PC APPROVED Minutes 04-26-18 APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
April 26,2018
I. Chair Rasmussen 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:
James Johnson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson,Assistant Building Official
Mike Phillips Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Michelle Rasmussen
Suzanne Stathos
Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
H. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the April 26,2018 agenda as presented. The vote
on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed
III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the April 12, 2018 minutes as presented. The
vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the City had
received the decision on the appeal of the SEPA decision for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CPA-2018-0003. The Hearing Examiner had upheld the City's determination and denied the
applicant's appeal. There had not been enough time for staff to prepare for the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments for the Planning Commission packet for this meeting so staff will prepare materials for
deliberations to continue on May 24, 2018.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII, COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0002, A privately initiated code text amendment to the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code 19.60 and 19.65 to allow lodging in the Industrial zone.
Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing for CTA-2018-0002 at 6:03 p.m. Planner Marty
Palaniuk presented to the Commission an overview of the privately initiated code text amendment
requesting to add hotel/motel as a supplemental use to the Industrial zone. Mr. Palaniuk explained
hotel/motel is a permitted use in the Mixed Use, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and
Industrial Mixed Use zones. The Industrial zone allows for all types of manufacturing and
industrial type uses. The amendment proposes to allow hotels/motels along principal arterials on
a parcel which has frontage along a principal arterial. Mr.Palaniuk said there are three areas in the
City this proposal would apply to, Broadway Avenue west of the Interstate, north of Interstate 90
along Sullivan and north of the river along Barker. Barker is not currently classified as a principal
arterial,but there are plans to reclassify it in the future. These are the areas along a principal arterial
which are zoned Industrial. Much of the area along Broadway would be restricted because it falls
under an airport hazard overlay zone (AHO) and high intensity uses like a hotel are those which
draw and concentrate people into a certain areas and are not permitted in a AHO zone. There is a
small area along Broadway which is outside of the AHO zone which would be available for this
proposal. Commissioner Phillips confirmed the AHO was because of the proximity to Felts Field,
but wanted to know why it didn't apply to the Spokane International Airport(SIA). Commissioner
Kelley offered the hotels at SIA are not in the crash zone,and are allowed to build where they based
on their location to those zones.
The applicant's proposal requests to add a 'P/C' in for permitted or conditional use permit in the
supplemental language for the Industrial zone in the Permitted Use Matrix. Staff is recommending
that an `S' be placed in the Permitted Use Matrix which would reference the supplemental use
2018-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5
regulations. Staff also made some suggests instead of placing the use in the Heavy Industrial
section of the Use Matrix placing it in under the Lodging heading,along with some minor language
changes to make sure it was in line with the way the rest of our code is written. Staff discussed
requiring a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)and most of the conditions covered by a CUP would be
handled by existing regulations from the Building Code, environmental regulations, SEPA, etc.
Ms. Barlow stated although staff has made some minor changes to the language of the proposal in
order to make the proposal more consistent with City code but staff did not made a
recommendation on the proposal itself. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
amendment staff would propose accepting the minor revisions as well.
The Chair opened the hearing for public testimony
Steve Schmautz, Spokane WA: Mr. Schmautz stated he was the applicant for CTA-2018-0002
and principal on the project for the former ITRON site located on Sullivan Road. He stated they
are working to develop the 12-acre site into a higher level use with 150,000 square feet of office
space, 110,000 square feet of high cube warehouse space. The plan is to develop an extended-stay
business type hotel similar to others in the area. He said has had studies done and there is a demand
for this use. He said the product he would be offering would have a different price point,something
complimenting the area which is growing northward. What they are considering putting on their
site would be less than the footprint in their amendment, catering to sales/business people who
service the area,convenient, affordable, more suites, and larger spaces.
Commissioner Stathos inquired regarding the campus layout, and Mr. Schmautz stated it would
have a bit of everything, office, commercial,warehouse and convenience in the same place on an
arterial. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners this was not a project specific, and would affect
more than this proposal. Commissioner Walton commented one arguments in the application for
the proposal was to reduce trip generation. He wondered how it would do this when many of the
other services which hotel patrons need are outside of the industrial areas. Mr. Schmautz said he
has been doing this for a while and the trips would mostly concentrate where the work was near the
offices and warehousing facilities.
Dwight Hume,Mead,WA: Mr. Hume said he represents the applicant for CTA-2018-0002. Mr.
