Agenda 10/13/2016 S11 'ane
Valle
Y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
October 13, 2016 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 22, 2016, September 29,
2016
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Deliberations: Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update, Update to
Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 17 General Provisions, Title
19 Zoning, Titles 21 Environmental Controls, Title 22 Design and
Development Standards
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
September 22,2016
I. Commissioner Graham called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience
stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Elisha Heath took roll and the following members and
staff were present:
Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Heather Graham John Holman,Community&Economic Development Director
James Johnson Mike Basinger,Economic Development Coordinator
Tim Kelley Gloria Mantz,Economic Development Engineer
Mike Phillips Chaz Bates,Economic Development Specialist
Michelle Rasmussen
Suzanne Stathos Elisha Heath, Secretary for the Commission
II. Agenda: Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the September 22, 2016 agenda as presented. The
vote was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. Minutes:Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the August 25th,2016 minutes as presented. The
vote to approve the minutes was seven in favor,zero against and the motion passed.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson and Commissioner Graham reported that they
attended the Comprehensive Plan Open House on September 8,2016.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Coordinator, Mike Basinger reported on
the schedule of future meetings including the Public Hearing scheduled for September 29th with a
continuation on October 6th,if necessary.Followed by a meeting on October 13th for deliberations and
recommendations to City Council on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Basinger stated that there is a
possibility to separate the deliberations and recommendations into two separate meeting.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Study Session: DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Update; Draft Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC)Proposed Updates; and SEPA Analysis for Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Prior to the beginning of the presentation by Economic Development Coordinator Mike Basinger,
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the mandated date by the state in which the Comprehensive
Plan needed to be completed. Staff stated the date is June 30,2017. Commission Stathos followed
up with the question of why the schedule is set for the Comprehensive Plan to be completed by
November 2016.Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb replied that it is the expressed desire of the City
Council for the Comprehensive Plan Update to be completed by the end of 2016.
Mr. Basinger introduced Economic Development Engineer Gloria Mantz and Economic
Development Specialist Chaz Bates,who were present and would assist him in answering questions
the Commission might have about the document at the conclusion on his presentation on the draft
Comprehensive Plan Update. He requested that Commissioners submit any housekeeping items
including grammar to staff for correction. While substantial changes to the document be discussed
amongst the Commission in order to form a consensus of future action. Mr. Basinger proposed
discussion points for the Planning Commission in relation to the overall document including the
Goals and Policies must be consistent with the community's vision and that the regulations that
implement the Comprehensive Plan are consistent i.e. SVMC Title 19,Zoning.
The community vision is an important piece to the Comprehensive Plan Update as it aligns closely
to the City Council's vision for the plan. The plan has a strong economic development focus, it is
data driven as well as easy to navigate and understand for the community and staff. The approach
includes a specific section on goals and policies to have them located in one place. The
09-22-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5
implementation matrix is completed. Mr. Basinger presented the following changes related to
zoning:
• Creation of one Multifamily Zone, all new Multifamily designation is located within one
half mile of a bus route.
• Designated new areas for parks and open spaces,Mirabeau and Appleway Trail.
• Changed Office to Corridor Mixed Use, allowed for multifamily, office, retail, and light
manufacturing.
• Designated new areas for Neighborhood Commercial.
• Created Industrial Mixed Use,allowed for contractor's yards and removed Multifamily.
• Consolidated Light and Heavy Industrial into one Industrial.
• Integrated Community Commercial into Corridor Mixed Use.
• Consolidated R-3 and R-4 to R-3.
• New Mixed Use Area,existing mining pit which in the future use could change.
• Created language in the Development Regulations to allow existing mining operations to
mine within their existing permitted rights.
The proposed Land Use Map has 9 Comprehensive Plan designations and 11 zoning designations
and the current Land Use Map has 12 Comprehensive Plan designations and 17 zoning
designations.
Development Regulations were reviewed to ensure they are consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan; compliant with current laws; in addition streamline regulations so they are easier to
understand.
Implementing Regulations that were reviewed for changes include SVMC Title 17 General
Provisions; SVMC Title 19 Zoning; SVMC Title 20 Subdivisions; SVMC Title 21 Environmental
Controls; SVMC Title 22 Design and Development Standards and SVMC Appendix A Definitions.
• SVMC Title 17 General Provisions created a stronger interpretation process. Removed
rebuttal period, modified sign requirements for Public Hearing notices, and reviewed
Hearing Examiners' change of conditions.Added vesting provisions.
• SVMC Title 19 Zoning reorganized the entire title, modified the zoning districts to be
consistent with the new Land Use Map. Modified the permitted use matrix to reflect new
zoning districts. Incorporate language for small dwellings i.e.tiny homes and cottage type
housing. Modified the density and dimensional standards, created transitional provisions,
and modified administrative exceptions.
• Reconfigured the Permitted Use Matrix to have the information more accessible.
• Created new section for supplemental uses and uncategorized uses within the broad use
category.
• Transitional provision limited uses allowed in 10 foot set back with landscaping,the upper
level is a one-to-one ratio starting at 15 foot. Provision to assist with zoning within the
right-of-way, it will be at the zone providing protection instead of the middle of the right-
of-way.
• Created a SEPA in-fill exception to promote development.
• Consistent with Shoreline Master Plan
• SVMC Title 22 Design and Development Standards reviewed off-street parking, loading
standards,fencing, screening and landscaping, street standards.
Mr. Holman addressed the question of why the Comprehensive Plan was a brand new document.
He explained the first Comprehensive Plan was put together to be compatible with the Sprague-
Appleway Revitalization Plan which was ultimately removed and the Comprehensive Plan was
modified with the final product being a hollow shell, thus, making it more effective to start from
09-22-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5
scratch on the current Comprehensive Plan Update. Commissioner Anderson commented on the
difficulty analyzing changes when the two documents are not identical. There was additional
concern expressed by many Commissioners that there was a limited amount of time available to
review the Comprehensive Plan in its entirety.
Discussion turned to the 5,000 square foot lot within the R-3 zone with the underlying density
remaining at six lots per acre. The Commissioners opposed to the reduction of the minimum lot
size to 5,000 square feet,sited the desire to preserve the feel of the neighborhood as well as lack of
market in the Spokane Valley for smaller lot sizes.The Commissioners supporting the change,sited
the quick sale of 5,000 square foot lots outside the City limits but within the valley area in Spokane
County and the City's Urban Growth Areas.The City of Spokane's older neighborhoods have these
same sized lots;this also creates an opportunity for in-fill development.
Next item for discussion was the Land Use Map specifically the change of zoning on the corner of
Barker and Sprague to Multifamily on staff's recommended map. The Commission expressed
concern over the change due to previous public opposition to the change of the zoning for this
location due to traffic issues already present on Barker.
Commissioner Anderson inquired why there were areas on the Land Use Map that are currently
developed are presented as a change in zoning to Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Basinger
explained that many of the properties are located on major intersections throughout the City;if they
wanted to redevelop in the future it would allow more flexibility.
Tiny homes became the next topic for discussion. The opposition stated that it does not encourage
home ownership; does not improve prosperity of the community;
Erik Lamb further explained changes in SVMC Title 17 General Provisions, as it is the general
administrative practices which are applicable to SVMC Title 18 Boards and Commissions through
SVMC Title 24 Building. There is a new section for code interpretation pulled over from SVMC
Title 19. The goal was to strengthen and provide more direction to City staff. Permit processing
procedures in SVMC Section 17.80.110 the notice provision for the distribution of public hearing
notices, the previous requirement to notice homes within 400 feet, added that persons outside of
the 400 feet where there is criteria and circumstances to expand the noticing area. The process for
processing Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Development Code Amendments found in
SVMC Sections 17.80.140 and 17.80.150 added clarifying language. SVMC Section 17.100
Compliance and Enforcement changed dates for consistency. Completely new SVMC Section
17.80.170 relates to project vesting. Currently when a complete application is submitted, that
application will be considered under the development regulations in affect to allow for certainty for
developers.Any application set forth in SVMC Table 17.80-1 there is an option for wavier of vested
rights by developers to have the project considered under the current development standards.
The Commission took a break at 7:56 p.m.returning at 8:03 p.m.
Ms. Mantz further explained the changes and additions made to SVMC Title 19 Zoning. SVMC
Chapter 19.25 Nonconforming Uses and Structures,only minor inconsistencies were made to assist
in implementing the code. SVMC Chapter 19.30 Changes and Amendments: a section was
removed which addressed development agreements when used with Comprehensive Plan
amendments. This process was not being used. Mr. Hohman commented this section had been
used for one project and staff would not want to it used again. SVMC Section 19.30.015 is the
section in the current code if the Commissioners would like to go read that section. SVMC Chapter
19.35 Residential Density Bonus,this section from the old code has been removed. This was taken
out because there is no density requirement in the Multifamily zone so there is no requirement for
it. The Growth Management Act does require for the City to plan for affordable housing but Mr.
Lamb does not know if this would be applicable. SVMC Chapter 19.40 is a new section to address
Alternative Residential Development Options such as tiny houses,cottages,duplexes,townhouses,
industrial accessory dwelling units (ADU). Commissioner Anderson asked what an industrial
accessory dwelling unit was. Mr. Basinger said there has been a new drive for live/work
environments and being able to live where people work. Commissioner Kelley said he has a client
who is currently looking for this type of set up, live/work/office use. The Commissioners are
09-22-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5
concerned about small parcels coming up with ten ADUs but it would be different than ten trailers,
there was considerable discussion regarding concern over allowing these ADUs. Mr.Hohman said
he understands why there would be a desire to try and look at the old and new codes side by side
however trying to compare some sections,like this one,make it very difficult to do. This was one
of the reasons why the old code was so confusing the staff worked to try and make sure the new
one would encompass what was good of the old one but would clearly define what was important
in the new one.
SVMC Chapter 19.50 Planned Residential Developments(PRD),Table 19.40-1 shows which zones
the PRD is allowed. Cottages are allowed in a PRD. Commissioner Phillips said he was in favor
of the cottages in a PRD. Commissioner Johnson asked if there would be smaller access roads for
these types of developments, or parking being hidden. Mr. Basinger said a cottage development
would require a Conditional Use Permit,which requires a hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner.
A PRD would still have to meet the City's Street Standards. Tiny homes as supportive housing is
an issue for some of the Commissioners. Some Commissioners don't feel the tiny homes don't fit
in an R-3 zone. A question came up as to how small it would be sanitary to allow a `home' to be
and if the Health Department had concerns in the size. The Health Department is concerned about
sanitary conditions but the Building Code's smallest allowable space is 300 square feet.
Ms.Mantz continued with SVMC Chapter 19.65 Supplemental Use Regulations,this section
number is new but the contents are not new because it was gathered from three sections in the old
code. This addresses some uses and where they are allowed. SVMC Chapter 19.70 is a new
section with the new residential standards:
• Adjusted standards in R-3
• Min lot size 5,000 sq. ft.
• Eliminated min lot width and length
• Retained density(6 units/acre)
• Adjusted standards in Multifamily Residential
• Eliminated density
• Eliminated building height
• Eliminated non-residential dimensions except for Neighborhood Commercial
SVMC Chapter 19.75 has the transitional regulations in it and this is new section to the code. The
ground level setback is ten feet,but must be landscaped and has limited uses which are allowed in
the setback. The upper level setback is a ratio of one to one starting at a height of 15 feet at the
property line. The height of the building next to a protected zone may increase one foot for every
foot of horizontal distance from the nearest protected zone (R-1, R-2 or R-3) boundary. If there
were multiple properties in a zone, it would apply to the whole project. There are no height
restrictions in the multifamily/commercial zones. The transitional regulations should control the
height of the project. If there is a single family home in a multifamily zone,this protection would
not apply to that single family home.
Ms. Mantz said if the Commissioners wanted to concentrate on the new information being added
to the code in SVMC Title 19 the Chapters would be 19.40, 19.70 and 19.75. She said SVMC
Chapter 19.50 had some changes to the Permitted Use Matrix and many of the categories have been
condensed. Mr.Lamb stated there had been no changes to the marijuana regulations since they had
been adopted earlier in the year.
