office in this area and not enough High Density Residential. Commissioner
Graham moved to recommend inclusion. The vote on this motion was six in favor and zero against.
This motion passed.
CAR-2015-0014 and 0015 —Addressed as 15316 and 15324 E. Valleyway Avenue: Commissioner
Scott had recused herself from this amendment request and left the room for the discussion. Request
a change from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. These properties are west of
Sullivan Road on Valleyway. There was a considerable discussion regarding traffic concurrency
requirements and the traffic concerns raised by some neighbors. Infrastructure improvements would
be required at the time of a project permit request. Commissioner Anderson asked about the GMA
requirement for requiring infrastructure before development. Staff explained the Comprehensive Plan
is a 20-year vision for the City and GMA requires concurrency when planning for growth.
05-18-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
Commissioner Phillips moved to recommend inclusion. The vote on this motion was four in favor
(Commissioners Anderson, Kelley, Phillips and Wood), one against (Commissioner Graham), the
motion passed. Commissioner Scott returned to the room.
CAR-2015-0016— Located at the intersection of Barker Road and Laberry: Request a change from
Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. It is identified as the Southern
Manufactured Home Park. Commissioner Graham recused herself from this request and left the
room. Commissioner Phillips wanted to defer the request until Barker Road was able to handle the
traffic. Commissioner Phillips moved to defer this request. The vote on this motion was five in favor,
zero against. The motion passed. Commissioner Graham returned to the room.
CAR-2015-0017 — Addressed as 807 N. Argonne Road: Request a change from Office to
Neighborhood Commercial. Commissioners had a question about a statement on the staff report, of
the request not fitting into the themes of the update. Themes for review of the update were identified
as housing, transportation, economic opportunity and community character. Ms. Barlow responded
the request did not fall into one of the specific themes identified in the vision report; however it does
not mean the suggestion does not have merit. She noted staff have commented several times they are
aware the Office designation is not working well in the City and requires further analysis. This
suggestion would fit into that analysis. Neighborhood Commercial would be appropriate at this
intersection. Commissioner Phillips moved to recommend inclusion. The vote on this motion was
five in favor (Commissioners Graham, Kelley, Phillips, Scott and Wood), one against (Commissioner
Anderson). The motion passes.
CAR-2015-0020 — Addressed as 12717, 12725, 12803, 12815, 12823 and 12903 4th Avenue:
Suggesting a change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. Commissioner
Scott stated she felt Medium Density Residential was already a transitional designation, to which
Commissioner Graham agreed. Commissioner Kelley moved to recommend inclusion. The vote on
the motion was three in favor (Commissioners Kelley, Phillips, and Wood), and three against
(Commissioners Anderson Graham and Scott).This motion fails. CAR-2015-0020 will move forward
with no recommendation.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
Kevin Anderson, Chairperson Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
05-18-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4