Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 02-11-16 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, February 11,2016 Chairman Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Administrative Assistant Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Planner James Johnson Karen Kendall,Planner Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Joe Stoy Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the February 11, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the December 10, 2015 minutes as they were presented. The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the January 28, 2015 minutes as they were presented The vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no reports. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Staff had no reports. PUBLIC COMMENT: No public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Election of 2016 Officers: Ms. Horton explained she would accept nominations for position, hand out ballots if there were more than one nomination for the position, announce the voting, declare a winner and then hold the next election with the same process. Only members who have served on the Commission for more than one year are eligible to serve as chair and vice chair, a member cannot serve in either positon for more than two consecutive years. Ms. Horton called for nominations for the positon of chair. Commissioner Anderson nominated Commissioner Graham, who accepted the nomination. Commissioner Kelly nominated Commissioner Phillips, who accepted the nomination. Ms. Horton handed out ballots, the Commission filled out the ballots,they were collected and Ms. Horton read the results: Commissioner voting: Cast Vote for: Anderson Graham Graham Graham Johnson Graham Kelley Phillips Phillips Graham Stathos Graham Stoy Graham Commissioner Graham was declared the Chair of the Commission for 2016. Ms. Horton then called for nominations for the position of vice-chair. Commissioner Anderson nominated Commissioner Stoy, who accepted the nomination. Hearing no other nominations, Commissioner Stoy was declared the vice-chair. 02-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 B. Study Session: CPA-2016-0001,A privately proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment,near Elizabeth and Utah,requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Light Industrial. Planner Karen Kendall gave a presentation regarding the privately proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The proposal is to change seven parcels owned by Avista located along Elizabeth Road from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Light Industrial (LI). Avista owns the parcel to the west of the request, on which they have an equipment yard. Commissioner Graham said there is a parcel, addressed 2527 N. Elizabeth, which has not been included in the proposal. She asked why that parcel was not part of the proposal and would it be was considered an island. Ms. Kendall stated she knew the property owner had been contacted however did not participate in the request. Ms. Kendall said it would be up to the Commission if they felt they should recommend including the parcel. Commissioner Stoy asked if the parcel were occupied,Ms. Kendall responded she was not aware. However, Commissioner Anderson stated he had done research to note that the property had changed hands in 2015. Commissioner Anderson said Avista started buying property in 2014. Commissioner Anderson commented there was only one line in the staff report which mentioned the fact that the extra property was not part of the proposal. Ms. Barlow asked Commissioner Anderson how he would like staff to address the subject. Commissioner Anderson stated he would not have allowed the proposal to be processed at all. Ms. Barlow stated she was confused as to why Commissioner Anderson would feel non- inclusion of the one parcel would invalidate the entire request. Commissioner Anderson stated the proposal properties were purchased as R-2 zoning, (LDR), and he would not allow the non- included parcel to be surrounded by LI on three sides. Commissioner Johnson stated it was already LI at the rear of the property. Commissioner Anderson agreed all the parcels currently exist as single family and light industrial uses. Commissioner Anderson said he would not allow LI on the other two sides,just because someone wants to do it. Commissioner Kelley asked if there was a way to contact the single parcel owner and ask them why they are not participating. Ms. Barlow stated that property owner would be contacted and probably already had been, as part of the public notification procedures. Ms. Kendall stated the notices for the public hearing had gone out to the surrounding 400 foot radius of the proposal which was mailed on Monday, February 8, 2016. A sign was posted on the property on Tuesday, February 9, 2016. Ms. Kendall said she was aware Avista's real estate department had contacted the property owner with a proposal to purchase the property, but at this time the parcel was not included in the Comprehensive Plan request. Ms. Kendall stated she would contact the applicant and ask them to address this subject at the public hearing. Commissioner Kelley asked Commissioner Anderson if the excluded parcel was included in the request, would it change his perspective on the proposal. Commissioner Anderson said if the property owner of excluded property, came in and said they were ok LI all the way around their property, then he might look at the proposal differently. There was no explanation in any of the paperwork which said what Avista had done about this lone parcel in the middle of the request, Commissioner Anderson was concerned because the property just changed hands recently.. Commissioner Stathos asked if Avista had contacted this single property owner prior to the property being sold in 2015. Ms. Kendall stated she was not aware of any of Avista's negotiations, but could contact the applicant and ask them to address it in their comments at the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson stated he was aware of a previous proposal for this area and the two parcels to the north were not included in the previous request. Now the farthest one is included, but the next one in is not. Ms. Kendall stated Avista waited to submit the proposal until the real estate transaction for the property addressed as 6724 E. Utah was completed. It is close to being finished and will be complete by the time this request is finished. However they wanted to get make the deadline for submitting the request in 2015 and not have to wait another year. Commissioner Johnson asked if 6724 E. Utah was added after the request had been submitted. Ms. Kendall stated the request had been amended to add the seventh parcel (6724 E. Utah). Commissioner Johnson asked if this amendment would make a valid request. Ms. Barlow responded the application and request was valid at submittal, and the request to add the additional parcel was a valid amendment to the application. Ms. Barlow said she would like to clarify a couple of things before moving forward. The parcel at 2527 N. Elizabeth, which is not included in the request, would not be considered an island. There 02-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 is LDR across the ROW from it, so it would not be isolated. Ms. Barlow said in the case of private property rights