Minutes - 03/12/2009 Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Approved Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
March 12, 2009
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Robertson 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
All Commissioners were present.
Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; Greg
McCormick, Planning Manager; Mike Basinger, Senior Planner; Christina Janssen, Assistant
Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Marty Palaniuk, Planning Technician; Deanna
Griffith, Administrative Assistant.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner Sands, seconded and unanimously agreed to accept the
agenda as presented.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Carroll. Seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the
minutes from the Jan. 8, and Feb. 26, 2009 as written.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
No Commission reports
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Planning Manger Greg McCormick said there wasn't an administrative report however, he
would like to clarify process for adopting the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Uniform
Development Code amendments. The Planning Commission will hold the public hearing, then
deliberate and then make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will review
the recommendation than have a first and second reading. For information people should
contact staff or visit the city website.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
New Business:
A. Public Hearing on Uniform Development Code Amendments —
Commissioner Robertson read the rules of public hearings for the audience. The
Commissioner Robertson declared the public hearing open for the Uniform
Development Code Amendments at 6:10 p.m. Assistant Planner Christina
Janssen made a presentation regarding the code amendments,
• Chapter 17.50.010-Adding a requirement that all requests for Administrative
Interpretations be submitted in writing.
03-12-2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7
• Chapter 17.80.150- Correct the Distribution of Notice requirements to include
the applicant, newspaper, city hall, and the main branch of the library
• Table 17.80-1- Alphabetize table and add Alterations and Planned Residential
Developments.
• Table 17.80-2-Update the table to make pre-application meetings Optional
for Type II applications with the exception of Short Subdivision and Binding
Site Plans and refer to Chapter 21.20.070(BO(2) for SEPA noticing
requirements.
• Chapter 19.70.010-Add a requirement that all parking, maneuvering and
outdoor storage areas shall be paved. Exceptions for cleated vehicles, heavy
machinery or alternative paving methods
• Chapter 19.70.020-Add a requirement that all parking, maneuvering and
outdoor storage areas shall be paved. Exceptions for cleated vehicles, heavy
machinery or alternative paving methods
• Appendix 19-A-Allow Warehousing in areas zoned Community Commercial
with conditions.
• Chapter 22.50.020-Add a requirement that all parking, maneuvering and
loading areas shall be paved and a stipulation that parking not provided on
the same site as the use or structure shall not be separated from the use or
building by a street designated as an arterial.
• Table 22.50-7-Remove Hotel/Motel from table
• Table 22.110-1-Update directional sign information to be consistent with
language in Chapter 22.110.030, and remove copy area requirements for
directional signs and name plates.
Jerry Starns, 25514 E Lincoln Drive, Newman Lake: asking for support of the amendment of
19-A to allow existing warehouses to be used as a warehouse. Mr. Starns stated he had
purchased a building and wants to use it for a warehouse but it isn't currently allowed. Mr.
McCormick con�rmed that this amendment wou/d a//ow this adaptive reuse in the community
commercia/ zone, where this particu/ar bui/ding is /ocated.
Commissioner Robertson closed the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. Commissioner Sands made a
motion to recommend approval of Uniform Development Code amendments presented to the
City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mann. Commissioner Carroll
expressed concern regarding the paving as to whether or not it was overly burdensome,
however it was explained that only new areas or redevelopment, we are not forcing people
to have to go back and pave current lots. Commissioner Robertson called for the vote, vote
was unanimous in favor, motion approved.
B. New Business: Public Hearing 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Senior
Planner Mike Basinger explained the Comprehensive Plan Amendments on the agenda for the
evening and how staff would like to handle each one. There are four site specific
amendments, four Chapter te,xt amendments. Staff proposes to accept comment after the
presentation has been made for each amendment.
CPA-01-09; Assistant Planner Karen Kendall presented CPA-01-09, this is the only citizen
initiated amendment for this year. The site consists of 11.17 acres. 6 current residences on
the 8 parcels included in the request. Currently the land is designated as low density
residential and the applicant is requesting high density residential. Commissioner Robertson
declared the public hearing open at 6:36 p.m. Commissioner Robertson then invited people
who wished to speak to the podium.
03-12-2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7
Bob Harris, 855 S Shelley Lake Lane: Mr. Harris stated that he is the president of the Shelley
Lake Home Owners Association. Mr. Harris recounted the amount of development that has
been approved for the surrounding area already, specifically a 264 unit apartment complex to
the north and east of this property under discussion. He also related traffic figures and how
the intersection of Fourth Ave and Conklin Rd are designed and on a uphill curve making it
difficult to see on coming traffic. Mr. Harris stated the Home Owners Association (HOA) is
concerned about more children being on the street walking to school and bus stops with the
increased traffic. He also stated that the HOA would like to propose would like the property
to stay R-3, however even Medium Density would provide a number of uses that could go on
the property. Mr. Harris stated that the HOA would prefer a buffer on that property,
Todd Whipple, Whipple Consultinq, Spokane Valley: Mr. Whipple is representing the owner,
Mr. Dennis Crapo. Mr. Whipple stated he did not realize the information Mr. Harris was going
to present and did not have a response to it. He did however comment that the apartments
(north of Shelley Lake) were part of the original plating process and that the apartments
were always going to be there. Mr. Whipple stated that Shelley Lake was developed as a
Planned Unit Development so it would have increased density. At the time the plat was
approved the densification was needed for the amenity and elevation. Mr. Whipple also
stated that however some of the issues being brought forward at this time are at a project
level discussion and not a Comprehensive Plan discussion and not appropriate at this time.
Mr. Whipple did share that the consideration at this time is along the east boundary of this
property town home and condos be placed there.
Dave Syrcle, 515 S Sonora Lane: Mr. Syrcle stated he was a resident of Reflections, which is
the private community ne� to the proposed amendment properties. Mr. Syrcle is concerned
that property values will decrease. Mr. Syrcle stated he wondered when doing
Comprehensive Plan change did someone look at the infrastructure, the traffic, children
police calls, water, sewer. Mr Syrcle stated current traffic bottle necks on 4th, people parking
along the road, making the road narrow. He said more children will running to bus, morning
traffic will back up on Sullivan, 4 Ave. is the most direct route to high school and Adams
Elementary..
Dwight Hume, 9101 N. Mt. View Lane: Mr. Hume stated he was also speaking on behalf of
Mr. Crapo, and about zoning fundamentals. Mr. Hume stated it is difficult under Growth
Management to allocate appropriate room for High Density Residential and this is one of
those which fits as best as it can. Mr. Hume stated we must trust the adopted codes of the
City and we can not ignore the fact that we must be good stewards of the land. Mr. Hume
said the home owners had brought up good issues and those issues will be discussed at the
proper time with project time. This is one of the rare locations where High Density
Residential would work.
WE (Bill) Martin, 811 S Shelley Lake Lane: Mr. Martin stated he would like someone from
Planning Commission to go to the corner at 4 and Sullivan or Conklin and 4 to see the
amount of traffic that goes on there. Mr. Martin also stated he thought there should be a
requirement for bus pullouts for safety. Mr. Martin asked how would the streets could be
made wider for sidewalks because there isn't any room. Mr. Martin wondered where is there
a place for a park in the planning instead of kids wandering around the neighborhood. Mr.
Martin wanted to know who would pay for security guard for their properry. Mr. Martin
stated he felt that townhouses could be good plan for the properry, but does not feel that
High Density is a good use.
Jeremy Anglin 524 S Moore Lane: Mr. Anglin stated that when he purchased his home he did
looked at the plans and thought Single Family Residential would be going into the property
ne� door, 100 to 150 homes but not apartments. Mr. Anglin stated that Fourth Ave. does
turn into a single lane road, and he doesn't use 4th because it is too dangerous. Sullivan and
4th has a lot of foot traffic when school lets out, adding apartments adds students. Mr.
