Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 02-24-11.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission I APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 24, 2011 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance IIL ROLL CALL Commissioners Bates, Carroll, Hall, Mann, Sands, and Woodard were present. Commissioner Carroll made a motion to excuse Commissioner Stoy; this was seconded and approved unanimously. Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager, Mike Basinger, Senior Planner; Lori Barlow, Associate Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner; Dean Grafos, Councilmember; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Woodard made a motion to amend the agenda to move CPA-03-11 to the end of the end of the agenda, which was seconded. Vote on the amendment was four in favor and two against, motion past. Commissioner Mann made a motion to approve the amended agenda for February 24, 2011. This motion was seconded and unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Woodard made a motion which was seconded and unanimously approved to accept the minutes for January 27, 2011 as presented. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Woodard stated he had attended Spokane/Kootenai Real Estate Forum, Commissioner Mann also attended the Spokane/Kootenai Real Estate Forum. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta stated there was currently nothing to report. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Old Business: Continued Deliberations regarding CTA-02-11 — Code Amendment on keeping of livestock in Mixed Use Zones. 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 Assistant Planner Christina Janssen made a small staff report reminding the Commission the amendment is to allow livestock on residential parcels in Mixed Use zones. At the last meeting the Commissioners has asked of the residential properties in the Mixed Use areas how many were actually over the 40,000 square foot threshold, which is required in order to have livestock Ms. Janssen presented a map which shows that there are 19 parcels that are legally established residential lots now in the Mixed Use areas. This was the only additional information requested by the Commission from the last meeting. Commissioner Woodard asked about being able to apply an overlay zone for this motion instead of an amendment, Planning Manager Kuhta responded that it would be more difficult to administer and there were not enough parcels to warrant that type of an overlay. The motion from the February 10, 2011 meeting is: the Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council to allow livestock on currently established residential parcels located in Mixed Use zoning districts as per the current animal keeping regulations. Vote was six in favor, zero against, motion passes. B. New Business: Public Hearing Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments CPA-01-11 through CPA-08-11. Senior Planner Mike Basinger introduced himself and the Comprehensive Amendment team for this year, Associate Planner Lori Barlow and Assistant Planner, Karen KendalL Mr. Basinger explained that due to the time constraints from the last meeting, staff will be having a study session on the Comprehensive Plan amendments prior to the public hearing, whereby the Commissioners will be able to ask questions before the public hearing starts. Sr. Planner Basinger explained why the City has an Comprehensive Plan and how the annual amendments are proposed and taken care of. The Comprehensive Plan is a road map to guide future development and growth in our City. Amendments every year allow the plan to be updated and remain current while allowing citizens to request changes, such as site specific map changes, of which there are two this year. Mr. Basinger stated that each amendment would be reviewed individually. CPA-01-11: This amendment is a privately initiated site-specific map amendment located at Sprague and Progress. This amendment is 10 parcels which includes a small strip mall and some single family housing. Staff has also recommended adding two parcels which are adjacent to these in order to not leave pockets of alternatively zoned land surrounded by another zoning district. This amendment however will not be necessary if CPA-03-11 were to be moved forward as requested. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation to Neighborhood Commercial. CPA-02-11: This is a privately initiated site specific map amendment located at 503 N Walnut Road. This amendment is being proposed by St. John Vianney Catholic Parish. This parcel is currently a parking lot serving the church. The request is to change this parcel from low density residential to medium density residential. 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 CPA-03-11: This amendment is council initiated to remove the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. This proposed amendment is to remove the area in the Subarea Plan from the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. All areas will be returned to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations as they were at the time the plan was adopted in October of 2007. CPA-04-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 2— Land Use: Table 2.1, Spokane Valley UGA Land Capacity Analysis, will reflect new population numbers within the City of Spokane Valley. Map 2.1, Land Use, will display land use designation changes approved through the 2011 amendment process. Commissioners asked how the Board of County Commissioners based their population allocations. Mr. Basinger attempted to explain how the Technical Planning Committee made a recommendation for the population allocations and the County Commissioners made the decision for these allocation numbers. CPA-OS-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 3— Transportation: Map 3.2, Bike and Pedestrian System, will display newly developed bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Commissioner Woodard asked if this amendment was passed is it binding to the City. Sr. Planner Basinger explained that the map contains existing infrastructure as well as proposed infrastructure. However, none of the proposed infrastructure is binding and does not need to be done next year or the year after, and it would depend on funding but it was put on the map based on the community's vision for these types of facilities. CPA-06-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 4— Capital Facilities and Public Services: Amendments will incorporate changes in the 6-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) into the Capital Facilities Plan to ensure consistency. Amendments will update special purpose district's and other city service provider's facility and service data. Capital projects such as city hall, parks, and a public works storage facility will be included for the use of REET funding. Maps 4.1, 4.2, and 4.5 will display updates to reflect the latest capital facilities and public services. Amendments will also update the growth assumptions to reflect population allocation numbers approved by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Basinger pointed out that if projects are not included in the Comprehensive Plan then the REET funds cannot be used for them. There was also discussion regarding growth assumptions and how our City does not plan capital facilities within the UGA's. Shortly after incorporation the City Manager determined that the City would not plan for service into the UGAs. The UGAs are not allocated to our city by the county. Commissioner Woodard wondered how the level of service for the parks department was amended. Mr. Basinger stated that the Planning Commission could make a different level if they thought something different level was more appropriate. CPA-07-11: This is a staff initiated amendment, Chapter 7— Economic Development: Map 7.1 will display new building permits and land use actions in the 2010 development cycle. The question came up as to if there was a limit on permits or was it any permit? The answer was any permit. 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 CPA-08-11: This is the last amendment and also staff initiated, Chapter 8— Natural Environment: Map 8.3 will display the field inventory work done in conjunction with DNR to update stream typing in Spokane Valley. Map 8.4 has been updated to reflect the current FEMA Flood Rate Insurance Maps. Mr. Basinger stated there were places on Sprague Ave and Trent that stated there were classified ass fish bearing streams and these needed to be updated. Mr. Basinger stated that staff would recommend that the Commission take action on CPA-03-11 which refers to the Subarea Plan, before it addresses the amendment of CPA-01-1 L Mr. Basinger pointed out that if the recommendation is for the Subarea Plan to go away then amendment in CPA-01-11 is not necessary. Commissioner Carroll asked if there had been any comments received from the adjoining parcels in CPA-01-11. Ms. Kendall stated there had been no written comments received from either party but had been aware that there had been some dialog between the proponents and Mr. Jankowski one of the parcel owners. Commissioner Carroll asked what other uses are on site for CPA-02-11, which the reply was a church and a K-8 school. Commissioner Carroll asked in regard to CPA-03-11 if there had been any additional studies or surveys done by staff or City Council as to why this amendment is necessary. Ms. Barlow answered not that she was aware of. Commissioner Carroll asked if there were any alternative plans in place or being proposed; Ms. Barlow stated there was nothing other than to go back to the designations and zoning that were previously in place. Commissioner Carroll asked if the only change has been the City Council itself and Ms. Barlow stated that she had documented the community meetings and the comments received from them stated that some of the regulations in the Subarea Plan were hardships and unwarranted, in the opinion of the public commenting. Commissioner Mann asked how many people commented at the meetings, Ms. Barlow stated that each meeting of which there were five, had varying amounts of attendance and input, but the largest had 30-40 people in attendance and it decreased at each meeting after. A question was asked how many meetings were held to put the plan in place, Ms. Barlow stated that she thought that there were probably 100 meetings. Commissioner Sands stated we are not having the same level of discussion to remove the plan as was had to implement the plan. Ms. Barlow stated that staff was following the required protocol for notifications for such an amendment, that staff was following all of the City's and the State's procedures for minimum notification requirements. Commissioner Woodard asked if any input had been received on this amendment, Ms. Barlow stated that the amendment was part of the whole list of annual amendments and she had not received a letter, email or phone call regarding this amendment. Commissioner Mann wondered if the public was actually aware of what was going on. Commissioner Hall asked if he remembered that City Council stated he thought from the Council Retreat that it was considered to do a citizen survey but was it geared to the City Hall or the Sprague Avenue area? Ms. Barlow stated she could not comment on the Council Retreat, however Director McClung stated she did not feel that the survey was being geared to the Sprague Ave. but more to economic development for the whole city. Mr. Hall thought that the 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Subarea Plan could be a part of that survey. The Director did not feel the conversation was about the Subarea Plan, but about where the City Hall might go. Commission took a break at 7:11 p.m., resumed at 7:19 p.m. Chair Carroll opened the public hearing by reading the rules at 7:20 p.m. Matt Jankowski, 315 W. Riverside: Mr. Jankowski is speaking for CPA-01-11. Mr. Jankowski stated he had received a letter from the proponent of the amendment, Mr. Hume, regarding this amendment. Mr. Jankowski stated he would not have a problem with the proposal as long as items he was worried about and his tenant is comfortable, he would be ok Mr. Jankowski turned in a letter with his concerns to the Commission. Commissioner Sands asked about Mr. .Iankowski about his business that had been on the one way Sprague (KFC) just west of Farr. Mr. .Iankowski stated how hard the one-way had been on his business, how difficult on sales, how his sales dropped, that he held on hoping that the road would change back to two-way. *In the applicarion for CPA-02-11 it has been stated tl�at the church is proposing a 40-unit low income Sr. housing complex owned and run by Catholic Cl�arities. Many comments address the project and not the land use change requested. Shelly Stevens, 312 N Walnut Rd: Ms. Stevens stated she was against CPA-02-11. Ms. Stevens stated she was worried about apartments in her neighborhood, the extra traffic, the speeding families of church parishioners and school attendees. The City has never replaced a stop sign at Valleyway and Walnut, making money off of the neighborhood, wants to preserve her quiet neighborhood. Levi Strauss, 302 N Walnut Rd.: Mr. Strauss stated he was against CPA-02-11. Mr. Strauss stated he had talked to his neighbors, and they are worried about traffic, decreasing property values, worried about police and at the other low income apartments there have been homicides, changes in ownership, need to look at long term effect, this is the heart of our neighborhood, it is about greed. Mr Strauss is worried about Valleyway as a thoroughfare. He also stated he was worried there is not enough parking for the church now and that the environmental review might not be accurate enough. Chris Carr, 223 N. Walnut Rd.: Mr. Carr stated he was against CPA-02-11. Mr. Carr stated he was concerned about the traffic from the church parishioners now and would not like the speeders to increase three fold. Commissioner Mann asked if any of the people commenting attended St. John Vianney. Levi Strauss, Mr. Strauss stated he has a child that attends the school and this was a difficult issue for him. Mr. Strauss stated that when the church hold events there are people parking on the street. Commissioner Woodard stated he knew there were about 1,000 families that attend the church in question. Sandra Holder, 9814 E Valleyway: Ms. Holder stated that she was against CPA- 02-1 L Ms. Holder stated that she lives on a dead end street but people from the 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 school still speed down the her street. She lives here because she has a deaf child. She does not allow the child to play in the front due to traffic and feels it will increase with the change. Ms. Holder stated she felt that unwanted people could move into the complex, she is worried about theft, she said she knows that the church says the housing is for seniors but she is not `buying into that' they could later allow anyone to live there, event parking is excessive. Chris Pierce, 404 N Farr: Mr. Pierce stated that he was against CPA-02-11 but could be convinced if the following issues were addressed — Valleyway cannot go through to Walnut. Mr. Pierce has a barn listed on the state register of historic places. Mr. Pierce stated he was fine with senior use, but worried about down the road that general low income people in the complex and turned over to some else. Mr. Pierce also stated he did have a problem with the parking but not as big as the Walnut people have. George Birge, 611 N Walnut Rd: Mr. Birge stated he was against CPA-02-11 for the reasons given previously. Mr. Birge stated that he was not against elderly housing at the church. He stated that his mother lives in elderly housing through the Spokane Housing Authority, however it wasn't the residents he was concerned about but the associations and the people, the lower income folks he does not want in his neighborhood. Heidi Shutts, 116 N Walnut: Ms. Shutts stated she was against CPA-02-11 for the reasons previously given. There is currently too much traffic, there is an assisted living being built behind the old U-City mall, the soccer moms fly down the road to get kids back and forth, liquor store speeders come down the street as well. Marie Raschko-Sokol, 2110 S Sunrise Rd: Mr. Raschko-Sokol stated she was supporting CPA-02-11. Ms. Sokol stated she was the chair of the St. John Vianney parish council. She also stated she had worked in the field of aging for almost 30 years. Ms. Sokol stated she was currently a member of the planning and advisory council for the area agency on aging, which is a five county area, primarily serving older adults in Spokane County. She has also been appointed to the Washington State Council on Aging by the Governor. Ms. Sokol stated it is estimated that in the City there are approx. 14,000 people over the age of 60. And of that number 8% are low income, which means approx. 1,100 people are below the poverty level, most are women. 10% of people over 60 are disabled. Church looked at the parcel south of the request for purchase, it had been on the market for some time and they felt it would help fulfill part of their philosophy as well as that of the Catholic Dioceses, to provide services low income adults within the community. HUD projects are 40 year projects and Catholic Charities continue to operate beyond and they have a commitment to these projects. There will not be any convicted felons in the units, but neighbors, family, parents. She shares the concerns about speeders, but feels that most of the people will not have cars. Commission asked if the church had had any neighborhood meetings, the answer was no they had not so far but would be more than willing to do so. Commissioner Woodard wanted to know if the extension of T�alleyway was being considered, and the answer was no. Commissioner Sands asked what kind of assistance they would be acquiring, they would be individual housing with in-service for daily needs but no common eating 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 areas. These are not buy-in/owned apartments. They are HUD subsidized rent. How would people know that this would be the same as it progr�esses, Catholic Charities is committed it to keeping its projects as they start out. Commissioner Bates asked about parking requirements, Mr. Kuhta stated that the code would dictate what the parking requirements would be. Mr. Kuhta reminded the Commissioners that this is a land use decision not a project decision. Joseph Bell, 502 N Farr Rd: Mr. Bell stated he is the pastor for St. John Vianney and is supporting CPA-02-11. Pastor Bell also stated he had been the pastor at a previously mentioned senior housing development and that at the time, that parish had wanted to make it a low income project but it was not possible and feels privileged to be able to be involved with this one. Pastor Bell stated he did not feel that parking would be an issue, however he too is concerned with speeders. Dan Hipple, 313 N Walnut: Mr. Hipple stated he was adjacent to the property just sold. Mr. Hipple stated that he was opposed to Valleyway being put through. Mr. Hipple stated he was not opposed to the proj ect, but he had concerns. Mr. Hipple stated he was concerned about the employees coming in and speeding, worried about the employees taking smoke breaks in the parking lot. Jason Minnihan, 9802 E Valleyway: Mr. Minnihan stated he was against CPA-02- 11. Mr. Minnihan stated that he would not want this near his home. Mr. Minnihan stated he understood the need, he was placing his grandmother into a nursing home but does not want something like this in his yard, or his neighbors' yards. He felt it would destroy the neighborhood and be an eyesore. Mr. Basinger clarified that there is a shared use path that connects Valleyway through the church area, that has been proposed that is on the bike and pedestrian map. Ann Martin, 101 N Stevens St: Ms. Martin stated she was a representative of the applicant and a proponent of CPA-02-1 L Ms. Martin stated that she was disturbed that a project was being discussed when what has been asked for is a land use decision. Ms. Martin also stated that the Growth Management Act encourages low income housing, including for elderly. Ms. Martin stated that she understood that it was an emotional decision, however asked that the Commission not confuse a land use decision with a project that was not yet being proposed. Ms. Martin also stated that a comment had been made that the project was going to be built to the maximum allowed, she pointed out that if a boundary line adjustment was done, the project could be increased to 51 units which is not being contemplated. Monique Kolonko, 902 W Roland: Ms. Kolonko stated she is the Associate Director of Senior Programs and Housing Programs for Catholic Charities. Ms. Kolonko stated she was speaking in favor of CPA-02-1 L Ms. Kolonko stated that there are 800 units in Eastern Washington most with HUD support that belong to Catholic Charities. She stated that the units are professionally managed, look beautiful and add value to the neighborhoods. Ms. Kolonko stated it was offensive to her it was being suggested that Catholic Charities would profit from such 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 projects, and it is not true. Each building is its own corporation and any money made goes into the repair of that building. She also said that theft in the areas of these housing units decreases because there are extra eyes as home watching the neighborhoods. Chris Pierce: Mr. Pierce stated that if there had been a neighborhood meeting maybe there would not have been so much opposition, at least on his part. He also stated it was nice to know that HUD would be guaranteeing the project. He would like to see a bike trail but no extension to Valleyway. However, Mr. Pierce expressed concern over the height of the possible building. Brian Milspa, 216 N Walnut: Mr. Milspa stated that he is opposed to CPA-02-11. Mr. Milspa stated he and his neighbors have small pets and children and are concerned about the speeders. He also stated that a community meeting would have been helpfuL Mr. Milspa stated that on occasion that they also have various wild animals come down and habitat the neighborhood. Mr. Milspa stated that he felt that having older people would bring more theft instead of less. Chris Carr: Mr. Carr stated he is living in his grandparent's home. Mr. Carr stated he felt that the map being shown was incorrect. (Staff helped explain to Mr. Carr that he was looking at the wrong parcel) Dan Daly, 303 N Walnut Rd: Mr. Daly stated he was against CPA-02-11. Mr. Daly stated he was in agreement with the rest of the neighbors in their objections to this project. Mr. Daly stated he has spoken to an expert that the sewer line will not handle 80 more people. Mr Daly asked if this had been considered and Mr. Kuhta stated that the County had not been consulted, that would be the responsibility of the applicant at the time of submittal of the project. Gail Goodall, 515 N Farr Rd: Ms. Goodall stated that she appreciated the wildlife that visits the neighborhood. Ms. Goodall stated that in her neighborhood that most of the lots are one acre and that her concern was that if this amendment was allowed it could lead to infill of lots in her neighborhood. She would like to keep the neighborhood the way it is now and not have anything change. Dwight Hume, 9101 Mt View Lane: Representing the Hultman Family Trust. Mr. Hume stated he was speaking in support of CPA-01-11. Mr. Hume also stated that if the Subarea Plan is removed, then this amendment would not be necessary. Mr. Hume stated that he had contacted the two adjoining parcels to participate in this amendment, at the suggestion of staff, in order to not leave single parcels zoned differently in a pocket of an area. One of the participating parcels has concerns about non-conforming issues on his parceL Mr Hume will communicate with the adjoining parcel and discuss the issues Mr. Jankowski is concerned with. Mr. Hume stated that he has reviewed the staff report and agrees with the findings in this amendment. Mr. Kuhta clarified the non-conforming sign issue. Commissioner Sands made a motion to continue the public hearing to March 10, 2011, which was seconded and was voted in favor unanimously. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson 02-24-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9