the City places a high amount of deference to private property rights. However, zoning is a legislative authority, and when making decisions for the good of the City, the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council and ultimately the Council's decision, has the authority include pieces of property like this one in the request. Ms. Barlow said there is a set of criteria outlined in the staff report which should be used for the basis of the decision being made. Should the City be challenged, a legal team would use this criterion to determine if the result was a legally defensible decision. Commissioner Graham asked for the definition of an island since staff did not feel the parcel (2527) would be considered one. Ms. Barlow said an island would be completely surrounded and this would not be completely surrounded on all sides. Mr. Driskell stated the argument would be the City creating spot zoning and this would not be considered spot zoning. The parcel (2527) is still contiguous with the zoning across the right-of-way, and the rest of the parcels abut the LI zoning behind them,which is in complete accordance with the City's regulations. Commissioner Anderson said LUG-10 was quoted in the findings in the staff report, along with the findings related to LI, however in his opinion the Commission members should be able to see under LUG-1 LUP 1.2, LUP 1.7 and LUP 12.1 which address land use on private property to give a comparison. Ms. Barlow said she respected private property rights, but from a professional standpoint it would not make any sense to leave the one parcel as LDR and change the others. Commissioner Johnson said for him it would make a difference if 6724 E. Utah sale were to be finalized. Ms. Barlow said there would be no reason to think it would not be finalized. Commissioner Anderson said if 2527 N Elizabeth stayed a residential property it would damage the person's personal property value. Ms. Barlow said she felt that statement was subjective, but based on that, any change of the properties around it would have a similar effect on that parcel. Commission Stoy asked if residential was allowed in an LI zone. Ms. Kendall stated a new residence would not be allowed in a LI zone. However according to the City's nonconforming regulations Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.20.060(A)(5) Existing legally established single-family residential uses located in any nonresidential zoning district shall not be deemed nonconforming and shall be permitted as a legal use. Ms. Kendall shared the development regulations would require buffering if 2527 N Elizabeth remains as R-2 and Avista chose to develop any buildings up against the property line. Buffering could be in the form of a sight obscuring fence and landscaping. This would be required if there was a building proposed, but not if they are just using it for storage. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a site obscuring fence in place now between the properties and the parcel to the west. He said the parcel at 6610 E. Utah changed ownership in 2008. Staff explained since the conditions on the property have not changed, there would be no trigger for the landscaping requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be access restrictions for Elizabeth or could the approval be conditioned to restrict access from Elizabeth, should the property ever be sold. Ms. Kendall stated the access would be controlled at the time of development. It would depend on whether or not the parcels were combined,and it would be determined based on the City's Street Standards. Ms. Kendall said the applicant has stated they are proposing to expand their yard and are not proposing any access from the proposed lots. Access would be only from the existing access from their yard on Utah. Ms. Barlow did not feel as if the Street Standards would allow access, however would defer to the Development Engineers to confirm this. Mr. Driskell said it would be fair to include a recommendation for this proposal to the City Council for them to consider. Ms. Barlow said the proposal should be looked at not only with consideration to the surrounding property owner's rights, but also considered the property owner who is making the request. There must be a balance in the considerations. Commissioner Graham clarified that buffering is required when a commercial building is put up against a property line, a fence and landscaping, when "adjacent" to a residential zone. However adjacent does not qualify across the ROW when it comes to a landscaping requirements. Ms. Kendall said the setbacks for landscaping requirements would be 20 feet from a zone or a use, 02-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 which would not be as great as the ROW. Commissioner Graham said she was trying to determine if the word adjacent was used in the same manner in the code. Ms. Barlow said the SVMC 19.30.030(B)(5) states, 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; this is where the City applies the zoning criteria standard. Commissioner Graham wondered why this same adjacency would not be applied to the need for buffers. Ms. Barlow said this language comes from the "Changes and Amendments" section of the SVMC. The landscaping buffers are in another section of the code and there is a discrepancy in the way the two adjacencies are defined. However they should be defined differently, because there should not be a five foot wall of screening running along the ROW. Buffers are developed for side and rear yards to protect residential private space. Screening in the front yard addresses different issues, such as security issues along the ROW. Commissioner Stathos asked if hazardous materials would be allowed in a LI zone. Ms. Kendall stated there are some, however these properties are located in the Airport Overlay Zone which further restricts what uses and materials can be allowed in this zone. Commissioner Stathos also wondered what the emergency response time was in the area. Ms. Barlow said the Fire Department was routed notice of the application and generally addresses any concerns through this process. Ms. Kendall indicated the fire department had not commented. Ms. Barlow said this generally means the provider has no concerns. Staff stated they would contact the fire department by the public hearing. Commissioner Stathos wondered if there was a requirement for a specific response time for hazardous materials. Commissioner Johnson confirmed the staff report said the property could support 23 homes if all of the lots were consolidated and the lots were completely empty. Commissioner Stoy asked how wide the ROW was on Elizabeth and Utah. Staff will get answers for the next meeting. The public comment period is 15 days from the date of the public mailing. SEPA notice was done 3-4 weeks ago. No public comment had been received to date. Commissioner Graham said she had read there had been soil contamination on site, and she wanted to know what and where it was. Ms. Kendall said she did not know what the contamination was, but she would request the information. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Anderson noted the Planning Commission meetings are not on the City calendar on the City's website. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:07 p.m. •-16g--,tbAS;dtd/v.,, 17 Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary