Loading...
Minutes - 10/14/2010 Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. October 14, 2010 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance IIL ROLL CALL Commissioners Carroll, Sands, Sharpe and Woodard were present. Commissioners Eggleston, Hall and Mann was absent. Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung Community Development Director; Scott Kuhta, Interim Planner Manager, Micki Harnois, Associate Planner; Dean Grafos, Councilmember; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Sands made a motion which was seconded and unanimously approved to accept the October 14, 2010 agenda as presented. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Woodard made a motion which as seconded and unanimously approved to approve the June 24, August 12, August 26 and September 23 2010 minutes as presented. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Woodard reported he had attended the City Council meetings and the Community Blvd Community Meeting. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director McClung reported that she had brought forward to the City Council suggestions at their request as to what could be done with the Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan, and the City Council voted to add the Subarea Plan to the docket of the Comprehensive Plan amendments and remove it completely. Director McClung stated she would be returning on Oct. 26 with a final request for direction. She also noted that the City Council has also requested that the City Center zoning district in the Subarea Plan be submitted for an emergency Comprehensive Plan amendment to change it to Mixed Use Ave zoning to allow vehicle sales in that area. The Director also stated that the City Council has also requested that staff and Planning Commission continue to process amendments to the Subarea Plan. Ms. McClung also reported that the amendment regarding chickens would likely be on the Planning Commission agenda sometime in January. The Director also discussed a special meeting date with the Planning Commissioners of November 18, for a study session. This is required due to the fact that the only scheduled meeting date in November falls on Veteran's day which is a 10-14-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 City holiday. Commissioners did agree this would work for them. Next regular meeting of October 28 will be cancelled due to lack of business, the next regular meeting will be Nov. 18, 2010. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. New Business: Public Hearing CTA-08-10, Code Amendments for Subarea Plan, Micki Harnois Associate Planner Harnois gave a presentation for the Commissioners covering the proposed amendments to the Subarea Plan. They are as follows: • Chapter 2.01 (Applicability). Increase the 50% threshold for additions, expansion or reconstruction of existing buildings to meet the SARP regulations. • Chapter 2.1.3 (Mixed-Use Avenue District Zone). Amend Chapter 1920.060 (Nonconforming uses and structures) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to allow existing legally established single-family dwellings located in any non-residential zoning district as a permitted use. • Chapter 22.7 (Front Street Setback). Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible. • Chapter 2.2.8 (Side Street Setback). Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible. • Chapter 23.12 (Pre-located Streets). Consider options for street requirements, specifically the 5-acre requirement. Chair Carroll opened the public hearing at 6:21 p.m. Commissioner Sands read the rules of the public hearing. Dwight Hume, 9101 N Mt. View Lane, looking at the various issues before you tonight I just wanted to express my opinion of which option of the first item issue #1, I think increasing the 50% threshold, which is number 2, is my preferred solution. Because I am thinking of Winco that was shown to you, and that particular proj ect simply wouldn't happen if these regulations were in place. If you had attended the session about that zone, I think it was Chuck Simpson that brought up a good point about that site, and the low point about that site is that Sprague Ave. if it was forced to comply with setbacks and whatnot and move forward, that also compounded the problem of drainage and what you are going to do, because it is an uphill battle, pardon the pun but that is what it is. I want to talk about that in a minute. So I prefer #2 over #4 otherwise redefine new construction as only an entirely new structure. #2 I support the idea of establishing single family residences, that was a problem otherwise if they burn down, which are the most probable structures to burn, you can't replace them. #3 I just talked about drainage, I wish we could incorporate that language into this. This is acknowledging that the utilities are there and you cannot put a building on them, and this will allow the build to be whatever the administrator feels is a reasonable set back from that. But in addition to what was brought up it is an impractical problem to say buildings have to go all the way up front if there is a low side to the site that is along one of the frontages, the low side of the site should be recognized as a preference for drainage rather than require an improvement of another nature. Prelocated streets, I like that, I like what it is saying on that, support it. Block lengths, support that. I support the rest of the recommended changes. So drainage is the only lingering issue, that I would like to see some kind of language brought up. Maybe it has to be another night, there are other amendments that will be brought up at another time, but it is an civil engineering problem. 10-14-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 Commissioner Carroll asked Mr. Hume questions regarding impervious surfaces. Commissioner Woodard asked some clarifying questions of Mr. Hume and his thoughts of amendments. Ben Goodmansen, Whipple Consulting Engineers, 2528 N Sullivan Rd. Mr. Goodmansen stated he would like to speak to the 50% threshold. He stated that some of the clients his company has have buildings that have been vacant for long periods of time that the regulations would give another ding for marketing some of those buildings, like the Albertson's building at Pines and Sprague. Mr. Goodmansen stated that his clients would like to see that threshold increased above the 50%. Mr. Goodmansen also shared that the modification to the prelocated streets was preferred. He shared that prelocated streets can be an issue, explaining that the extension of Mansfield is an example of one prelocated street that goes through an apartment building. Mr. Goodmansen stated that he felt that changing the wording on the prelocated streets was positive. Mr. Goodmansen stated that he also felt that 208 swales were the most economical way to treat stormwater anything else would escalate the costs of a proj ect which would affect the proj ect viability. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chair Carroll closed the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Woodard made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council to modify the applicability section to state 80% threshold for additions, expansions or reconstruction of an existing building to meet the Subarea Plan regulations. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Sharpe. Commissioner Woodard stated he felt that the 80% threshold would be more consistent with other parts of the City's code. Commissioner Sands stated she would be more apt to redefine a new structure, or leave it to the Director's approval. Commissioner Sands stated that she felt the purpose of the percentage was to get things moving on the Sprague Appleway Plan. She also stated the purpose of the plan was to revitalize the whole neighborhood. Commissioner Sands also stated she understood that there were existing buildings along the corridor, and that it was not just economic times that cause people to resist tearing down a structure and rebuilding a new one in its place. She stated that if the City was not going to revitalize the area, then why bother to change the code at all. Commissioner Sands stated that she felt the area would change, that things would happen and if the City was not going to be thinking in a forward manner then we might as well keep it as it is. Commissioner Sharpe stated that based on the architectural standards it would be difficult to have an existing building meet the code so he would rather go with new construction. Commissioner Carroll felt that making a modification to 80% would be alright however, he felt that the percentage should change 5% by year. He stated the whole purpose was to change the face of Sprague, if nothing was done to change the face of Sprague Ave. then this whole thing is a moot issue. Commissioner Carroll stated he understood that economic times were driving the request to change however he felt that a 5% per year drop would be able to bring about the change that was being sought in the beginning of the Plan. Commissioner Carroll made a motion to amend the motion that the 80% would be reduced each year by 5% until it reached 25%, beginning in the year 2011. Second by Commissioner Sands. Commissioner Sharpe stated he thought 25% might be too low, Commissioner Sands reminded the members that the original amount proposed by the Plan was 10% in order to get the corridor to change, however people felt that was too aggressive for our community. Commissioner Sharpe shared concerns that anything less than the 80% 10-14-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 would not be viable in any situation along the corridor, he stated he was either for the 80% or the all new construction option. Commissioner Woodard stated he shared the same thoughts, but that moving below a 50% threshold would be unreasonable. Chair Carroll called for the vote on the amendment to reduce by 5% per year, vote is 2 in favor, 2 against, motion fails on a tie. Chair Carroll called for the vote on the original motion, vote is 0 for, 4 against, motion fails. Commissioner Sharpe made a motion that new construction would mean and entirely new structure. Second by Commissioner Woodard. Commissioner Carroll shared that he did not feel that this was the solution that the Commission was seeking. Mr. Kuhta stated that if the Commission chose this option that it would mean only new construction would have to follow the Subarea Plan requirements. Commissioners discussed if this would meet what they wanted to do. Chair Carroll called for the question on this motion, vote is 2 in favor and 2 against, motion fails as a tie. Commissioner Sands made a motion to amend #3 New Construction to read — new constriction is defined as an entirely new structure or the reconstruction, remolded or rehabilitation or an expansion of building costing more than 80% of the assessed or appraised value of the existing structure and land, where the threshold is 80% and have the applicant comply with all the regulations within the Subarea Plan that would not require moving an existing building. Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion. Chair Carroll called for the vote and the vote was 4 in favor, 0 against. Motion passes. Commissioner Woodard made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council adding a section #5 to 19.20.060 — Legally Established Single Family Residences, single family residences located in a non-residential zoning district shall not be deemed non-conforming and shall be permitted as a legal use. Second by Commissioner Carroll, Vote on this motion was 4 in favor, 0 against, motion passes. Commissioner Woodard made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council that sections 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 have the following language added `If an existing easement is located in the required front street setback the Community Development Director has the discretion to establish a reasonable setback from the outer edge f the easement. Second by Commissioner Sands. There was discussion regarding adding low side of site as preferred drainage locations. Mr. Kuhta stated that this issue was not part of the public hearing notice and could not be added to the amendment at this time. The Chairman called for the vote which was 4 in favor, 0 against, motion passes. Commissioner Woodard made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council to amend the language of 2.1.3.2 Pre-located Streets to reflect potential location and that actual location will be determined at the time of development. Second by Commissioner Sharpe. Vote on this motion was 4 in favor, 0 against, motion passes. Commissioner Woodard made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council to change 2.3.1.3. of the Subarea Plan from block size to block length. Second by Commissioner Sharpe. Vote on this motion was 4 in favor, 0 against, motion passes. 10-14-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Carroll said for the good of the order he would like to thanks the Planning Commission. Mr. Carroll stated that although some might be discouraged at the moment, but that the members need to continue to do what they need to do to present their case for the citizens of the Spokane Valley because we think we should recommend the best we can and he appreciated that effort. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson 10-14-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5