Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 10-06-16 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall October 6,2016 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 Kelly Konkright, Special Council Heather Graham Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator James Johnson Chaz Bates,Economic Development Specialist Development Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Deanna Horton, Commission Secretary II. Agenda: Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the October 6,2016 agenda as presented. The vote was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. Minutes: There were no minutes to approve. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson stated he belongs to an online neighborhood community called McDonaId.Nextdoor.com and he had shared the opportunity to comment on the Comprehensive Plan with these neighbors. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a) Continued 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. This is a continuation of the public hearingfrom September 29, 2016 Economic Development Coordinator Mike Basinger gave an overview of 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 an extensive public participation 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 Mr. Basinger stated based on this vision the Plan has been completely rewritten in order to be: 10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8 " 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 There will be a separate chapter in the front of the document which will contain all of the goals and polices, making them easier to locate. We also made sure other City documents were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The elements included in the Plan are as follows: • 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 Multifamily designation and zone. MF-1 was moved into the R-4 zone or the new 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 Avenue 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 Trent Avenue which allows for light industrial uses such as contractors yards and towing companies and continues to allow for commercial uses. 10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of$ 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, we removed any unnecessary definitions and strengthened the use category definitions. Mr. Basinger covered the schedule moving forward. The regular meeting and continued deliberations is scheduled for October 13,2016. The findings and recommendations are scheduled for October 20, 2016, 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. 10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8 Commissioner Johnson confirmed multifamily is allowed in Corridor Mixed Use, there was no change to this. Chair Graham reminded the public of the rules for the public hearing and called the first person to testify. John Howard,11616 E.Jackson Avenue:Mr.Howard commented regarding why people did not receiving notices about zoning changes and about people building apartments. Pat Korn, 12103 E. Frederick Avenue: Ms. Korn stated she was opposed the request to change the zoning at the Mirabeau Chapel on Pines. Clara Misterek, 12025 E Frederick Avenue: Ms. Misterek stated she was opposed to the request to change the zoning at the Mirabeau Chapel on Pines. Donita Mason, 12012 E.Frederick Avenue: Ms.Mason stated she was opposed to the request to change the zoning on the property at Mirabeau Chapel on Pines Road. George Kovacs, 19122 E Valleyway Avenue: Mr. Kovacs stated lie was against the rezoning of the properties at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Amber Haveman, 18722 E Sprague Avenue: Ms. Haveman stated she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. William Currier, 110 N Barker Road: Mr. Currier stated he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential, Frank Roberts, 213 N Barker Road: Mr. Roberts stated he was against the rezoning of the property at the Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Zita Smith,16 N Harmony Road: Ms. Smith testified she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Nancy Board, 315 S Barker Road: Ms. Board testified she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Stephanie Colombo,18921 E Valleyway Avenue:Ms.Colombo said she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. She does not agree with the Corridor Mixed Use moving farther into the neighborhood or removing the height restrictions. David Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway Avenue: Mr. Colombo said he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Wayne Vinson, 117 N Barker Road: Mr. Vinson testified he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Baker to Multifamily Residential. Norman Shepard, 602 S Barker Road: Mr. Shepard testified he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Marian Moseman, 630 S Michigan: Ms. Moseman stated she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Athlan Lathan, 1302 S McMillan Road: Mr. Lathan testified he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Dennis Crapo,2602 N Sullivan Road: Mr. Crapo requested a piece of property he owns located on Sands Road, have the designation change to Regional Commercial to allow at use of Greenhouse/nursery commercial. Russ Boucher, 10 N Harmony Road: Mr. Boucher stated he was against the rezoning of the property located at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Lee Nilson, 101 N Barker Road: Mr. Nilson commented he was against the rezoning of the property located at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Kurt Neil,19724 E Sprague Avenue:Mr.Neil testified he was against the rezoning of the property located at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. 10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8 Paul Belfry, 18807 E Second Avenue: Mr. Belfry testified lie was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Karen O'Shogay, 105 S Barker Road: Ms. O'Shogay said she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Karen Gallion, 18605 E Turtle Creek: Ms. Gallion commented she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Gilbert Cook,303 S Barker Road: Mr.Cook testified he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. William McCord, 18816 E 4th Avenue: Mr. McCord stated lie was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Ian Robertson,11919 E 301h Avenue:Mr.Robertson said he was supportive of allowing the small residential dwellings in Spokane Valley. It will support home ownership. Lynn Plaggemeir, 11708 E 19th Avenue: Mr. Plaggerneir stated he was supportive of impact fees. Jerry Cline, 18406 E 10'11 Avenue: Mr.Cline stated he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Chariti Zlateff, 628 S Moen Street: Ms. Zlateff stated she was supportive of parks and trails. Supportive of multiuse functions,residential and commercial in same building. She was in support of increasing transitional setbacks, not exceed four stories,and restricting the Multifamily building height. Dallas Williams, 18903 E Sprague Avenue: Mr. Williams stated he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Taffy Hunter, 18820 E Sprague Avenue: Ms. Hunter stated she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Kayloni Bonner, 19124 E 2"d Avenue: Ms. Bonner stated she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Kris Petibone, 18009 E.Cowley: Ms.Petibone stated she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Kim Alexander-Byrd, 18820 E 41h Avenue: Ms. Alexander-Byrd testified she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Caroline Kroko,805 S Harmony Road: Ms. Kroko commented she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Raymond Harris, 18520 E Bow Avenue: Mr. Harris stated he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Ryan Olson, 18904 E. 12"'Court: Mr. Olson stated he was in favor of changing the zoning in the area near Barker and Sprague. Jacque Stallinga, 19025 E Riverside Avenue: Ms. Stallinga commented she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Chuck Richardson, 18808 E Valleyway Court: Mr.Richardson said he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Clyde Smith, 16 N Harmony Road: Mr. Smith testified he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Andy Kautzman, 18502 E Sprague Avenue:Mr. Kautztnan stated he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Marc Lippincott, 19004 E 2"d Avenue: Mr. Lippincott stated he was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. 10-06-16 Planning Corntnission Minutes Page 6 of 8 Sarah Ross, 18703 E 13th Court: Ms. Ross testified she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Nicole Arnold, 17322 E Alki Avenue: Ms. Arnold attested she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Jackie Williams, 18903 E Sprague Avenue: Ms. Williams commented she was against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. Chair Graham closed the public hearing at 8;19 p.m. To summarize the evening's testimony there were: ■ 35 people testified they were against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily residential II One person testified in favor of the zoning change at.Sprague and Barker. It One person testified against Corridor Mixed Use in the Sprague and Barker area • Three people testified against the request to rezone the property located at 3001 N Pines to Mixed Use. ■ One person requesting a change in designation on his property located on Sands Road to Commercial. ■ One questioning why people did not receive notices for rezones and apartment construction • One testified supporting impact fees • One testified increasing the transitional provisions setbacks ■ Two people testified against unlimited heights,one requesting four story height restriction. • One testified in support of alternative housing, specifically tiny houses • One testified supporting parks and trail development ▪ One testified supporting mixed use development ■ Many people commented regarding the goal of preserving the neighborhood character • Many spoke regarding the impact of development on schools. Schools in the area being over crowed,the need to bus local children to other schools because they are over capacity. • Many spoke regarding the need for infrastructure improvements to the intersection at Sprague and Barker. Several people commented it is necessary to have a traffic officer on Sunday mornings in order to handle the traffic coming from the church at that the intersection at Sprague and Barker. • Many spoke of the need for infrastructure improvements to Barker Road before the area would be able to handle any kind of influx of development. One person noted Spokane County is approving homes south on Barker in Twin Bridges, Turtle Creek, Morningside and the Morrison Ranch is expected to subdivide 200+ acres before too long, which all impact the same intersection and Barker Road,which has no sidewalks, is unimproved and is the only access for the area to the freeway. There was consensus between the Commissioners to begin deliberations and to start with the change of designation at Sprague and Barker. The Commissioners discussed the zoning of the properties at the northeast corner of Sprague and Barker. Commissioner Graham stated she did not think the zoning west of Barker, south of Bow Avenue and north of Sprague Avenue which had been changed to Corridor Mixed Use was right for the area. Commissioner Kelley said he was concerned about overflow parking from multifamily development, increase in noise from the development of 400+homes south of the intersection. He also commented regarding the schools not being able to handle the increase in students as well as being able to handle special needs students. The Commissioners asked staff what the plans were to improve Barker Road and this intersection. Mr.Basinger stated he could not speak to the specific improvements planned for Barker but he was aware that it was on the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP). Mr. Kelley stated impact fees are a difficult sell, but they do help with improvements down the road. He also stated he was supportive of parks and trails. 10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Rasmussen stated she felt the infrastructure needed to be in place ahead of development. She said she was concerned about the schools being over capacity. She is concerned the zoning does not seem to fit in this one place. She is not advocating no growth, but this one place does not seem to fit. Commissioner Stathos stated she was in support of impact fees. She not in favor of the change of zoning of the properties at the Sprague and Barker. She believes in a better notification system for the public. Commissioner Phillips stated the area at Sprague and Barker is a good location for multifamily because they are both arterial roads,which is why it was probably designated this way in the new plan. He also said he did not feel it was the right time for it based on the lack of infrastructure to support the additional traffic. Commissioner Graham clarified there is no density restriction in the MFR zone. Mr.Basinger said there Transitional Provisions would reduce the impacts to adjacent residential development. She then commented if the property were zoned MFR only the people to the south and east would be protected. She would not be supporting this change. Commissioner Johnson asked if the recommendation was not to support the suggested MFR what would the recommendation be for the property at Sprague and Barker. Commissioner Graham stated her recommendation would be for the property to be R-3. She said she is ok with the properties west of Barker and north of Bow Avenue being zoned CMU but not the properties south of Bow. She said if they were zoned residential previously, they should remain residential. Commissioner Johnson clarified she was considering leaving the CMU zoning west of Greenacres Road and north of Bow Avenue. Commissioner Kelley stated this would be the correct place to put multifamily in the future,because it is close to bus routes and when the infrastructure is in place, it will be an ideal place for it. Commissioner Graham stated if you drive this particular part of Appleway, businesses have a hard time staying in business. There are not supportive businesses going in this area. Commissioner Kelley offered there would be in the future. Commissioner Graham said she felt the development of those kinds of businesses would be going on the north side of the freeway, toward where a medical center had developed. She said there is a bus stop but where would it take them. Commissioner Johnson offered the Medium Density Residential has been eliminated from the Comprehensive Plan,and it could be returned. It would make more sense to have a medium density development at that corner instead of high density. Townhouses would be better than apartments he offered. He said increasing the density for medium density to 16 units per acre, which would make it more financially viable, given the increasing property values people are seeing. He feels there is a pent up demand for small reduced cost home ownership. Commissioner Johnson said he would support the CMU as was stated previously and make medium density from Greenacres Road to the east side of the parcels which have been in discussion at the corner of Sprague and Barker. Commissioner Kelley said he would support MFR up to 24 units per acre but would not support it being unlimited, but keep it just as one density not as a medium and a high. Commissioner Graham countered this would not solve the issue at Barker and Sprague. She said she was not opposed to townhomes, they promote home ownership and stability and have a nicer look than apartments. They would still change the feel of the neighborhood but not as much as apartments would. Commissioner Stathos clarified the City is required to update the Comprehensive Plan every eight years. However,there is still an annual amendment process in which a property owner is allowed to come in and request a change to their property every year if they wish. Commissioner Johnson moved to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. The vote on this motion was five in favor and two against with Commissioners Anderson and Phillips dissenting. Motion passed Commissioner Johnson suggested bringing back a medium density residential with a maximum density of 16 units per acre and a height restriction of two stories. It was pointed out this would allow apartments as well. Commissioner Phillips stated he was in favor of MFR on the property but not at this time,not until the road is improved. Until the road is improved,he feels it should be 10-06-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8 left as residential. He said the property owner can come in and ask to change it every year,and the neighborhood asks why they have to come back in and fight it every year. He said because that is the law. There are 5 acres and he can put 30 homes on it. He is not in favor of bringing back medium density residential and redesigning the whole thing. Commissioner Anderson stated with the change in minimum lot size it would be easier to configure the lot. Commissioner Kelley commented that townhomes are not necessarily residential homes, they can also be rented. Commissioner Johnson said apartments are rarely owner occupied, but townhomes could be. Commissioner Johnson said if left residential, then there could only be six units per acre, but Mr. Basinger said there was a small difference in standards for townhomes. Mr.Basinger clarified that R-3 zoning allows townhouses. Chair Graham confirmed the consensus of the Commission was that lot at Barker and Sprague that is currently zoned R-3 remain residential, not moved to multifamily. Commissioner Graham moved to the zoning between Greenacres and Barker Road, and south of Bow Avenue. She was ready to make a recommendation on it. Commissioner Anderson looked for an explanation why this area to CMU? Mr.Basinger responded with the deletion of the Medium Density Residential, CMU was an appropriate designation for this area which allows for single family residential outright. Commissioner Anderson noted so does multifamily. Commissioner Kelley noted he could see since there is CMU along Appleway,he could understand the designation following along this path. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kelley moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, motion passed. AthelL)V4thitervi_...-- / Di J20Jf� I 1 Heather Graham, Chair Date signed i � ON___CIAVerk) Deanna orton, Secretary