Commissioners asked why the line for multifamily became along 4th Avenue, instead of the other
side of Sprague Ave. Mr. Basinger said it was a red line for Spokane Transit Authority (STA)
which means it is served by transit on Sprague. Mr. Hohman said currently there is medium and
high density along 4th Avenue and it has access to the Appleway Trail currently or will in the near
future. The intent is to limit amendments moving forward and to concentrate development in the
smartest places, where it has been developing. Development of multifamily housing on or near
Sprague makes sense for new development.
09-22-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:09 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor,motion passed.
Heather Graham,Chair Date signed
Elisha Heath, Secretary
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
September 29,2016
I. Commissioner Graham called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience
stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and
staff were present:
Kevin Anderson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Heather Graham Gabe Gallinger,Development Services Manager
James Johnson, absent- excused Mike Basinger,Economic Development Coordinator
Tim Kelley, absent-excused Gloria Mantz,Economic Development Engineer
Mike Phillips Chaz Bates,Economic Development Specialist Development
Michelle Rasmussen,absent-excused Marty Palaniuk,Planner
Suzanne Stathos Henry Allen,Development Engineer
Deanna Horton,Commission Secretary
Hearing no objection, Commissioners Johnson, Kelley and Rasmussen were excused from the
September 29,2016 meeting.
II. Agenda: Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the September 29,2016 agenda as presented. The
vote was four in favor,zero against and the motion passed.
III. Minutes: There were no minutes to approve.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had no reports.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Public Hearing: DRAFT Comprehensive Plan; Draft Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) Proposed Amendments Title 17 General Provisions, Title 19 Zoning, Title 21
Environmental Controls,Title 22 Design and Development Standards and SEPA Analysis for
Draft Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Graham read the rules of a public hearing and then turned the meeting to Economic
Development Coordinator Mike Basinger in order for him to give a presentation outlining the
update to the Comprehensive Plan and the corresponding changes to the Spokane Valley Municipal
Code.
Mr.Basinger began by sharing the vision gathered from the community through a public process:
• Increased focus and access to parks and trails
• Consider a specific focus area around new City Hall
• Provide for a greater variety of housing types
• Preserve the character of the neighborhoods
• Locate housing near amenities like retail,health care,parks, and transit
• Increase business opportunities and reduce barriers
Which echoes the vision the City Council has for the City:
• Streamline land uses and maximize flexibility
• Preserve established neighborhoods
• Provide for a variety of housing types like tiny homes cottage houses
• Change the mixed-use designations along Trent
• Consolidate Office and Garden Office or change to Corridor Mixed Use
• Expand and designate new areas of Neighborhood Commercial
09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6
Mr. Basinger stated based on this vision the Plan has been completely rewritten in order to be:
• Economic Development focus
• Innovative and data driven
• Easy to navigate with an attractive design
• Concise and understandable
• Includes existing studies
• Retail Recruitment
• Tourism
• Existing conditions report
• Include strategic actions Specific section for goals and policies
• Includes strategies in the goals and policies section
• Includes an implementation matrix identifying:
• Strategies,which are included in the sidebar of the Plan
• Primary Element
• Related Elements
• Lead&Partners
• Timing
• Priority
The elements which will be included in the Plan are as follows however there will be a separate
chapter up front which will have all of the goals and polices in it so anyone looking for them will
not have to search the whole document looking for them,they can find them all in one place right
in the front of the Plan.: We also made sure other documents were consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
• Economic Development
• Land Use
• Housing
• Transportation
• Capital Facilities
• Utilities
• Parks,Recreation and Open Space
• Natural Resources
Each element will be organized in a similar fashion: Why the element is important
• Planning Context
• Current Conditions
• Approach
— Challenges and Opportunities
— Community and Economic Development Priorities
— Best Practices
Mr. Basinger continued explaining the changes to the Land Use designations. He stated staff
combined the former two multifamily designations and zones into one. The medium density zone
was moved into the R-4 zone or the MF-2 zone, which ever was more appropriate. The new
Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation was looked at being near services and along transit
routes. A buffer of one half of a mile around bus stops was considered. Spokane Transit Authority
has stated their"Red Line" along Sprague Ave has the second highest ridership of all routes and
they are working for six minute service. A good deal of the MFR has been concentrated near
Sprague,near the Appleway Trail and near transit service.
The City designated new areas for parks and open space. Designated space near Mirabeau Park
and the Appleway Trail right-of-way. The Office designation has been absorbed into Corridor
Mixed Use, which will allow multifamily, office, retail and light manufacturing. New areas for
Neighborhood Commercial designations have been placed at major intersections in close proximity
to existing neighborhoods. An Industrial Mixed Use designation was created for the land along
09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6
Trent Avenue which allows for light industrial uses such as contractors yards and towing companies
and continues to allow for commercial uses.
Mr. Basinger continued to explain the Spokane Valley Municipal Code has also been updated in
conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. The Municipal Code is required to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan,comply with current laws and was rewritten to streamline the regulations.
SVMC Title 17 General Provisions was completely rewritten to streamline the processes, to
develop a stronger interpretation process, remove the rebuttal period, modify lettering size
requirements for Public Hearing notices, in certain instances we will notify outside of the
boundaries required,the Hearing Examiner change of conditions,and adding vesting provisions.
SVMC Title 19,Zoning,is where the bulk of the changes occurred. Since the regulations must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan it has been update to reflect all of the changes in the Plan.
IT has been completely reorganized to make it easier to use. The zoning districts have been
modified to be consistent with the Land Use map. The Permitted Use Matrix has been update to
reflect the new zoning districts, remove the old zoning districts, incorporated language for small
dwellings. The density and dimension standards have been modified and transitional provisions
have been added to protect residential neighborhoods when they are adjacent to a more intense
zone. The Administrative Exceptions have been modified to make them clearer. Created zoning
districts to implement the Plan. Residential districts R-3 and R-4 have been combined into one R-
3 zone with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The MF-1 zone has,based on our studies,not
been performing since before incorporation of the City.One Multifamily zone has been created and
the MF-1 has been absorbed into either the MF-2 or Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)whichever was
appropriate. Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial have been combined into one Industrial zone.
However, a new zone has been created called Industrial Mixed Use to be able to take care of the
properties along Trent Avenue where Council had requested staff look to create zoning which
would be more appropriate for the uses along this corridor. Added some alternative dwelling types,
such as tiny homes and cottages. The Permitted Use Matrix has been updated to reflect the removal
of the Office,Garden Office, Community Commercial and Light Industrial zones from the code, .
Medical,retail uses were added into broad use categories as well as creating a broad use category
for marijuana uses. Supplemental uses were put in one place so they were easy to find.
Uncategorized uses were also placed in its own section, such as home businesses. Density and
dimension standards were adjusted in the R-3 zone to have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet,
and removed the minimum lot width and length but the density still remains at six units per acre.
We adjusted the standards in the MFR to remove the density and the building height. We also
eliminated nonresidential dimensions except in Neighborhood Commercial. In order to reduce the
impacts of reducing these dimensions,staff added Transitional Provisions. There is a ground level
setback of ten feet. Within this setback there are limited uses allowed and it must be landscaped
per the landscaping requirements. There is an upper level setback which is a one to one ratio
starting at 15 feet at the property line starting at the property line.
Title 21, Environmental Controls, a SEPA exemption created to promote infill development. We
also make sure it was consistent with the Shoreline Master Program. We also made sure to update
methods and reference to reflect best available science.
In Title 22, Design and Development Standards,the off street loading requirements, clarified the
clearview requirements, streamlined buffering and screening requirements, modified landscaping
requirements and modified surety requirements.
In Appendix A, Definitions any unnecessary definitions and strengthened the use category
defmitions.
Mr. Basinger covered the schedule moving forward. The public hearing is tonight,the possibility
to continue the public hearing or begin deliberations will be on October 6, 2016. The regular
meeting and continued deliberations is scheduled for October 13, 2016. The fmdings and
recommendations are scheduled for October,and there needs to be time for staff to put together the
Commission's recommendation to the City Council. The Administrative Report to the City Council
is scheduled for October 25, 2016. The City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing and the first
09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6
reading of the ordinance adopting the new Comprehensive Plan on November 8, 2016, with a
second reading scheduled for November 22,2016.
William Currier, 110 N Barker Rd.: Mr. Currier requested the side-by-side Land Use Map
comparison which had been in the presentation be returned to the screen in order to reference it in
his testimony. Mr. Currier, referring to the corner of Sprague and Barker, stated that the 'cow
pasture' had already been zoned multifamily, but now his home and the land that Viking Homes
had bought multifamily. He said he finds it odd that he was here a year ago fighting against and it
was unanimously turned down,or recommended to the City Council to be rejected and now we are
back here again.When he looks at that map and sees that'tiny brown spec',(meaning the properties
designated as multifamily on the Land Use Map at Sprague and Barker),if you look at the map on
the right there is nothing like it. He stated if you are trying to have a cohesive plan of things that
flow,why would you not take that little spot that is a cow pasture and it is multifamily and turn it
back into what it should be. It was turned into that under somewhat weird circumstances,he doesn't
know all the details to that,but it doesn't make any sense to him. He said he was sure a lot of the
people are going to say all kinds of things about the traffic and stuff. It just doesn't make sense
and you are trying to make things flow and put things together, and it is actually a really good idea
but that doesn't flow.
Stephanie Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway Avenue: Ms. Colombo stated she was there to discuss
the property at Sprague and Barker. She said she did not think it fits as one individual dark spot on
the map. Referring to the last person who spoke, his property had been referred to as the `island
property,' and how that does not work in the City development plan. She wanted to know how
making a new island property made sense. She said since it was not a specific person trying to
change it but the City allowing it,people did not need to be notified and she did not feel this was
fair. Especially with all the previous testimony against it,how the change happened has upset her.
She said at the beginning of the meeting, one of the goals was `maintain current neighborhood
standards.' She said making that corner a multifamily designation is not going to help the area. She
offered there are no services or good transit in the area. She appreciates the community or
homeowners who put up a sign so she knew to come and dispute the changes you want to make.
David Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway Avenue: Mr. Colombo said he was talking the property at
Sprague and Barker. He said he felt that the change to this property had been buried in other
changes and that they may need to be changed, but he didn't know anything about them they are
so far away from him. But he felt this property (change)being put into this group was ridiculous
and felt it should be addressed separately. He said the only way he knows about it was from a
guy's homemade sign. He said 'that guy' won't be able to keep his home. If you change this,you
will destroy that man (pointing to the same man previously identified) right there. He said this
sickened him that government, especially the Valley, could do this. He said he has lived here 40,
almost 45 years now and this used to be one of the most awesome places to live. He wishes he
knew the numbers but since you have buried them in all the other numbers he can't figure what it
is.He said it makes him ill thinking this could actually happen where he has lived this long. There
are so many other things that he did not know about. He said he has cars and now he is being told
he has to give his cars up because other people don't like the looks of them even though according
to the City standards they are not junk. He said"they"are still saying the cars are,and that is what
is going to keep on happening if this(change) goes through. He feels this change needs to be put
back on its own situation,not buried in with all of the stuff that is going on here. Obviously you
did a good job,there is not as many people here this time as there was last time. He stated didn't
get a letter and this would be in his back yard. He thanked the Commission for listening to him
and for getting hot under the collar.
Frank Roberts, 213 N Barker Road: Mr. Roberts stated he said he lives across from the post
office. He said if you put the apartment complex and do the rezone you want to do, he said he
would be more consumed with building up the industry in this town rather than the apartment
complexes. He said it is like every piece of spare dirt you see in this valley, as soon as you see it
available, it is an apartment complex. If you drive down Indiana past the mall, and see all the big
apartments down there. He said a friend of mine lives down there. He said his friend now has
people looking into his kitchen from three stories up. He was troubled by the prices that they charge
09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6
for rent. There needs to be two or three people or families living in one unit in order to afford to
live in those apartments. Where is the $15-$20 per hour jobs in this town? There aren't any,they
are all working in the service industry at Wendy's,McDonalds or WallyWorld. He has lived here
61 years and in the same house since 1975, it used to be a nice place. It used to be all pastures,
farms, apples, and residential. The same people who bought that seven acres of land, they put
houses a block down the street,but that is not good enough. They are out of Hayden Idaho,which
is a right to work state. They can pay their workers next to nothing. They can build their three
story apartment complex and it will cost them next to nothing, because they have a right to work
state. We can't get out of our driveways now as it is.
Oscar Torres, 204 S Koren Road: Mr. Torres provided a letter, which was handed out to each
Commissioner. Mr. Torres stated he was speaking on behalf of the Mirabeau Chapel Church. He
said the property is located at 3001 N Pines and is approximately 7.94 acres. He stated his client
was interested in having their property re-designated from Single Family Residential, to Mixed
Use, which is just across the road. Mr. Torres said the request to change the designation is
consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan based on the following criteria:
the property is adjacent to other similarly designated properties. He said as he has studied the
current and proposed Land Use map,the designations are still the same. The property is located
along a main arterial and will allow for existing infrastructure to be used more efficiently. The
property is located near housing and therefore will create a positive economic development impact
to the area. It is also consistent with the existing transit system. Mr. Torres said this request to
change the designation on this piece of property met the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the
Growth Management Plan. The new designation will encourage mixed use development where
adequate facilities and services already exist. The mixed use will not adversely affect neighboring
properties as it will encourage development consistent with adjacent properties and encourage
economic development. Therefore, the property owners ask that the change to this property be
included in the Comprehensive Plan update.
Brian Ewasko, 1109 S.McMillan Court:Mr.Ewasko stated he wanted to discuss the property at
Barker and Sprague. Mr. Ewasko stated the last time this property was up for rezoning the room
was packed. The City Council voted unanimously to keep it single family. Some of the reasons
which were brought up before he felt he needed to remind everyone, were the neighborhood was
determined to be more a rural urban neighborhood area. There are plenty of subdivisions,tons of
development going on, but as of right now there are no sidewalks, no grocery stores or shopping
centers which are relatively close by to meet all the requirements for an apartment complex. He
said he was aware there are plans to make Barker bigger but right now with the existing
developments happening right now, the traffic is getting ridiculous as it is. Developers are not
required to have to help fix it. A new apartment complex would not help things. The impact on
the schools hasn't been addressed adequately. He said it does not make sense to him,and he could
speak for everyone in the Twin Bridges neighborhood as well as most of the surrounding
neighborhoods around there, to put an apartment complex there. They are aware there is already
going to be 10-20 homes put there and it is not ideal,but it is absorbable. But to put 100 families
there,into schools which are already overcrowded is not great. There would be a negative impact
that an apartment complex would have on the existing home owner's property values. He said
recent construction has increase the amount of people who are not normally in the area. This in
turn has brought a recent increase in break-ins in the community.
Scott Krajack, 19425 E Broadway Avenue:Mr.Krajack stated he was the property owner of the
piece of property located at the corner of Sprague and Barker. Mr. Krajack stated in the report
which has been presented,there is not enough affordable housing in Spokane Valley. He said there
are a lot of residents who talk about this, and it is a statistics of the report. Not only affordable
single family,but affordable multifamily is under served in the Valley. He stated the location, at
Barker Road does have problems. There is too much traffic on it. He has been caught in it and he
knows the people to the south have been caught in it. He commented the developments to the
south,they have more homes in them and more homes are being proposed than if the corner were
to be multifamily. He said the traffic is not going to stop coming up Barker Road. So the thing to
do is to fix the problem. There are a lot more homes going in at Morningside, a lot more homes in
09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6
Twin Bridges and all those areas,so if you can widen the road,improve the road,put in sidewalks,
you can start eliminating the problems up and down Barker Road.
Tera Campbell,7603 E Mission Avenue: Ms.Campbell stated she was here to discuss preserving
neighborhoods. She said she moved into an area she thought was protected by CC & Rs
(Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions) and zoning laws. She said they found out later that the
developer did not record any covenants for their development. She ended up in a law suit because
the one of her neighbors built a large shop behind her which does not preserve the value of her
property. She said she wanted other people to understand what they were getting into when they
buy property.
Frank Roberts, 213 N Barker Road: Mr. Roberts stated he used to live in the area (12104 E
Fredrick)of the church on Pines which had been mentioned previously at 3001 N Pines Road. He
said he remembered the neighborhood fighting for years,before the church bought the property,to
keep apartment complex from going on that property. He said the neighbors fought it for years,
some of the neighbors contributing to an attorney to fight the apartment complex.
After some discussion the Commission consensus was to continue the public hearing until October
6,2016.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor,motion passed.
Heather Graham, Chair Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary