Loading...
2007, 09-05 Special Meeting MinutesAttendance. Councilmembers: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Absent. Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Uniform Development Code Discussion Wednesday, September 5, 2007 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Joe O'Brien, IT Specialist Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk City Manager Mercier suggested and it was the consensus of Council to go through the clean -up items presented by staff prior to discussing the zoning map. Appendix 19 -A Schedule of Permitted Uses: Mayor Wilhite asked if the kennels that already exist within City limits are going to still be permitted. Mr. McCormick said if they were legally established, they will still be allowed. Mayor Wilhite said there are four kennels within the City but she does not know if they were legal. Mr. McCormick said he does not know if they were either. He said the kennel designation was drawn up as one designation, six or more animals constitute a kennel and they are limited to the industrial zones. Council approved and thanked staff for their hard work. Appendix A Mr. McCormick said the definitions for shared access to driveways off of a right -of -way and manufactured mobile home were added. Council approved. Title 22 Mr. McCormick said the concurrency order was changed in 22.20 per direction of Council. In the outdoor lighting section on page 15, he said number 4 was changed so that no light extends beyond the boundary line of incompatible uses. He also said they added "or and to the public right -of -way" as Council suggested. Mr. McCormick said they made housekeeping changes to table 22.70 -2 to clarify the uses and classifications. Staff added 6c on page 26 regarding overhead power lines and the types of street tree species to use. He said they will also consult with local tree professionals to get their recommendations as to the appropriate trees to use under overhead lines. Mr. McCormick said on page 39, staff clarified the language in the section on billboards and reinserted language in section d that was in the original draft. He said they still need to re- insert the word "not" where it was mistakenly taken out of section a. Council Minutes: 9 -05 -2007 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 09 -25 -07 Mr. McCormick clarified that on the last page he checked with Public Works staff regarding the language in subsection b that the City would maintain the structures. He said the structures referred to are not swales, but drywells and the hard infrastructure that is a part of that. Title 20 City Attorney Connelly said he went through the items addressed in the Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport and Toole letter dated May 25, 2007 and gave Council the legal impact of his proposals. He said the City's ordinance as written is legal and that the changes Dullanty proposed are somewhat significant changes that would alter the intent of the statute in terms of creating lots within binding site plans. He said they propose filing one binding site plan and then later they would have the ability to file records of survey with the director at subsequent points in time creating lots within that general binding site plan. He said this is the main "big picture" change and it would require a policy change in how the City processes their binding site plan proposals. Mr. Connelly said number 2 in the letter is probably ok and he said he thinks it clarifies the existing law. Mr. Connelly said number 3 segregates binding site plans from short plats and plats because of the requirements under the current code to file a final document with the accessor showing the lots that have been created, so this would also be a change in the overall processing of binding site plans. Mr. Connelly said he thinks number 4 is not troubling, as Dullanty suggests, and thinks that what is referenced is actually fine. Mr. Connelly said number 5 is a good idea: adding the words "and for which written standards and policies have been adopted." Mr. Connelly said number 6 addresses taking out "binding site plan" throughout section .020 which is consistent in the overall policy change Dullanty requests. Mr. Connelly said he does not know the industry standard in regard to number 7 and is not able to respond or advise at this point. He said number 8 refers to 20.30.030 and indicates the words "and binding site plans" should be included Mr. Connelly said he agrees. Mr. Connelly said he thinks numbers 9 and 10 are the proposed policy procedures for a record of survey process. Mr. Connelly said the only other legal factor is that we are late in the game and this is a significant revision and a lengthy change. Mayor Wilhite asked when the Council opened the record. City Manager Mercier said the record was re- opened three weeks ago, August 28, 2007, so Council could consider all comments. Councilmember Gothmann asked if these changes were incorporated into the present code, could the City be required by the court to go back and start over. Mr. Connelly said if Council makes significant changes, they need to go back through the process. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked if we are doing this right without knowing what other jurisdictions are doing and what Washington industry standards are if this is what the statute 58.17 intended. Mr. Connelly said statue gives flexibility to go either way. He said his concern is that they don't have the other jurisdictional information, they haven't had input from the Planning Commission on this and it is a substantial change. This was not submitted until long after the Planning Commission and Council both dealt with the subdivision ordinance, after the public hearing was closed on Title 20. The Planning Commission and council finished title 20 in January and this letter was submitted in May after the record was closed. Council Minutes: 9 -05 -2007 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 09 -25 -07 Deputy Mayor Taylor asked if we want to have our policy require going through the platting process to subdivide. Mr. McCormick said the binding site plan process is administrative and it does not require a public hearing. Councilmember Denenny asked if there are any concurrency concerns because some of the uses could change within the plats changing. Mr. McCormick said it can create some problems and would be looked at on a case -by -case basis. He said they generally look at concurrency concerns at the time of platting. Councilmember Denenny asked what the difference would be then between that and going to a record of survey system. Mr. McCormick said there probably is no difference because binding site plans are only used for non - residential land; they are only for commercial industrial land. Councilmember Munson asked and it was confirmed by Mr. Connelly that the UDC can be amended at a later date. Mr. Munson proposed they pass it now as it is then discuss Title 20 at a later date and propose a revision rather than tying up the process now. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked if this is a different process than the City is currently using now. Mr. McCormick said it is different and that he does not know what the County's new subdivision ordinance provides because they have just gone through a revision and he does not know to what extent they have modified it. Mr. Connelly said the statute requires that the City's public participation be early and continuous and that the County had an entire Comprehensive Plan revision thrown out because they made some significant changes without going through the public hearing process. He cautioned that Council is running out of time to make such changes. Councilmember DeVleming said he agrees with Councilmember Munson, but he would like to change the items on the list in the letter that Mr. Connelly thinks they can change now without causing concern. Mr. Connelly said Council can change number 2 on the list regarding section 20.10.025 item number 3; and item 5 on the list regarding written standards. Regarding number 7 on the letter, Mr. Connelly said he cannot advise. Mr. McCormick said two -foot intervals for topographical studies may be too much and ten -foot intervals wouldn't give a lot of information; however, five foot intervals might be a good compromise because that would provide some idea of the slope of a particular site. He said ten -foot intervals do not give enough detail to aid in any review. Councilmember DeVleming he said would like to wait to see what the industry standard is before addressing this issue. Mr. Connelly deferred to Mr. McCormick for number 8 on the list regarding adding "and binding site plan" to the 30 -day review process. Mr. McCormick said he doesn't believe it is state law to require the review of binding site plans within 30 days and he said he doesn't want to tie staff to that timeline if it is not required by law. Council said they will not make any changes to that until they can have further review. Deputy Mayor Taylor said Council doesn't know what has been changed and he said it is important that they know. He said they passed Title 20 that made changes to how they were doing things. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked that staff provide clarifying information to Council and that Council consider it within the next few months rather than letting it sit for up to a year before they make their amendments. Councilmember Gothmann suggested they refer the entire document back to the Planning Commission and have them consider it as a revision to the plan and have legal go through the legality of the issues presented, but that we pass the code first. Deputy Mayor Taylor said we need to give it to staff to make recommendations to the Planning Commission, to then give their recommendations back to Council. Mr. McCormick said staff currently has a series of comp plan amendments and it will take the Planning Commission several months to work through those changes. Councilmember Munson said he is concerned that the City process be in line with the County and the state so that it is more streamlined and Council Minutes: 9 -05 -2007 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 09 -25 -07 consistent. Mr. Kuhta said the deadline for the Comprehensive Plan amendments was last spring according to the municipal code adopted by Council. He said they extended the deadline to receive applications at the end of November of last year to be completed by May. City Manager Mercier recommended Council work with the Planning Commission to deal with the current comp plan amendments before having them take on further additional changes. Mr. McCormick said realistically they only get a couple binding site plans a year so there are not very many. Mayor Wilhite said they need to direct this back to the Planning Commission for a revision. She said Council may need to talk to the Planning Commission regarding their timeline. As a first priority they need to address the amendment someone has been waiting for and then deal with Title 20 as well as the airport overlay. She said she wants to ensure the Planning Commission has enough time to discuss it but would also like to encourage them to move along and provide a recommendation to Council. It was the consensus of Council to make the changes to items 2 and 5 in the letter as indicated above. Mayor Wilhite called for a break at 7:07 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:12 p.m. Title 19 Mr. McCormick said where it refers to the "zoning administrator" it should read the "director." He will make the changes. Councilmember DeVleming said he has concerns with elderly care and daycare home businesses. Mr. Connelly said state law considers them both as a residence and they are regulated by the City's ordinance if they are not regulated by the state. Councilmember DeVleming asked what rules regulate daycares, assisted living facilities, and half -way houses. Mr. Connelly said he thinks they are all defined in the matrix. Councilmember DeVleming asked who decides how many employees a daycare can have. Mr. Connelly said that is regulated by state law. Councilmember Denenny said the City determines where they can be located and it is specified in our matrix. Councilmember DeVleming asked where parking of these employees is addressed. Mr. Connelly said it is addressed in our parking ordinance. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he agrees with the letter from Len Bouge that addresses section 19.40.020, page 6, regarding residential standards. He said he thinks by taking the R -1 down to 25,000 feet they will have less rezone requests and he proposed that Council reduce the R -1 zone to 25,000 feet. Mayor Wilhite said in looking at the Ponderosa lots and how they could be subdivided, her concern is how to get roads to a subdivided property. She said if the property already has street access bordered on both sides, they could possibly subdivide that property because they would have street access. Senior Planner Kuhta said he thinks the reason they didn't allow that originally was because it could get messy to create various exceptions in the minimum lot size. Councilmember Gothmann said he doesn't agree with creating exceptions and that the Ponderosa residents have been very expressive in keeping their acre -sized lots. Mayor Wilhite proposed allowing only corner lots to subdivide, given a specified minimum number of feet. Mr. Connelly said he thought that would be very difficult to try to do. Councilmember DeVleming asked if there is any way to address that particular need. Mr. Kuhta said they could create a zone that allows for 25,000 square foot lots. He said they need to make a decision on a minimum lot size for the Ponderosa and then stick to it. Deputy Mayor Taylor said his proposal is to accommodate a situation that has come up on this issue. He said the Ponderosa neighborhood is within an urban zone and they can still maintain the character of the neighborhood but also give flexibility to those who want to subdivide. Councilmember Munson said he is in favor of leaving the table as it is. Councilmember DeVleming said he is still undecided. Councilmember Denenny said to leave it as it is. Mayor Wilhite agreed. Majority was 4 -2 to leave the table as it is. Council Minutes: 9 -05 -2007 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 09 -25 -07 Zoning Map Councilmember DeVleming asked what has changed from the Comprehensive Plan map and changes. Deputy Mayor Taylor said the Comprehensive Plan specifies land use designations and what the zoning map deals with is where the zones are placed, specifically dealing with the low- density residential zones. Senior Planner Kuhta said the zoning map from the Planning Commission recommendations is a straight cross -over except the Office and low density residential zones. He said the only discretion and difficulty with developing the zoning map was with low density residential zones, shown in yellow. He also pointed out the dark blue section as the big office zones, such as a hospital or larger scale office. He said the Garden Office zone transitions to residential neighborhoods. As a historical reference, Mr. Kuhta said staff produced a map that had dark yellow designating the R -3 zone at 7,500 square feet, and they proposed it that way because staff didn't feel it would greatly impact the existing platted areas because they were already developed as the larger lots. He also said they thought a 7,500 square foot lot was a good urban -sized lot and that it allows for in -fill development in the areas where there is opportunity for that. Councilmember Denenny said he thought that as Council went through the PRD criteria and put restrictions into place, they still wanted to have the flexibility for a smaller lot size similar to the PRD without having to go through the PRD process in a particularly zoned area. Deputy Mayor Taylor said in terms of reducing the use of PRDs and having this zoning standardized in the subdivision ordinance, it eliminates people having to go to PRDs as a rezone request. Mr. Kuhta said the Planning Commission was concerned that the staff proposal was zoning too much of the valley as higher density development in the low density areas. They directed staff to produce a map that took them back to the minimum 10,000 square foot lot sizes. He said staff produced another map and gave it back to the Planning Commission indicating that most of the south valley would remain 10,000 square foot lots as they were already platted and developed. The Planning Commission, he said, in particular Dave Crosby and Marcia Sands, said they were overdoing it now with the 10,000 square foot lots and went through the map again throughout the Valley and looked at areas for potential redevelopment. He said they looked at 7,500 square foot lot zoning north of Sprague and north of Trent up to Greenacres because Greenacres went through the rezone process to get UR -3.5 zoning they said they wanted to maintain that neighborhood as 10,000 square foot lot sizes. He said south of Mission would be R -3 for redevelopment potential. Councilmember Munson asked if the Greenacres area would be ripe for development with the exception of lots along the river. Councilmember DeVleming said that is a logical area for growth. Councilmember Denenny said he agrees that when you have good planning, neighborhoods look very nice and do not look cramped on 6,000 square foot lots such as those south of Mission on Indiana. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he doesn't believe that area is developed at 6,000 square feet; he said they are likely closer to 7,500 or 8,000 square foot lots. Councilmember Denenny said when an undeveloped area gets developed, the less houses put into that area, the faster another rural or agricultural area will need to be developed because by using more land for less houses they will eventually need to enlarge the UGA. Councilmember Munson proposed they go with R -3 zoning in the light yellow areas on the map. Deputy Mayor Taylor proposed they push the R -3 yellow boundary up to Montgomery. Councilmember Munson agreed that is a good compromise. Councilmember Gothmann said he agrees with the proposal of the Planning Commission as presented. Councilmember DeVleming proposed they move R -3 zoning up to Maxwell and leave the areas along the river in their present zoning. City Attorney Connelly asked that if Council makes changes to the Planning Commission proposal, that they work with staff to tie it back to the Comprehensive Plan and ensure they fulfill the goals of the Comprehensive Plan so we are able to defend the changes. Deputy Mayor Taylor commented that the process for the Planning Commission Council Minutes: 9 -05 -2007 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 09 -25 -07 decisions for recommendations seems easier than the process for Council. Mr. Connelly said it is easier because they are making recommendations based on public hearings and the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, whereas Council has to make a decision that is defendable in court so they need to have a clear record and basis. Mr. McCormick said the Comprehensive Plan goals under LUG -1 and LUG -2 are the two main goals that deal with low density residential zoning. Mr. Kuhta said the Planning Commission struggled with the idea of maintaining the neighborhood character of various areas, including Greenacres. However, he said the Greenacres neighborhood character is semi -rural and it will change under this Comprehensive Plan, so the question becomes how to develop that area and still maintain some semblance of neighborhood character. Deputy Mayor Taylor said that page 1 of the Housing chapter states a goal is to reduce inappropriate conversion of land into sprawling low density development. Mayor Wilhite asked Mr. Connelly, and he confirmed that would qualify as a finding. Councilmember Munson asked if this will change the re -zone in Greenacres after they went through the process of getting the neighborhood rezoned. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he thought their rezone was temporary until Council finished the Comprehensive Plan and the development regulations. He said nothing is permanent because they hadn't gone through the Comprehensive Plan yet. Councilmember Gothmann said that area is semi -rural and he thinks the best way to proceed is to develop it as low density, thereby impacting the neighborhood the least. Councilmember Denenny said in trying to keep the area rural, he doesn't see a difference in having four houses per acre or six houses per acre and he said he thinks having six houses per acre is a better use for the land available there. Councilmember DeVleming asked if they were ready to make a decision. Deputy Mayor Taylor said to provide a natural buffer along the river and the established lots and to also provide more opportunity for in-fill and development of the unplatted areas, he proposed they include as R -3 zoning the area between Mission up to Montgomery, bordering Riverway along the east, following Riverway south to Barker and on the west side go to Flora or to the river. Councilmember Munson said he thinks what they are trying to do is have a balance of interest by both preserving the character of the part of the area that has been developed, and balancing that with the needs for population expansion. Councilmember DeVleming said they will move everything up to the R -3 zone except lots adjacent to the water. Deputy Mayor Taylor said his reasoning is because this would provide a greater transition between established one -acre lots along there and provide a better buffer from the natural area. Councilmember Munson asked if they would leave the western side along the river at 7,500 square feet. Deputy Mayor Taylor confirmed and said this would be for consistency. Mayor Wilhite proposed they leave the corner section out because it is along the Centennial Trail. Councilman Gothmann said he did not agree with the rest of Council on these proposals. It was the consensus of Council to make the changes as proposed by Deputy Mayor Taylor, but amended to exclude the corner section as suggested by Mayor Wilhite. (See map attached to hard -copy minutes). Mr. McCormick questioned if they were proposing to change the area zoned R -4 within that section to R- 3 as well. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he was not because that area is already built out at R -4. Deputy Mayor Taylor said his other suggestion involves the area along 11 and Pierce; most of that area is fully developed. He said north of 16 there is potential for in -fill development from larger farm lots where they had large open tracts of vacant land, and south of 16 was developed because they had open tracts. He proposed to be consistent with the north side of Sprague they convert the R -2 sections north of 16th to R -3 up to Sprague or 4 Avenue from Sullivan to University. Councilmember Gothmann asked if most of that area had been developed at 10,000 square foot lots, such as between Bowdish and University or Pines and Evergreen. He said to be consistent, they should develop the areas as they had been in the past. Deputy Mayor Taylor said there are smatterings of R -4 throughout that area and said PRDs had been used to create higher density and not to create innovative development. Councilmember Munson said he would consider 12 Avenue to Sprague but said he doesn't agree they should extend all the way to 16 Councilmember Gothmann said the standard in that area is 10,000 square foot lots. Deputy Mayor Taylor Council Minutes: 9 -05 -2007 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 09 -25 -07 disagreed. Councilmember Munson said PRDs could still go into that area. Deputy Mayor Taylor said they have made it very difficult to put in PRDs with the regulations they are adopting. He said it is not just about expanding urban growth areas and controlling sprawl, but also to make the best use of the land available. Mr. Kuhta provided a map showing existing lots currently less than 10,000 square feet and a larger map that shows existing lots at 15,000 square feet that could be divided in half, so providing for two 7,500 square foot lots to show the potential opportunity for in -fill development. Councilmember Munson said he still feels going only to 12 would capture a vast majority of development potential. Councilmember DeVleming said there is also a lot of possibility for development between 12'" and 16 Councilmember Munson said that decision may be for another day. Deputy Mayor Taylor in tying back to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, said the proposal would preserve the neighborhoods, accommodate the right number of housing, ensure they have adequate capital facilities and are able to pay for them, encourage public transportation, and create a higher dense urban core around the city center. He said they have more than one goal they are trying to accommodate. Councilmember Munson said in looking at redevelopment and what is right for redevelopment of an area, the area north of 12`" has older homes whereas the area south of 12 has newer developments that are not going to redevelop for probably 20 years. He said in encouraging redevelopment with new housing stock he thinks going only to 12 makes sense. Deputy Mayor Taylor proposed, and it was the consensus of Council to change the R -2 designations within the area bordered by University and Sullivan, 16 and Sprague to R -3, leaving anything designated other than R -2 as it is. Mayor Wilhite and Councilmembers DeVleming, and Denenny agreed. Councilmembers Munson and Gothmann disagreed. Deputy Mayor Taylor then specified justifications and findings referenced in the land -use, housing, public transportation, utilities, fire department and school, and capital facilities chapter. Mayor Wilhite asked if asked if there were any other changes to the map. Nothing further was offered. Mayor Wilhite clarified there will not be a special meeting on Monday, September 10. She reminded Council of the Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 11 in Council Chambers. Mr. Kuhta said he will try to get the map revised for the public to view as soon as possible. The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk Council Minutes: 9 -05 -2007 Approved by Council: 09 -25 -07 AM 0.\) kl kW� Diana Wilhite, Mayor Page7of7 Spol�an O Valley ■••■1P Memorandum To: City Council; Dave Mercier, City Manager CC: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Date: September 4, 2007 Re: Planning Commission Recommended Zoning Map R -1 (40,000 sq. ft. min. lot size), R -2 (10,000 sq. ft. min. lot size), R -3 (7,500 sq. ft. min. lot size) and R-4 (6,000 sq. ft. min. lot size). 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org From: Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner; Greg McCormick, Acting Community Development Director The Planning Commission has completed deliberations and is pleased to forward their recommended Zoning Map to City Council for review and public hearings. Also attached for Council review is the Staff Recommended Zoning Map. This map is attached so that Council can see the changes made by the Planning Commission. The majority of the Zoning Map is a straight cross -over from the Comprehensive Plan map, with the exception of office and single family residential zoning. The Office category of the Comprehensive Plan is implemented with two office zones, Garden Office (GO) and Office (0). The Garden Office (GO) Zone is used as a buffer between the higher intensity Office (0) zones and the residential zones. The most difficult part of the Planning Commission deliberations was determining the appropriate zoning for the areas designated Low Density Residential (LDR) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The Commission was challenged with maintaining neighborhood character while still providing opportunities for infill development. The Planning Commission Recommended Zoning Map includes four implementing zones for the LDR Comprehensive Plan Category, consistent with Council's consensus on LDR categories, including: The Planning Commission Recommended Zoning Map retains R -1 zoning for the Ponderosa and Rotchford Acres neighborhoods while the Greenacres neighborhood north of Mission is proposed for R -2 zoning. The majority of LDR property south of Sprague is proposed for R -2 zoning while LDR property between Sprague and the freeway is recommended for R -3 zoning. LDR property north of Trent is also proposed for R -3 zoning. Please contact Greg McCormick, Acting Community Development Director, Mike Basinger, Associate Planner, or Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner with Zoning Map questions during Council deliberations. se Spokane Valley Planning Commission Special Meeting Draft Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. August 30, 2007 I.CALL TO ORDER Chairwoman Kogle called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III.ROLL CALL IV.COMMISSION BUSINESS • Commissioners Kogle, Blum, Beaulac, Crosby and Sands present. Commissioner Robertson arrived at 6:18, Commissioner Carroll was,absent. Staff attending the meeting: Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner, Mike Basinger, Associate Planner, Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant. Deliberations; Proposed Zoning Map Associate Planner Mike Basinger gave the Commission a brief update for the Commissioners who were unable a attend the last meeting. The item under discussion is where the low density residential„zoning districts will be located. Specifically the discussion is where the 10,000 and sift. zoning districts are to be. Any areas that had been zoned at the previous URw)I be -6,000 zone. Commissioners do not have any debate with the proposed , 00 areas.�Counil >has currently determined that it will keep the 10,000 sq. ft. min. lot size Staff had proposed a map at the August 23n' meeting explaining that the methodology had been to zone any parcels that had been platted at 10,000 sq. ft. or largerat \the 10,000 sq. ft. zone and the rest of low density residential in the City should be zoned at the 7,500 sq ft. zone. Staff explained that the 7,500 sq ft zoning would support the Comprehensive Plan, would not affect the existing .neighborhoods hborhoods that were platted at 10 000 sq ft., 7 9: 9� P q 7,500 ft lots allows for more :flexibility in-subd vision design, allow for infill development which is a Comprehensive Plan policy and\yet not allow for division of lots that were not larger than 15,000 sq ft. At the previous the Commissioners present did not agree with the staff's recommendation andfelt that the reverse should be preformed. Anything platted at 7,50U ft. or smalIei should be the 7,500 zone and everything else in the low density residential zones should be the 10,000 sq ft zone. Commissioners stated that most of the City previously at UR -3.5 (approx. 10,000 sq ft) and that the zoning should remain thatway. Staff had been directed by the Planning Commission to produce a map that re%cted this change. Commissioner Crosby raised issues with changing demographics, affordable housing, the need to be more of an urban area not a suburban area, that neighborhood character can still be preserved if the lot sizes are zoned at 7,500 sq ft. Senior Planner Kuhta also noted that some neighborhoods do have the character of large open lots and over time that will change and they will transition into urban lots. The question will come down to how you want those lots to transition. 10,000 sq ft lots are not economical to everyone. Commissioner Blum stated he did not feel that we needed to make every inch of the City affordable, or to allow infill on every parcel where it might be big enough to do so. 05/10/2007 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 There was discussion regarding the placement of the house on certain lots and if tearing down houses would not make sense to be able to develop a lot into smaller units. Commissioner Sands noted that 7,500 sq ft was a reasonable size lot and agreed it would allow for better infill. Mr. Kuhta also noted to the Commissioners that although what the County does should not drive what we do, what is happening in the Urban Growth Areas outside of our borders is being allowed to develop at 6 units per acre, min. of 5,000 sq ft per lot. Commissioner Beaulac pointed out that there are citizens with development in those areas that are fighting that development at those densities also. Commissioner Crosby stated that 7,500 sq ft lots allows for flexibility but is not the smallest lot size. Commissioners Blum and Beaulac still felt that zoning at less than 10,000 sq ft was impacting people, zoning at 7,500 is eliminating almost an entire zone, it changes the neighborhood characters and notices would need to be sent to people who's zoning is being changed. Commissioner Crosby made a motion that from 6 Ave. south to the City limits from Evergreen Rd. to Dishman -Mica would be as presented on the map presented Aug. 30 2007. Second was by Commissioner Robertson. /Commissioner Sands ask Mr. Kuhta and Basinger what they would do as planners with the map. Although Mr. Kuhta did point out it was not staff's decision, this was/the decision to make, however based on their option they would follow map that had been presented at the 8/23/07 meeting because they felt if implemented the Comprehensive Plan, allowed for infill, yet would not change the character of the neighborhoods too much. Mr. Kuhta stated that the new map does not allow for Flexibility , smwrt growth, however with smart growth also requires planning for water planning, sewer and 7,500 is a good size lot. Mr. Basinger pointed out that developers will still comi ask to rezone property if it is zoned at the 10,000 sq ft and request the 6,000 sq ft b cause they can do it, when if it was 7,500 sq ft they would probably work around it. Commissioner Sands stated that she sees there is niuchhmore of the 10,000 lot zone than she thought there would be. Commissioner B €ulac stat i that he liked the map just the way that it is presented now. Vote on the motion unanimous in favor. Commissioner Cosby made a ) motion that 6 Ave south to 16 Ave. Evergreen Rd. east to Adams Rd \be chahge t aIIJ,500 sq ft lots. Second was by Commissioner Robertson. Discussibn as that the`r )was too small, too piece meal, leave the map the way that it is, dis of population allocation of which the zoning will not make a difference. Vote on the motion was two to three, vote fails. Commissioners Kogle, Sands and Beaulac voted agains . Commissioner Blum left at 6:52 pm. Commissioner Crosby made a motion that from Evergreen Rd. east to Long Rd., Appleway Ave. south to the City limits be left as presented Aug 30 2007 map. Second was by Commissioner Robertson. Commissioner Beaulac stated that people bought lots thinking they were getting zoning that was Ur -3.5 and they should have it and does not feel anything should be changed. Vote on the motion as unanimous in favor. Commissioner Crosby made a motion from Long Rd. east to the City limits and Sprague south to the City limits should be 7,500 sq ft Tots. Commissioner Sands seconded. Commissioner Beaulac once again stated that he felt that people in this area purchased their homes with the understanding they are UR -3.5 and if the City is going to change it then there needs to be some kind of notice process put in place to let them know. The vote on this motion was four to one in favor, Commissioner Beaulac voted against. Commissioner Crosby made a motion the area referred to as Edgecliff, Dishman -Mica west to the City limits, Sprague Ave. south to the City limits be as presented on the Aug. 30th, 2007 map. Second was by Commissioner Beaulac. Vote was unanimous in favor. 05/10/2007 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Crosby made a motion from Argonne Rd. west to the City limits, Sprague Ave. north to the City limits be as presented on the Aug. 30th, 2007 map. Second by Commissioner Robertson, vote is unanimous in favor. Commissioner Crosby made a motion from Argonne Rd. east to Evergreen Rd., from Valleyway to Trent Rd. should all be zoned at 7,500 sq ft Tots. Second by Commissioner Sands, vote is four to one, Commissioner Beaulac is the dissenting vote. Commissioner Crosby made a motion everything north of Trent Rd. to the City limits, Argonne Rd. to the east City limits be zoned at 7,500 sq ft Tots. Second by Commissioner Kogle. After discussion of comments that had been received regarding possible traffic concerns and sewer requirements and the need to meet concurrency, the vote was four to one with Commissioner Beaulac voting against. Commissioner Crosby made a motion for the area Va)leyway north to Trent Rd. from Sullivan east to the City limits to be zoned to 7,500 sq'ft. Commissioner Sands seconded the motion. Discussion of North Greenacres, having paid kthe past for an area wide rezone, working as a group to try and keep what the' poi m have. Vote on the motion is one to four, motion fails. Commissioner Crosby was the only vote in favof. Commissioner Beaulac made a motion for the same area as the previousmotion leaving the zoning as proposed on the Aug. 30th, 2007 map. After discussion\of infill and the vote on the motion is two to three, motion fails, Commissioners Robertson Crosby and Kogle against. Commissioner Sands made a motion for the area from Evergreen Rd. east to the City limits, Mission Ave to Sprague c A;ve`be z ned at the 7,500 sq ft. Second was by Commissioner Crosby. Discussion o f high density around the freeway area, larger lots for development, Commissioner Beaulac brought`up his concern over a blanket rezone without notice. Vote on the motion wa,sfour'to o e n` lotion passes with Commissioner Beaulac against. Commissioner Crosby made a motion foth. river, r a area west from Barker Rd � to the n er, from Mission Ave north to the river be as prop on the Aug. 30th 2007 map. Second was by Commissioner Robertson, vote was unarm ous in favor. Com smi signer Crosby made a motion for the area east of Barker Rd. to the City limits t ion Ave north to the City limits be zoned at 6,000 sq ft Tots. Commissioner Sands seconded. D concerned the area is mostly zoned at 6,000 sq ft and there are tw large two have been approved but are not on the map, so it would make sense to make it all\tli 1same zoning. Vote is unanimous in favor. Commissioner Crosby made a motion to forward to the City Council as a recommendation the map presentedito the Planning Commission on Aug. 30 as it as been amended by earlier matios / at i tl�e Aug. 30 Planning Commission meeting. Second was by Commissioner Robertson, vote is four to one, Commissioner Beaulac is the dissenting vote. V. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 pm SUBMITTED: APPROVED: 05/10/2007 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 • Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Gail Kogle, Chairperson • 05/10/2007 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 A 6 City of po .ane Valley Zoning IM ..w i1t ■ .■1. C3B v— NI B MI .-. 11 01..11 ._.� - tr. E} w`Mift, -F.+4 AN 0/ . � + 0 It WS= L:_": fads 1 6 1 Nil in .....,I - -rte i �{ss' $ -d E = _E S3 111 i se ID 1 3� 1 r —mew