03-12-2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7
Anglin stated he lived in a gated community, however foot traffic does walk through the
community, across his yard, leaving garbage and jump the fence now to get through. Mr.
Robertson asked which intersection his fami/y uses, most/y Conk/in.
Don Spoerhase, 505 S Moore Lane: Mr. Spoerhase stated he was opposed to the increase of
density, also worried about decrease in properry value.
Commissioner Sands asked what alternatives could be recommended for this amendment
and what other uses could be allowed on the property. Assistant Planner Karen Kendal
explained the possibilities to the Commission.
CPA-02-0,9: Assistant Planner Karen Kendal presented CPA-02-09 to the Commission. It is
located at the northeast corner of Sullivan rd and 4th Ave. This amendment is for two
parcels, it is currently is HDR, the proposed change is to Neighborhood Commercial. This is
a City initiated proposal, it is being recommended to be more consistent with the uses on
site, and keep from being non-conforming.
There was no public comment on this amendment
CPA-03-09, Planning Technician Martin Palaniuk presented CPA-03-09. This amendment is
located between Argonne and Mullan Roads, between Sinto and Boone. Mr. Palaniuk stated
that currently designated as Office and the uses are commercial. This amendment is to
change the designation to Community Commercial, This is also a City initiated proposal to
keep the uses from being non-conforming.
Bill Entwistle 9006 E Sinto: Mr. Entwistle stated he was not sure what the change is and if
you want to rebuild Spears (furniture store) that is fine, but if you want to put a tavern on
there he is against it.
CPA-04-09. Planning Technician Palaniuk returned to the podium to present CPA-04-09.
Mr. Palaniuk stated that this amendment was located at St Charles Court and Riverside Ave.
The area is currently designated as Community Commercial the City proposes to change it to
Low Density Residential and R-4 zoning. This amendment would make this property
conforming.
There was no public comment regarding this amendment.
CPA-05-09, Senior Planner Basinger stated he would be presenting the rest of the
Comprehensive Plan amendments 05-08. CPA-05-09 Chapter 2— Land Use: Update Table
2.1 with new land quantity analysis information; Update/add annexation goals, policies and
te�. Re-evaluate all properties designated public/quasi-public and adjust as appropriate;
Mr. Basinger discussed why the City originally had the Public/Quasi-Public designation, why it
was difficult to maintain, why it was difficult for most property owners to have the
designation and why the City is moving away from it. He explained that as uses moved,
churches for example, it was difficult to maintain the locations or keep up with new
purchases. Mr. Basinger also stated it would put property owners under a hardship trying to
sell the properry, because the only use allowed would be the limited uses under the P/QP list.
The City's intention is to change each property to the designation dominant on adjacent
parcels. There are 464 properties, they divided into sections, parcels combined as much as
possible so that now there are 67 group designations. Commissioner Robertson invited
public testimony.
Ann Winkler, 4310 S Ball Rd.: Ms. Winkler stated she was a member of Hope Lutheran
Church located at 17909 E Broadway. Ms. Winkler stated that the church is located at the
end of long street, surrounded by SFR. She shared that the church has been thrilled with the
P/QP designation because it is perfect for a church. It would allow the church to do a day
care, senior housing or a hospital if they wanted without having to, this does allow for the
church to do these things without asking. Ms. Winkler stated she understood they could be
03-12-2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7
in the minority for wanting this to stay, and it would be for the greater good for the change,
but would appreciate the Planning Commission thinking of the church's needs. Ms. Winkler
wondered if the P/QP designation could remain as an overlay zone.
Dwight Hume, 9101 N Mt View Lane: Mr. Hume stated that the P/QP designation was a
good alternative for a church if they wanted to have a daycare without doing a conditional
use permit. Mr. Hume stated that if it is allowed now and has practical uses and why throw
it away. Mr. McCormick addresses uses possib/e in the Sing/e Fami/y Residentia/ in current
use matrix, a daycare wou/d be a//owed in SFR. Commissioner Egg/eston asked about the
other uses a//owed under P/QP hospita/, adu/t fami/y homes. Mr. McCormick responded that
those uses wou/d not be a//owed in SFR but in higher density residentia/, c%ans up uses in
SFR that wou/d have been a//owed but are not appropriate.
CPA-06-09 - Chapter 3 Transportation amending Map 3.2 to add current and new bike lanes.
CPA-07-09 — Chapter 4 Capital Facilities, amending to add goals and policies for potential
annexation areas, updated table 4.4 for population projections, table 4.41 identified potential
service providers in the potential annexation areas, table 4.42 provides a sewer assessment
for the future annexation areas. Staff has updated maps 4.1 water districts, 4.3 Parks and
Rec and 4.5 the 6 yr sewer map.
CPA-08-09, Updated Map 8.1 Wetlands map to update the fish and waterfowl designations.
Commission took a break at 7:49, continued at 8:02.
Senior Planner Basinger proceeded to cover the properties that are under the Public/Quasi
Public and the change proposed for each group of parcels. List below.
'�� Sectic�n N�. ����� GP����� Desig��tic�n ����� ����� Subsiequenf ZQnir�g
WS-1 Low Density Residential SF Residential District (R-3)
WS-2 Low Density Residential SF Residential Urban District (R-4)
WS-3 Medium Density Residential Multifamily Medium Density Residential District (MF-1)
WS-4 High Density Residential Multifamily High Density Residential District (MF-2)
WS-5 Community Commercial Community Commercial District (C)
WS-6 Regional Commercial Regional Commercial (RC)
WS-7 Parks and Open Space Parks and Open Space (P/OS)
'�� Section N�. '��� CP'��� De�igt�atic�n'��� '�� Subsequen� Zcrnir�g
WN-1 Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial (I-2)
WN-2 Regional Commercial Regional Commercial (RC)
WN-3 Low Density Residential SF Residential District (R-3)
WN-4 Low Density Residential SF Residential Urban District (R-4)
WN-5 Office Office (0)
WN-6 Office Garden Office (GO)
WN-7 Light Industrial Light Industrial (I-1)
WN-8 Low Density Residential SF Residential Suburban District (R-2)
WN-9 Parks and Open Space Parks and Open Space (P/OS)
'�� Section N�. '��� CP'��� De�ig�atic�n'��� '�� Subsequen� Zcrnir�g
WCS-1 Low Density Residential SF Residential Estate District (R-1)
WCS-2 Low Density Residential SF Residential Suburban District (R-2)
WCS-3 Low Density Residential SF Residential District (R-3)
WCS-4 Community Commercial Community Commercial District (C)
WCS-5 Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
WCS-6 Parks and Open Space Parks and Open Space (P/OS)
03-12-2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7
Section No. ' CP' Designatian' Subsequent Z4ni�g
WC-1 Low Density Residential SF Residential Suburban District (R-2)
WC-2 Low Density Residential SF Residential District (R-3)
WC-3 Corridor Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)
WC-4 High Density Residential Multifamily High Density Residential District (MF-2)
Section No. ' CP' Designatian' Subsequent Z4ning
WCN-1 Corridor Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)
WCN-2 Medium Density Residential Multifamily Medium Density Residential District (MF-1)
WCN-3 Office Office (0)
WCN-4 Community Commercial Community Commercial District (C)
WCN-5 Light Industrial Light Industrial (I-1)
WCN-6 High Density Residential Multifamily High Density Residential District (MF-2)
WCN-7 Low Density Residential SF Residential District (R-3)
WCN-8 Mixed Use Center Mixed Use Center District (MUC)
WCN-9 Parks and Open Space Parks and Open Space (P/OS)
'�� Section No. '���� CP'���� Desiginatian'���� ��� Subs�equen� Zonir�g
ECN-1 Mixed Use Center Mixed Use Center District (MUC)
ECN-2 High Density Residential Multifamily High Density Residential District (MF-2)
ECN-3 Parks and Open Space Parks and Open Space (P/OS)
ECN-4 Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial (I-2)
ECN-5 Low Density Residential SF Residential District (R-3)
ECN-6 Low Density Residential SF Residential Urban District (R-4)
'�� Sectic�n N�. ����� GP����� Desig��tic�n ����� ����� Subsiequenf ZQnir�g
EC-1 Corridor Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)
EC-2 Office Garden Office (GO)
EC-3 High Density Residential Multifamily High Density Residential District (MF-2)
EC-4 Low Density Residential SF Residential District (R-3)
EG5 Office Office (0)
EC-6 Regional Commercial Regional Commercial (RC)
'�� Sectic�n N4. '��� CR'��� De�ignati�n'��� '�� Subsequen� Zcrnir�g
ECS-1 Low Density Residential SF Residential Suburban District (R-2)
ECS-2 Parks and Open Space Parks and Open Space (P/OS)
ECS-3 Low Density Residential SF Residential District (R-3)
ECS-4 High Density Residential Multifamily High Density Residential District (MF-2)
ECS-5 Corridor Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)
ECS-6 Medium Density Residential Multifamily Medium Density Residential District (MF-1)
'�� Section No. '���� CP'���� Desiginatian'���� ��� Subs�equen� Zonir�g
ES-1 Low Density Residential SF Residential Suburban District (R-2)
ES-2 Low Density Residential SF Residential Urban District (R-4)
ES-3 Low Density Residential SF Residential Estate District (R-1)
ES-4 Low Density Residential SF Residential District (R-3)
ES-5 Community Commercial Community Commercial District (C)
ES-6 Medium Density Residential Multifamily Medium Density Residential District (MF-1)
ES-7 Corridor Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Use (CMU)
ES-8 Office Garden Office (GO)
'�� Section N�. '��� CP'��� De�ig�atic�n'��� '�� Subsequen� Zcrnir�g
EN-1 Parks and Open Space Parks and Open Space (P/OS)
EN-2 Medium Density Residential Multifamily Medium Density Residential District (MF-1)
03-12-2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7
EN-3 Low Density Residential SF Residential District (R-3)
EN-4 Low Density Residential SF Residential Urban District (R-4)
EN-5 Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial (I-2)
EN-6 Light Industrial Light Industrial (I-1)
Mr. Basinger worked through the list with the Commissioners. He noted that ECS-3 should be
R-2 not R-3, and a property at Barker and Euclid should be light industrial not heavy
industrial. Mr. Basinger stated he would make these changes as the amendments moved
forward.
Commissioner Carroll stated that he wanted to make it clear that he lived in the Rotchford
area, was an opponent of the Shelley Lake development, worked as planner for Spokane
County and approved projects in the area, but not in Shelley Lake. He stated that he would
like to break this amendment apart so he did not have to vote on it.
Commissioner Robertson closed the public hearing at 8:47.
Commissioner Sands made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of
Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-02-09, CPA-03-09, CPA-04-09, CPA-06-09, CPA-07-09
and CPA-08-09, the motion was seconded by Commissioner Carroll and approved
unanimously by a show of hands.
Assistant Planner Kendall stepped to the microphone to explain the options for CPA-01-09 to
the Commission. Ms. Kendall stated that the Commission could approve staff's
recommendation, deny the proposal, also have the option to modify the proposal, or the
Commission can send it forward with no recommendation. Commissioner Carroll made a
motion to deny CPA-01-09, with a second from Commissioner Eggleston. After a
considerable amount of discussion regarding traffic, density, the neighborhood concerns.
Commissioner Robertson called for a privilege motion to e�end the time of the meeting to
9:15, motion passed unanimous.
Vote on the motion to deny CPA-01-09, is 0-7 against, motion fails.
Commissioner Sands made a motion to continue the hearing to March 26, 2009. The motion
was second and passed unanimous.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order.
XI. AD70URNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant Ian Robertson, Chairperson
03-12-2009 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7