Loading...
Minutes - 09/13/2007 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Approved Minutes Council Chambers–City Hall,11707 E. Sprague Ave. September 13, 2007 I.CALL TO ORDER ChairwomanKoglecalled the meeting to order at 6:00pm. II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance III.ROLL CALL Commissioners Kogle,Blum, Beaulac Crosby, Carroll, RobertsonandSands were present. Staff attending the meeting: Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner, Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer, Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant. IV.AGENDA Commissioner Crosbymade a motion to accept the September 13thagenda as presented. It was seconded and the motion passed unanimously. V.MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. VI.PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment offered. VII.COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Crosby stated that he attended the Task Force on Affordable Housing. Mr. Crosbystated he hoped to bring the results of the focus groups and task force to the Commissionsoon. Commissioner Blum stated he attended the City Council th meeting on Sept. 11, which part of was a public hearing on the Uniform Development Code. CommissionerSandsreported she participated in the Edgecliff Clean-up Days. Commissioner Kogle reported she also attended the City Council meeting and that approximately15 people from Greenacres testified and asked the Council to return the zoning in their area back to the PC recommendation of 10,000 sq.ft.lots. Commissioners Robertson, Carroll, and Beaulac had nothing to report. VIII.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Mr. Kuhta reported that staff was working to get the UDC adoptedandthat the Commission could expect to see Comprehensive Plan amendments on their agenda soon. Mr. Kuhta also reported that the Consultants for the Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Planwere at the Cityto reviewthe administrative draft of the Sub-Area Plan with staff. Staff is hoping to have a Public Hearing Draft back in four to five weeks. IX.COMMISSION BUSINESS OldBusiness–Continued Public Hearing STV-03-07, Mr. Kuhta reviewed the staff presentation regarding STV-03-07 –street vacation of a portion of Sipple Rd. and First Ave. Inga Note, Senior Traffic Engineer,statedthat she would like to follow-up some comments from the previous meeting. Sheaddressed the criteria used to evaluate 09/13/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 1of 6 whether or notthe street is required. ItemBin the memo was whether the street or alley is required for public access.Ms. Note wanted to make sure that her answer on the memo was clear. It is that the street is still used by the public. It is primarily used by traffic going to and from the auto dealers but there are other people who actually drive it. Ms. Note also addressed from the previous meeting some concern raised over the fact that the extension of Sipple would be onto another property owner’s property, and thatPublic Works would be fine if therewas a small shift in the right-of-way for the extension of Sipple to remain on the AutoNation’s property. Ms. Note stated that there was some question of previous analysis of cross streets between Sprague and Appleway. In Oct and Nov. of 2003,the Public Works Director was asked to evaluate the amount of cross streets in the Auto-Row area and business owners and residents felt that there were not enough cross streets in this area. Ms. Note alsostated she haddone someresearch at the County regarding earlier vacations of Sipple,north of Sprague,and then gave the Commission a memo regarding the previous vacations and vacation attempts. Questions from Commission regarding a previous vacation attempt in 1987, where parts of Sipple were vacated, an offer to extend Sipple then, and for the County to take back part of the right-of-way for the Appleway extension. Commissioner Blum askedif cross street requirements were the same regarding the Comprehensive Plan transportation issues in Auto-Row and City Center requirements. Mr. Kuhta stated that although Mr. Dullanty’s letter states that the Comprehensive Plan only addresses connectivity in the City Center and residential neighborhoods, Mr. Kuhta stated that he believedit was necessary in the City as a whole. The Comprehensive Plan does not state it specifically as Auto-Row but the transportation experts have said that better circulation is important in all areas of the City. The next question was the distance between Sargent and the next nearest cross street, which isone-quarter (1/4) of a mile. Commissioner Blum wanted to know if connectivity would be affected if the City Center was built in a different location. Mr. Kuhta explained that thiswas not a City Center issue. The question was raised regarding the width of the Sipple right-of- way. It is believed to be fifty (50) feet. Commissioner Sands asked,given the volume of traffic, if there would be more congestion if additional cross streetswere created. Ms. Note stated that there were a couple of ways to deal with that issue. The City would have a bit more congestion with people slowing down to make a turn,however, if those extra cross streetswere not provided, then the City would beforcing more traffic to go to the other streets where people might not want to be because they missed a turn or could have used a different cross street. It would create more congestion at the signalized cross sections. Commissioner Crosby asked if there had been a traffic study done on the area,and Ms. Note stated that it had not been done. However,if the Commission wanted to continue the hearing,she would be able to have someone do traffic counts. Commissioner Sands wanted to know if Ms. Note thought it would make a difference if Sprague and Applewaywere two-way streets and if she felt the need for the connectivity would be greater. Ms. Note stated that she felt the need for cross streets was important whether the streets were one-way or two- way. Commissioner Kogle opened the hearing for additional testimonyat 6:33 pm. FJ Dullanty,Jr.,440 W. Riverside Ave.–Mr. Dullanty stated that he represented AutoNation and Gus Johnson Ford who were both in favor of the petition. Mr. Dullanty stated that regarding the right-of-waywidthof Sipple Rd., it is really only a driveway, only usedas such and access for the properties of Ford and Mitsubishi. The history of vacationsis not germanein Mr. Dullanty’s opinionsince it was the County then and now it was an Auto-Row overlay. He stated that it was one-quarter (¼) of a mile between Sargentand VistaRoads. Auto-Row,by nature, is large lots andno one needs thisroad. Sipple is not maintained by the Cityand isused as private access and 09/13/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 2of 6 adriveway. First Avenueis not used by the public,only as part of the dealership property. AutoNation is going to remodel the Chevrolet and Mitsubishistores. Toyota isgoing to make a $6,000,000investment tore-franchise. Thus,Toyota is driving this issue. Toyota is requiring anupgrade in facility. IfAutoNation can’t do it, theywill losethefranchise. AutoNationneeds are unique. Mr. Dullanty quoted that in Chapter 2, Land Use, Section 2.2, page 8 addresses that the Auto-Row area is important. Auto- Row brings approx. $6,000,000 in sales tax revenueandToyota accounts for one- quarter (¼)of that. Is Sipple worth that loss?You will have to make that decision. You have to do this to maintain Auto-Row.If you don’t,then you can not comply with your comp plan. By allowing this improvement to the property,you will get improved drainage plans,better access to the site,better driveway accessandkeep the sales tax revenue. Mr. Dullanty stated that the staff report does not list positive benefits. He also stated that Sipple is no longer used forpublic traffic, and that the substitutionof SippleRd.being extended is not anacceptable tradeto allowing the vacation of First Ave. He stated that Sipplewill not meet street standards, that there is no nexus. There will not be a loss of connectivitybecause the City does not have it now. Mr. Dullanty said that to extend Sipple Rd. made no sense whatsoever. Mr. Dullanty said that the staff reportstates this road is needed for future connectivity;however,this does not comply withthe City’s ComprehensivePlan.He stated that the City Center requires connectivity,not Auto-Row. Mr.Dullanty pointed out that this is the basis for aviolation of the City’s Comprehensive Plan,andconnectivity isonlyrelated to the City Center and residential neighborhoods. For Auto-Row it is different. Mr. Dullanty was curiouswhystaffdid not site any place of Auto-Row reference. The real issue is who is driving this ship? It is Toyota. If AutoNation doesnot have the ability to put the new building on the site based on this conceptdrawing, they can give up the franchise. Mr. Dullanty wanted to know why the Commissioners would want todo that. He stated that AutoNation would have no choice but tomove someplace else more acceptable, like Liberty LakeorPost Falls. Mr. Dullanty also told the Commission that once the City losesToyota, everyother dealershipwill followthem. They will all want to stay together. He said that the City will end up with another empty car lot,more tattoo parlors, and check-cashing places. The Citywouldn’t have Auto-Row. He stated that the City needs Auto-Row. Mr. Dullanty apologized to the Commission for the latenessof the letter delivered to them this afternoon. Mr. Dullanty also stated he had not had a chance to readMs. Note’smemo, however,he felt it was not really a germaneto the issue. Mr. Dullanty said that vacation attempts under pre- Comprehensive Plan arenot an issue. Connectivity in Auto-Row is different than in the rest of the City. Commissioner Kogle asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions of Mr. Dullanty. Commissioner Crosby asked how easementswould be handled.Mr.Dullanty stated that there would not be a problemwith easementsin thearea,andthey will move them if they develop over. Commissioner Kogle stated that Mr. Dullanty mentioned that there would beimproved drainage, and wondered how Mr. Dullanty saw that happening.Mr. Dullanty stated that right now the dealership was a sea of asphalt, but with development of a new building,the parking lot would have to comply with drainage plans and that drywells and other stormwater measures would be needed to comply with current codes. Commissioner Carroll asked how the extension of Sipplecreatedanegative impactfor AutoNation. Mr. Dullanty stated the first impact would be turning their driveway into a street. The Dealers have said that is not acceptable to thembecause it interferes from a safety point of view from going in and out of our shops, their service bays, their 09/13/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 3of 6 parking, and it is not something that they are inclined to do. The City is asking to improve Sippleata huge expense, when it is not really part of this deal at all, and Mr. Dullanty did not feel it was fair toask a property owner to do something because if they didn’t,the City would not approve the vacationthey wanted. There has to be a relationship, a nexus between what the Dealers are asking for and what the City is requiring andwith Sipple there is no nexus whatsoever. Mr. Dullanty stated he did not feel it was fair to ask the applicant to do this,if you give themthe vacationof First Ave. AutoNation is not removing connectivity.It is a quarter (¼) mile apart right now.It is there at SargentorVista. Thenegative impact is the inconvenience,the expense and the impact to the business. It is more than an inconvenience as it is an impact onhow they do business because of the narrowness of that right-of-way.It is a safety issue with them as well. To make it work, for Gus Johnson Ford it was a requirement. Commissioner Sands asked if Toyota hadan acreagerequirement. Mr. Dullanty stated that he did not know if that was the caseand that Toyota wants to build a prototype storewith certain setbacks. The vacation of Sipple will only impact the Mitsubishiand Forddealerships. If the applicants don’t get Sipplevacated, then theydon’t getwhat theyneed. Dustin Esco, 5175 Glen Grove Staley Rd.-Mr. Esco stated that he was the current GeneralManager of the Toyota store for AutoNation. Mr. Esco stated that his office sits on the First Ave. side of the building and they have a busy store but the road is only used by dealership personnel and customers. He related how he thought the dealership was currently performing and expected it to increase in sales opportunity. Commissioner Carroll asked Mr. Esco, how the failure to vacate Sipplewould affect him, and Mr. Esco stated that he could not answer that question. JanineUnderdahl, 14616 E. 6thAve.-Ms. Underdahlstated that she is a customer relationsrepresentative for the AutoNation’s group,with heroffice being in theMitsubishibuilding. Ms. Underdahlstated thather officelooks out onto Sipple Rd. andit is too small a street for traffic. There are parts trucksin the road all the time, and it is too hard for other people to go in and out of there. The only people who really use the road are service customers andemployees. At the end of the road, where it turns east toward First Ave, people who do not really know the areado not know to slow downat that corner and it is very dangerous for the people who are walking about. By closing Sippleandputtingthe new Toyotabuilding on First Ave., Ms. Underdahlthought the public would notmind, because the public does not know they(the streets) arethere. Toyota is an eyesore and it isugly.When it is all remodeled, Toyota will increase the valuein the area. Ms. Underdahlstated that she is aresident ofthe City. Shefelt that theCity neededto keep Toyota here,and that the Citydidn’t want them to go away. Sean Lumsden, 727 W. Garland, representing Quinn Group Advertising. -Mr. Lumsden stated that the Auto Dealers decided theywould createan area for people to come and shop all the major brands. Mr. Lumsden stated he had just read anarticle which talkedabout citiestrying tobring auto dealers into the City. Mr. Lumsden stated he felt there had been some misunderstandingduring the last hearing. Mr. Lumsden stated that the Dealers did not say if they didn’t get what theywanted, theywould go away. He feltthat the Commissioners tookumbrageto that type of comment. The Dealers only want to improve the area. AutoNation is remodelingChevrolet and Mitsubishi.Jaremko and Dishmanhave both remodeled their stores. Mr. Lumsden stated that the Dealers either stay here and build or move out of the City. He also stated that the Dealers don’t want it to sound like a threat, but they do need to have these vacations. Mr. Lumsden stated he felt before you make it a cross street,the City 09/13/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 4of 6 could improve the signage on Appleway. Mr. Lumsden stated he believed this would make everyone happy. Ifthe Dealers canget what they need andimprove their property, instead ofa half street which is not maintained, everyone will get what they want and improve the City. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Commissioner Kogle closed thepublic testimony at 7:17pm. Commissioner Beaulac made a motion to recommend approvalof vacation STV03-07; Commissioner Blum made the second. Commissioner Beaulac stated he waswaiting for someone to object to the vacation and it didn’t occur. Commissioner Sandssaid shealso was looking for some objection to this vacation. She stated that given the volume of trafficthat travels the area,a cross street wouldbe detrimental. Dealerships are getting larger and needmore room. Commissioner Carroll stated if the vacation was for First Ave. only, he would agree to it, however,without a cross street,it would create amega block. Commissioner Carroll did not believe it would benefit Toyota, he also stated he did not believe it would benefit all people, and was not willing to givethe vacation tothem for nothing. Cross traffic in the City will be importantno matter where it is. Commissioner Blum stated in the beginning, he believed that Sipple’s extension would only come from Gus Johnson Ford.Healso stated he understood it could not be moved over. Commissioner Blum stated that connectivitydoes not make sense in this place and it would not make that big a difference here. He stated that it would makemore sensefrom Argonne and eastof there. Commissioner Blum stated that the proponent stated they need all of it to make the whole thing work and that it will bringmore revenueinto the City. Commissioner Kogle stated that she noticed Ms. Note counting cross streets on the map. Ms. Note stated that between the majorcross streets ofThierman and Park, which is a half (½) -mile distance,there are5 cross streets. From Park and Vista, another half (½)-mile, there are no cross streets.From Vistato Dishman-Mica, also a half (½)-mile, Sargent is the only one that goes all the way across but Sipple, Dale and Dishman Rd.intersectwith First Ave.The last segment is one (1) -mile long, Dishman-Mica to University and there are three(3) cross streets, Willow, Farr and Dartmouth. Commissioner Blumasked if Dale workedas a cross streetandMs. Note stated that the northern section of Dale had been vacated some time ago. The difficulty is that there are more property ownersnorth of First Ave. Commissioner Robertson stated that he wouldvote for it, the City wasnot losing any connectivity, because the City doesn’t have anynow. Commissioner Crosby said that the Findings of Fact would need to be incorporated into the motion. Commissioner Crosby also said the motion needed to bemadeto vacate both Sipple and First. He said he has dealtwith Ford and trying to deal getting cars in to the servicedepartment is difficult. There is no extension of Sipple in either direction north or south. Ifthere had been a history of flow or connectivity,it would have made a difference. Commissioner Crosby stated it made sense to vacate both, looking at the economic numbers,the ability to grow, and adding the jobs. Commissioner Crosby made a friendly amendment to the motion to add the Findings of Fact including all easements. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Robertson. Mr. Kuhta pointed out that the current findings and recommendations as they are written are that Sipplemust be extended to Appleway and First Ave.would be vacated. 09/13/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 5of 6 The Commission must come up with why it better serves the public to vacate the street when the Senior Traffic Engineer has recommended differently. Commissioner Kogle stated sheuses Sipple and First all the time, and feels they need to be there. Commissioner Blum statedthat if the Commission must make findings on the following items, that a change of use would better serve the public. He felt that the revenue would be a benefit to the public. The next requirement wasthe street or alley was no longer required for public use or access. Mr. Blum stated heheard that it is used by the public but not required, so ifit is not required then we satisfy that requirement. The next finding would be if a substitution of a new and different public way would be more useful to the public.Mr. Blum stated he did not know, but that the public was using Vista and Sargent and he believed they were not using Sipple, so he felt that extending Sipple would not make things better. The next finding askedifconditions would change in the future to provide a greater use or need andMr. Blum stated he did not think that it would. Lastrequirement would be that all the people would be in favor of the applicant. He stated he had not heard any one object to the vacations at all. Mr. Kuhta stated it sounded as if the Commission isleaning towardsapprovingboth vacations, andif that was the case then theCommissioners will need to make findings as to why it better serves the public. Mr. Kuhta stated that after the Commissioners vote on the motions,the staff will return in two weeks, at the next regular meeting, withamended Findingsof Fact based on the Commissioners discussions. To confirm the motion,Commissioner Crosby stated that it was to amend the original motion made by Commissioner Beaulac to approve STV-03-07, to include the vacation of Sipple Rd and include amended Findings of Fact to support the amendment. Vote on the amendment was six to one;Commissioner Carroll is the dissenting vote. Commissioner Robertson stated that he would like the findings to also list the narrowness of the street, the safety to the public, theeconomic development, and fewer hazardsto pedestrians. The vote on the original motion as it has been amended is six to one(6-1), with Commissioner Carroll again being the dissenting vote. X.GOOD OF THE ORDER th CommissionerCrosby reported that he will not be able to attend the Sept. 24meeting ashe will be at a Realtor’s meeting in Chelan, WA. Commissioner Blum stated he thought that the by-laws said that if you missed a meeting a Commissioner was suppose to listen to the minutes and be brought up to date before participating in a vote. He said he felt that his fellow Commissioners should do this, as he has donein the past. There was discussion as to how other Commissioners feel they bring themselves up to date about issues if they miss a meeting. XI.ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjournedat 7:49pm SUBMITTED:APPROVED: ___________________________________________________________ Deanna Griffith, Administrative AssistantGail Kogle, Chairperson 09/13/2007 Planning Commission MinutesPage 6of 6