Hume stated he remembers when the hotel currently the Industrial Park was built. He commented
the need for it was created by the tenants of the park. He believed the Industrial Park had to have
a change to the code at that time to allow the hotel,because the Industrial Park needed the facility,
and it wasn't allowed until the code was corrected. Corporate visitors could be coming to visit or
do training for businesses right in the general area and are Iess populated on the weekends. He said
the hotel would be a convenience to the surrounding businesses which would use it services but the
clients would use other services in the area such as restaurants and shopping. He commented that
the proposal was requested to be on an arterial so it would handle trip generations and ingress/egress
issues.
Commissioner Kelley asked Mr. Hume to share his background with the Commission. Mr. Hume
is currently a private land use consultant, but spent many years working for Spokane County as
their planning director and as a zoning adjustor, which is like a hearing examiner now.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Hume how he felt about changing the proposal to require the
project to have frontage on a principal arterial instead of the parcel being on a principal arterial.
Commissioner Johnson said he was concerned about a structure being Iocated deep inside a parcel
where 1st responders would have trouble finding it. Mr. Hume responded the street system would
feed to the arterial,but that would be specific to this site. Each site would be different and need its
own ingress and egress onto the arterial. He felt there are enough performance standards and
development reviews to be able to discover a problem before the doors are opened. Mr. Hume also
said other jurisdictions have a CUP process when siting a hotel in an industrial area. Many times
the criteria for a CUP has already been met, so he does not know why people should have to go
through the process. Ms. Barlow commented the way the language is written a CUP would only
be necessary of the proposal was for a building footprint greater than 25,000 square feet. If they
did not want to go through the CUP process, it would require the project to be designed to go
vertical and protect the valuable industrial space. Mr. Hume stated he wasn't against them,he just
2018-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5
feels the criteria is covered in other ways. Commissioner Walton asked why the applicant did not
rezone the property to Corridor Mixed Use with all of the allowed uses which would be allowed in
the CMU zone. Mr. Hume replied the applicant is not trying to bring the CMU uses into the
industrial area, they simply want to bring a hotel use into the industrial zone. There is a demand
for it and they felt this would be an appropriate request. Ms. Barlow the intent of the Industrial
zone is to provide for industrial uses and allow for some accessory uses,so environment is created
where it thrives. The intent of the CMU zone is to allow for uses which are much less intensive.
If it was rezoned, it would be stripped of one of the amenities the property offers. It could also be
argued the property was spot zoned and surrounding properties have not been given the same rights
to the uses allowed in the CMU zone. The proposal brings forward the hotel as an accessory to the
Industrial zone instead of stripping those uses and adding uses which might not be compatible with
the surrounding area.
Chair Rasmussen seeing no one else who wished to test closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m.
Commissioner Walton asked Commissioner Johnson about his expressed concern regarding not
having a hotel which fronted on a principal arterial. Commissioner Johnson said it might be better,
as Mr. Hume had stated,to have the access on a side road. The customers might be going out once
or twice a day to somewhere up and down the arterial, but he feels the language should change in
order to keep the project out on the arterial so first responders are not having to drive around in the
Industrial Park. Commissioner Walton stated he was a bit concerned that this could amount to
telling someone how to develop their property. Commissioner Phillips stated he felt having a
having hotel in the industrial area was a good idea. He commented developers will build a hotel
where it would be most advantageous to them and would not put it off the arterial unless they were
catering to a select few clients. He is content with the language the way it is.
Commissioner Kelley commented generating more trips are what we want because it means that
people are coming to the City and spending money. There would revenue from the rooms, food
and beverage, payroll, federal, state and local taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, lodging taxes,jobs
would be created from the construction, from the new business, more suppliers in the area would
spend more money and the employees themselves there by increasing economic development.
Commissioner Kelley said he was concerned about making the hotel right on the arterial because
it could be a security concern if it was too easy to get to from the street.
Commissioner Rasmussen said previously she traveled for work and she appreciated having the
hotel next door to where she was going to work in the morning so she did not have to deal with the
traffic. She said she felt this amendment would fit the needs of the of the specific business people
who visit the area and she supported the amendment. She would leave it to the developers to
determine where to put the structure based on their needs. Commissioner Stathos stated the area is
adding conveniences for the businesses in the area. She would like to protect the industrial areas
for those industrial uses but this is a need which would be beneficial to many businesses in this
zone. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated she would support the amendment because she felt it
would be good for business and the visitors to have the option. Commissioner Johnson also feels
the change would be good for the City. He felt it would be a good addition to the industrial zone,
he wanted to make sure there was sufficient protection of the industrial land. He said he was not
in favor of a CUP. He wanted to protect staff from having to make any interpretations of the code.
He wants the language to be specific so there is no misunderstanding. Commissioner Walton said
he agreed and specific language allows for less interpretation and would be important to him. He
is concerned that allowing an expansion of a use to this zone when there are hotels in the
surrounding area which are not at capacity. He wanted to make sure that the industrial land is
protected.
Commissioner Walton stated his concern with the CUP process and how the hotels could be
allowed with little control except for the amount of square footage. Commissioner Rasmussen and
Kelley talked about their experiences in being in a hotel in more industrial areas and how they
found them beneficial and how the users of the hotels would benefit the area. Commissioner Kelley
is in favor of allowing the hotels, but is not necessarily in favor of a larger hotel, 25,000 square
2018-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5
feet,in the area. Commissioner Phillips said he was fine with a CUP for a hotel over 25,000 square
feet footprint.
Ms. Barlow wanted to remind the Commission when they made a recommendation,staff had made
some suggested language to the amendment to make it more consistent with the way the Municipal
Code is written. Commissioner Walton said his preference would be to eliminate a hotel greater
than 25,000 would not be allowed in the industrial zone, so that it would preserve the most amount
of land for those purposes. If someone wanted a larger hotel, then they would need to go vertical
instead of horizontal in order to increase the amount of rooms they could offer. This would
eliminate the CUP process.
Commissioner Walton moved to recommend approval of CTA-2018-0002 to the City Council with
the proposed changes from staff,but modifying the language in SVMC 19.65.080(B)(1)to read 'A
hotel/motel is allowed in the "I" zoning district on sites with frontage on a principal arterial
provided hotel/motel use has a building footprint of 25,000 square feet or less.' Motion died for
lack of a second.
Commissioner Kelly moved to recommend approval of CTA-2018-0002 to the City Council as
revised by staff. This motion was seconded. The vote on the motion by show of hands was five in
favor, two against with Commissioners Johnson and Walton dissenting.
ii. Study Session: Open Space Requirements in Mixed Use Zones.
Ms. Barlow gave a quick presentation to remind the Commission the subject for discussion of the
open space requirements in the mixed use zones. She also discussed that projects in mixed use
zones which had been developed and stated all had provided some kind of open space. She also
reviewed the requirements of other jurisdictions and most have some form open space
requirements. She also shared several examples of mixed use development. The code currently
requires any development,multifamily or mixed use,in a mixed use zone would require open space
to be provided at a rate of 210 square feet per unit for any development which has more than 10
units.
Options which could be considered are:
• Separate vertical and horizontal developments
• Separate Multifamily and mixed use
• Separate Mixed Use zone from Corridor Mixed Use
• Increase the distance from a public park or trail
• Increase the unit threshold
• Increase the amount of open space required per unit
• Increase the amount of units required before the open space is required
• Leave the requirements as they are currently written
• Eliminate the requirements completely
Commissioner Phillips confirmed the latest update to the development regulations there are no
setback requirements in the mixed use zones. Commissioner Johnson confirmed Spokane does not
have any open space requirements in a mixed use zone. Spokane County does not have a
requirement but offers incentives if they are added to a mixed use development.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out that about 90% of the areas being discussed would be except,
but the rest of the areas he would not want to have some kind of open space requirements. Most of
the areas are close to transit, places we want there to be vertical growth, and people who live in
these places have a different lifestyle.He said he didn't think there should be a requirement in those
cases. Commissioner Phillips' concern has been someone trying to build a multifamily project in
the MU or CMU zone so they could get out of the open space requirement. After listening to some
of the conversations, he thinks maybe this requirement would not be necessary in these zones and
would make us more equal with the County and Spokane. Commissioner Walton feels that a
dedicated multifamily development in these zones should have different requirements than a mixed
use development. There was considerable discussion about why the City does not have mixed use
development. Ms. Barlow shared a consultant for the City, at the time of the Comprehensive Plan
2018-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5
Update,said there is not enough density in the City to drive it right now. Discussion of how much
commercial there should be required in order to consider the project as mixed use. Commissioner
Rasmussen said she did not want to stand in the way of any mixed-use project which would want
to build here, Commissioner Kelley said he supports no open space for a vertical environment, but
for multifamily, open space should be required.
At the end of the discussion the consensus was to have staff separate the mixed use development
from the multifamily, to define what would be a mixed-use development, look at whether or not
the 1,300 foot requirement from a park or trail would still need to be included and remove the
language regarding the"fee in lieu' altogether.
VIII. GOOD OF TILE ORDER: Commissioner Walton discussed when a motion is actually made,
especially when the subject has had a bit of discussion back and forth and everyone might not be in
agreement with the solution, there should be some extra discussion on the merits of the motion itself
before taking a vote.
IX. ADJOURNMENT; Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:36 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor, the motion passed.
„,.?„
Michelle Rasmussen, Chair ' Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary