Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 09-29-16 APPROVED 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 bafflers 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 1 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 Con-idor 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 Trent Avenue which allows for light industrial uses such as contractors yards and towing companies and 09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 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 definitions. 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 findings 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 reading of the ordinance adopting the new Comprehensive Plan on November 8, 2016, with a second reading scheduled for November 22, 2016. The Chair called for those people who wished to testify: 09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 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 lighting 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 hying 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 lie 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 lie 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 lie 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 charged 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, 09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 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. Tones 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 lie 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 Momingside,a Iot more homes inTwin 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 09-29-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 (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. 46ittbut) grt1 /op*b Heather Graham, Chair Date signed /Peani7a— Deanna Horton, Secretary