The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 03/08/2012 �CITYO�� p Vall�/ u � Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. March 8, 2012 6:00 p.m. L CALL TO ORDER IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IIL ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 25, 2011, September 22, 2011, February 9, 2012, February 16, 2012 and February 23, 2012 VL PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject that is not on the agenda VIL COMMISSION REPORTS VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. DELIBERATIONS OF THE 2012 COMPREHENSNE PLAN AMENDMENTS B. NEW BUSINESS: 1. No new business X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XL ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF BILL BATES -CHAIR JOHN HOHMAN,CD DIRECTOR JOHN G.CARROLL SCOTT KUHTA,PLANNING MGR,AICP RusTiN HALL RoD HIGGINs STEVEN NEILL MARCIA SANDS DEANNA GRIFFITH,SECRETARY JOE STOY-VICE CHAIR WWW.SPOKANEVALLEY.ORG CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Review Meeting Date: March 8th, 2012 Item: CheCl�all that apply: ❑consent �old business ❑new business ❑public hearing ❑information ❑ admin. report ❑pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Continued deliberations-CPA-OS-12 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On February 23, 2012, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs) and continued deliberations on CPA-OS-12. BACKGROUND: On February 16, 2012, the Planning Commission was briefed on the 2012 CPAs. On February 23, 2012, the Planning Commission received public testimony on the proposed amendments. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated and voted to forward CPA-Ol-12, CPA-02-12, CPA-03-12, CPA-04-12, CPA-06-12, CPA-07-12, CPA-08-12, CPA- 09-12, CPA-10-12, and CPA-11-12 to City Council with a recommendation for approval. The Ciry Council may choose to adopt the individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the amendments, or modify and adopt the proposaL If the Council chooses to modify a proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The Planning Commission voted to continue the deliberations on CPA-OS-12 to the March gtn meeting to further discuss public testimony and develop a recommendation for Ciry Council. On February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission was provided via email the recorded development agreement for CPA-Ol-09 (4th Avenue Apartments), residential zone dimensional standards, and screening and buffering standards. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: (found in the yellow notebook) Exhibit 1: 2012 Comprehensive Plan Amendments Exhibit 2: Draft Staff Reports 1 of 1 Table 19.40-1 —Residential Zone Dimensional Standards (In Feet) R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MF-1 MF-2 PRD Single-Family Lot Underlying 40,000 10,000 7,500 6,000 3,600 2,000 Area/Dwelling Unit zone Duplex Lot Area/Dwelling 6,000 5,000 Unit Lot W idth 80 80 65�'� 50 45 20 30 Lot Depth 100 90 90 80 80 80 50 Minimum Front and Flanking Street 35 15 15 15 15 15 15 Yard Setback'�"3' Garage Setback�z��3� 35 20 20 20 20 20 20 Rear Yard Setback�"�3� 20 20 20 20 10 10 15 Side Yard Setback""3' 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Open Space 10%gross area Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 60.0% Maximum Underlying Building Height(In Feet) 35 35 35 35 40 50 zone �� No accessory structure shall be located in the front or flanking street yard, and shall be set back not less than five feet from any side or rear yard. «� Attached garages,where the garage door does not face the street, may have the same setback as the principal structure. Setbacks,when adjacent to a private road or driveway easement, are established from the inner �3� edges of the road or driveway and are the same as noted above except the flanking road which would be five feet. �'� Duplex lots in R-3 zones may be a minimum of 60 feet in width. 1. In zero lot line developments approved as part of a planned residential development, zero setbacks along one side are allowed, provided a two-foot maintenance easement is recorded as part of the subdivision plat. a. Attached single-family dwellings, including duplexes and townhouses located on individual lots, shall meet minimum rear, front and side yard requirements (where applicable), minimum area requirements, and maximum lot coverage and building height requirements shown in Table 19.40-1. Townhouses are subject to the following requirements: i. No more than six dwelling units shall be attached in one continuous row or group; ii. No townhouse unit shall be constructed above another townhouse unit; iii. There shall be a side yard on each side of a contiguous row or group of dwellings of not less than six feet; iv. Townhouses included in a condominium development may limit the lot to the building footprint; provided, that the yard area shared in common with all units is equivalent in area to the yard required by the underlying zone. landscapin� Info B. Type I — Full Screening. 1. Where required for full screening, a sight-obscuring fence shall be installed consistent with the requirements for a clearview triangle. The fence shall be at least six feet high and 100 percent sight obscuring. Fences may be made of wood, ornamental iron or aluminum, brick, masonry, architectural panels, chain link with slats, or other permanent materials, berms, walls,vegetative plantings, or some combination of these. 2. The required fence shall be further screened by a mix of plantings located within a five-foot buffer strip that are layered and/or combined to obtain an immediate dense sight-obscuring barrier of two to three feet in height, selected to reach six feet in height at maturity as follows: a. A mixture of conifers and deciduous trees, planted at a distance of not less than 35 feet on center, with a maximum of 50 percent of the trees being deciduous; b. Evergreen shrubs shall comprise at least 75 percent of the plantings, planted at a distance of not less than six feet on center; c. A minimum of 24 points of landscaping shall be installed for every 25 linear feet of buffer area; d. Plantings used for full screening adjacent to public or private rights-of-way shall be located outside the fence or security system. Figure 22.70-6 Example of Type I Landscaping with Sight-Obscuring Fence (Not to Scale) �+�i gi'erw-i f r� �N7e.�i�:l�rra n�. . ,.xrua.c..p:� �_ , t ..� _ � v ti r _.�, k ..t � _e.ti.� .v�� ,�:. � }r� � 7r '''� -: �� r. > ....,r ex:r ';� s,Yed y5� � "� '�,�� '"r� t� �'��'� �rr�� '�.� Lr,� �.� '��.�f �� .".., +�' . � � �1 . , ....� � yr � — .�. ��" " � �° �- �� ,��` ,� , �.�� s �� , >� � �F , :, �,E � . ��,,� _ �� .- . � fl�kJ< fl=Ilfll Y } . :'a��.r {K..�r�i.a.-1i h 1�S'i Y:l' 3. All trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the standards of the American Association of Nurserymen. All newly planted trees and shrubs shall be mulched and maintained to give a clean and weed-free appearance. �' � �� , �'� ,,�' i �� -,,�. k._ k„ , ,�i'r, � ��`_ , I�.r�PU'I'IF{C�RII}:'fLll�l: �f' �x { -�� `` : , �� _ �r.- _. * , ry I'I'.191.:1�1�1�1:°�F{I�ICi�I'I.�}I'°15�.`:L� �li�ll'I'�ilH�l'K�°( IlTk4�l'I:!N['I�. Figure 22.70-7 Type I Full Screening C. Type II —Visual Buffering. 1. Where required to minimize the incompatibility between adjacent land uses, a visual screen of not less than five feet in width which may consist of fencing, architectural panels, berms, walls, vegetative plantings, or some combination of these shall be installed as follows: a. A mixture of conifers and deciduous trees, planted at a distance of not less than 35 feet on center, with a maximum of 75 percent of the trees being deciduous; b. Evergreen shrubs shall comprise at least 50 percent of the plantings; c. A minimum of 18 points of landscaping shall be installed for every 25 linear feet of buffer area. 2. All trees and shrubs shall be planted and maintained in accordance with the standards of the American Association of Nurserymen (a copy of which is on file in the planning department). All newly planted trees and shrubs shall be mulched and maintained to give a clean and weed-free appearance. Figure 22.70-8 Example of Type II Landscaping E�+eir�reen Tree aseiduous Sliiubs , � �C� , � � � � � � � � � �•�, � , � � �� ` _ � � --� � � � �� r�t: - --;,=. 'r?d7C 'or. I Gra56 y� � �.;r�:: --��... _ � �' � � � �' � � � � 3. The buffer shall run the entire length of the abutting lot line(s). A natural, undisturbed wooded area at least 20 feet in width may substitute for landscaping. Apartment Info According the building dept. the typical height of a 2 story apartment building is 27-30 feet depending upon roof style and peak. Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. August 25, 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, Mann, Neill, Stoy were present. Commissioners Hall and Sands were absent. Commissioner Stoy made a motion which was seconded to excuse Commissioners Hall and Sands from the August 25, 2011 meeting. This motion was passed unanimously. Staff attending the meeting: Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Lori Barlow, Senior Planner; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Mann made a motion to approve the August 25, 2011 agenda as presented. This motion was seconded and passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Mann made a motion which was seconded to approve as presented the minutes from May 12, May 26, and June 23, 2011 meetings. This motion was unanimously approved. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Mann stated he had attended a water rights seminar in Coeur d'Alene. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta reported John Hohman has been named as the new Community Development Director. Mr. Kuhta also shared several upcoming items on the advanced agenda of interest to the Planning Commissioners. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business B. New Business: Study Session on Title 22— Section 22.70 Landscaping and Section 22.110 Signs. 08-25-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 Planning Manager Kuhta stated the Ciry Council had given staff a directive to review the signage and landscaping regulations. Planning Commissioners did have a few defining questions as the presentation went along and they were answered at the time they were asked. Mr Kuhta stated the Spokane County sign regulations went through a major overhaul in 2001, with a very long process which involved a sign committee, their maximum size and heights were generally reduced, temporary signs required a permit, portable signs were prohibited, there was a restriction on billboards which also had an advisory vote on amortization. When the City incorporated in 2003, we inherited the County's sign regulations. In 2005 an Ad Hoc sign committee was formed to draft a new sign code to meet the needs of our own community. Although it was similar to the County code for most height/size standards, it lessened restrictions on billboards, but did instituted a cap and replace program, prohibited signs included all portable signs, the Ciry would require no spacing distance for multi-business signs (the County requires 500 ft), temporary signs would still require a permit with similar restrictions to the County. In 2006 the Ad Hoc Sign Committee was asked to come together again to address decorative emblem signs. After the sign code was adopted, the City actively enforced the regulations along the Sprague corridor, as well as in other places in the City, temporary and portable signs were removed, however now the enforcement of the sign code is done by complaint only. Question about only complaint driven code enforcement. Mr. Kuhta covered several kinds of signs which appear in the City, the prohibited signs, and the type of code changes which could possibly be coming forward. Those could be regarding temporary signs and landscaping around signs on fully developed parcels. Then the Planning Manger discussed why a Ciry should require landscaping. He shared that it will reduce visual, noise and lighting impacts on adjacent properties, provide a buffer between incompatible land uses, helps preserve property values and reduce heat effect in parking lots. Mr. Kuhta explained when landscaping is required, all new commercial development, additions to existing commercial buildings exceeding 500 sq ft and alterations to existing sites exceeding 500 sq ft. Question raised was these requirements do not apply to residential development. No, it is intended to buffer against residential development. Mr. Kuhta talked about the Ciry's landscaping point system. Spokane Valley is the only local jurisdiction to use point system. The Intent is to allow flexibility/creativity for landscape designer, there is an allowance for existing trees, there are bonuses for xeriscaping (landscaping that uses less water and maintenance) and using this system has not produced substantially different landscaping plans. Mr. Kuhta also discussed the code requirement for a landscape plans to be drawn and stamped by registered landscape architect and that prior to Certificate of Occupancy the registered landscape architect must certify that landscaping and irrigation installed in accordance with approved plans. 08-25-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 Mr. Kuhta shared the possible code amendments which could be coming forward in regards to the landscaping: lowering the threshold for landscaping for building additions and site alterations, remove landscaping requirements for new storage buildings on existing industrial sites, remove requirement for landscaping around signs in developed areas, and not requiring a landscape architect for small projects X. GOOD OF THE ORDER There was nothing for the good of the order XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: `� � � Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant John G. Carroll, Chairperson �._ 08-25-ll Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. September 22, 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, Neill, Sands, and Stoy were present. Commissioner Mann was absent. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to excuse Commissioner Mann from the September 22 meeting. Vote on this motion was 6 in favor, 0 against. Staff attending the meeting: John Hohman, Community Development Director; Scott Kuhta, Planner Manager; Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner; Dean Grafos, Councilmember, Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Sands made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES �. There were no minutes to approve. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Neill stated he would be attending a workshop on October 1 in regard to the Shoreline Management Program. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Planning Manager Kuhta stated the joint meeting with the City Council is off for right now. He said the City was currently looking for special council to help guide staff and council through the shoreline master program update process. Soon to be coming before the Commission would be an amendment regarding the boundary line adjustment process. The amendment would address whether or not a record of survey was required with the BLA. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business. B. New Business: Study Session CTA-05-ll Proposed amendments to Chapter 22.70 Fencing and Landscaping regulations. 09-22-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 Assistant Planner Kendall made a presentation regarding the proposed changes to Chapter 22.70 Fencing and Landscaping Standards. 1. Section 22.70.020.B -Allowing fences to be placed on the properry line of a flanking yard (corner lot) as long it remains out of the front yard setback. 2. Section 22.70.020.0- Modifying language to provide more clarity to the clear view triangle definition and updating references to tables and diagrams to ensure this section is administered correctly. 3. Section 22.70.020.F- Defining which zones allow for barbed wire, concertina or razor wire. 4. Section 22.70.040.E.9 and Table 22.70-4- Consolidate all point calculation requirements into Table 22.70-4. 5. Section 22.70.040.J.4- Removing landscape requirement for new signs in developed areas. 6. Section 22.70.040.L.1.e -Adding additional flexibility for landscaping requirements to be modified on industrial zoned properties. 7. Section 22.70.040.N - Providing a threshold of when a landscape architect is required to prepare a landscape plan and clarifying who will certify the installed landscaping at time of completion. After Ms. Kendall made her presentation she helped, with assistance from Planning Manager Scott Kuhta, to answer some questions from the Planning Commissioners. Clarification on where a fence in the front yard and flanking yard could go. Barbed wire would only be allowed in residential zones in order to contain animals only. However it would be allowed only in commercial areas. There was discussion over changing the requirement that a six foot fence with wire on top does not require a building permit. There was a concern to have razor wire right next to the public row. Staff stated they were getting a sense that the Commission would like to allow barbed wire in all commercial zones, however not adjacent to the right-of-way. How the change in landscape requirements for signs on developed sites would make a difference as well as landscaping requirements on a fully developed site, removing the requirement for xeriscaping landscaping. Discussed the difference in the landscaping point calculations. Removing the part of written code to reflect more than 500 sf of development does not require the calculation of landscaping points. This would apply new buildings, and small proposals, 10 parking spaces or less would not require landscaping. This applies to commercial development only. Developer does get points for grass but only 25% of the points can be grass. Added in a section for industrial sites, which may be exempt if not feasible. Thoughts to propose an alternative to meet the points, which could allow a applicant to be creative, either to move the points to another part of the lot, or refer to already existing landscaping. The language actually allows exemption if applicant can show where it is not possible. Landscape architects requirement. The thought would be to provide some relief to smaller projects. Discussed the provision to make a threshold to when a architect would be required. There was a discussion about if 50 points was too low. The requirement of an architect certifies that the installation is done correctly, but staff will still do a site visit. 09-22-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 There was discussion regarding tree staking. Concern was expressed as to if it is a good practice and if it is done, if it is done properly and then removed when the tree is matured. Talk about screening of loading docks. why limit the height of the landscaping for a loading dock Staff stated they would look at that part of the proposal. Comment was it could be a visual issue. It was stated that most trucks are 13 feet tall. Wouldn't staff want to block the truck well from the view? Staff commented it was a safety issue. Commissioners asked how long the City had been on the point system, staff replied since 2007 and that to change it at this point would be difficult since we constantly get comments about not changing things and being steady. Commissioner Stoy stated he likes the point system as a small designer, it's easier to use. He said he thinks the point system is better than anyone else's to use. Mr. Kuhta stated this was not a complete over haul of the landscaping requirements, that most developers were used to the current system and to completely change it at this moment would cause more heartburn for most people at this point. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Recently appointed Community Development Director John Hohman introduced himself to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hohman shared with the Commission his past experience, his thoughts for how he plans to move forward with the department. XL ADJOURNMENT There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: � � Deanna Griffith, Secretary John G. Carroll, Chairperson ` 09-22-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Sure Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 9, 2012 L CALL TO ORDER Chairman Bates 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, Higgins, Neill, Sands, and Stoy were present. Staff attending the meeting: John Hohman, Community Development Director; Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager; Mike Basinger, Senior Planner; Lori Barlow, Senior Planner; Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner; Cary Driskell, Ciry Attorney, Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney; Ben Wick, Councilmember; Cari Hinshaw, Office Assistant, Deanna Griffith, Secretary IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the current agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Carroll made a motion to approve the October 13, 201 l, the November 10, 2011 and the January 26, 2012 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS .Commissioners Stoy and Higgins both reported that they attended the Ciry Council retreat on February 7, 2012 which was held at CenterPlace. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Director Hohman reported the agenda for the joint meeting with the City Council scheduled for February 21, 2011, has been set. The topics will be the City's update to the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), roles and responsibilities of the Planning Commission and the Open Public Meetings Act. Mr Hohman shared that the City has retained special council to assist staff and Council in completing the SMP program, this special council will be here on Feb. 21 as well to talk to the Council/Commission about moving forward. Other topics for discussion that night will be a discussion regarding the Open Public Meetings Act, the Public Records Act and the Planning Commission's roles and responsibilities 02-09-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7 IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: continued public hearing CTA-06-11, proposed amendments to Title 221.10 Sign Regulations. Sr. Planner Lori Barlow gave a short presentation regarding updates on the sign code and answer questions regarding the issues the Commissioners had brought up at the last meeting. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners of the issues which were being proposed for amendment: ■ Allow A-frame signs ■ Modify the requirements for temporary signs ■ Increase the number of freestanding signs allowed for businesses on large lots fronting arterials ■ Clarify that churches are institutional uses and allow monument signs for all institutional and commercial uses along any street frontage ■ Allow multi-family complexes to display wall signs; and ■ Require electronic signs to be equipped with an automatic dimming capability At the public hearing Ms. Barlow stated that the following items were brought up as requests to either modify the proposed amendments or proposed additional changes to the sign regulations as follows: • Allow off-premise signs • Allow free standing signs on all streets not just arterials • Allow additional free standing signs for multi-business complexes • Require a 250' minimum spacing for free-standing signs • Only require stamped engineered drawings for signs over 30' tall or 100 sf Ms. Barlow stated she had check with the City's Acting Building Official stated the requirement for drawings for signs over seven feet appears to have been an administrative determination by a previous Building Official (Tom Sholtens), however he was still looking for a actual building code reference. Mr. Powell stated (in his email) he will be discussing this issue with the regional Building Officials to see if they are aware of the requirement. Ms. Barlow stated she has also received a request for multi-business complexes to be able to have one sign for 250 ft of frontage and one for every additional 200 ft of frontage or fraction thereof. Ms. Barlow explained staff have proposed a new clause for off-premise directional signs related to the request pertaining to testimony received at the previous meeting. Staff is proposing that the City allow the limited placement of off-premises directional signs by co- locating on an existing conforming monument sign, freestanding sign, or building sign. 02-09-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7 These off-premise signs would only be allowed for uses located in commercial, office or mixed use zones, text would be limited to business name, logo and directional information. Ms Barlow stated that the request for additional signage for multi-business complexes was looked at however she explained the current additional allowances for multi-business and stated that at this time staff felt no change was needed. Ms Barlow then addressed the request to change the requirement for freestanding signs from being on an arterial to being on a street. Ms. Barlow discussed the link to free standing signs to from arterials to streets. She stated that in the memo provided, it explained the considerations were size and height to get the message across, what rypes of signs were compatible with the surrounding uses. Ms. Barlow stated cities use zoning for to make transitions in uses. She pointed out if the word arterial is removed and changed to street, then pole signs would be abutting to residential districts. It is staff's suggestion to leave the arterial frontage, this will help protect the residential uses. However, Ms. Barlow said that the code could be modified to say one per street front in commercial and industrial zoned but one per arterial frontage in office and mixed use zones. Based on the previous meeting's input and Commission questions staff currently recommends the following changes to Chapter. 22.110 to: o Allow on premise A-frame signs for business o Allow A-frame signs for real estate purposes o Modify the requirements for temporary signs o Increase the number of freestanding signs allowed for businesses on large lots fronting arterials o Allow monument signs for all institutional and commercial uses along any street frontage o Allow multi-family complexes to display wall signs; and o Require electronic signs to be equipped with an automatic dimming capability Steve Wineinger, ProSign 10021 E Knox: Mr. Wineinger stated he would like to address each of the following items: Off-premise signs — Mr. Wineinger stated he would like to propose making the signs 15 sf instead of 6 s£ Mr. Wineinger stated that if the sign must piggy back an existing sign, then it should be allowed to match what is already there. He also said if there is not an existing sign to piggy back onto, then the business must build a monument sign. He shared the issue with most monument signs in order to be able to be seen in all weather, must stand a with a height of two and one half to three feet off ground. He stated that this would be a four foot by four foot square, no less. Aesthetically a monument sign better, if there is no sign existing to attach the directional sign ta Mr. Wineinger said that the provision to remove the sign if the business left should not be included, because if a new business were to relocate there they would need the sign. Mr. Wineinger said that he felt it would be to excessive to have to do, the new sign would have bottom billing, and it would require dismantling the whole structure in order to remove the part that was added. He also felt it 02-09-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 added enforcement issues. Mr. Wineinger said he thought that businesses with an interior lot or lots that fronted two streets would require Mr. Wineinger said that he would like to address spacing of freestanding signs. Mr. Wineinger stated he would like to propose one freestanding sign for every 250 feet and one freestanding sign for each additional 200 feet or fraction thereafter. Mr. Wineinger stated several instances where he felt that additional freestanding signs would be more applicable to the properties based on this new footage standard he is suggesting, HiCo, Opportunity Plaza, OZ Fitness. Mr. Wineinger stated he was not proposing a spacing requirement between the signs, which he stated could have unintended consequences. Mr. Wineinger said he wanted to proposed that freestanding signs be allowed not just on arterials but also on streets. He used the Franz Bakery thrift store being on a street and not being able to get a freestanding sign in order to be seen. Mr. Wineinger also mentioned the issue of fronting on two streets. Mr. Wineinger said he felt business should be allowed to have a freestanding sign on a street in a residential area. He said if the business has a restrictive zone across the street make it restrictive to only allow monument in that case. Commissioners asked what is the science for the size of sign? Mr Wineinger stated that at 30-35 mph a sign which has letters that would be readable need to be approximately would be seven inches high. If it was a reader board signs the letters need to be about eight inches tall, most enter signs are five to six inches. Shannon Wertman. 2304 N Dollar Rd: Ms. Wertman stated she would just like to thank the Commission for listening to and considering the needs of our business. David Hazzard, 13218 E lOth: Mr. Hazzard stated he felt that a very restrictive sign ordinance is what lead to so many empty buildings. Thought process have to control signs, mess up the beauty of the ciry. Mr. Hazzard said he felt businesses should be allowed to have all the signs they want as long as they are not in the street, on the sidewalk, and do not pose a safety hazard. Mr. Hazzard said would it be so bad if there were signs all over the place, he it would mean all the buildings would have businesses in them. Mr Hazzard stated he felt that we should get the business first, be successful first. Seeing no one else that wished to testify, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to recommend approval of CTA-06-11, amendments to Title 22.110 to the City Council. The following is discussion of the amendment. Commissioner Stoy complemented staff on the excellent job in preparing and explaining the amendments. Commissioners noted that an A-frame was allowed to be nine square feet but a directional sign was limited to six square feet. Commissioners felt maybe 12 square feet for a directional sign might be more appropriate. They discussed A-frame signs being within 12 feet of the business entrance. Stating there would only be four or five businesses which would benefit with the sign at this location. Commissioners discussed allowing A- frame signs behind the sidewalk A consideration would be the sidewalk is backed by swales, how would the signs be seen. Suggestion was that they could sit on the edge of the swale, behind the landscaping strip but not in parking stall. 02-09-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7 Commissioner Neill stated he appreciated the proposed additional language for the off- premise signs but he had read the information from Mr. Wineinger and would like to take that into account as well. Commissioner Sands stated she had listened to the recording of the previous meeting and had and issue with changing requirement for freestanding signs from arterials to streets. She stated she would not want signs backing up to where she lived. Commissioner said maybe they should be addressed on a case by case basis, like Franz Bakery. Commissioner Bates said the Commissioners must weigh among themselves what everyone has to say, but that the relaxation of sign codes is important. He felt that public input to add more signs was good, however the problem with more signs is where does clutter stop? Mr Bates said he would like to relax the regulations however many temporary signs had been up for long time and showed wear. A 30-60 day temporary permit would allow business tell us what they want. It is our responsibility to represent citizens as well as businesses. Mr. Bates said that businesses want to run their business the way they see fit, spend the money they want ta Within reason, we must try and balance the two issues. Commissioner Hall stated he had an issue with the requirement that a business had to provide proof of the need for the directional sign. His suggestion was assure no one was located on an arterial. Commissioners asked if adding to an existing sign, would staff allow the existing sign to grow. Yes, but not beyond the sign allowance. Discussion involved the difficulty of removing a sign after business close. It would be easy to remove the text only, and it was believed there is a provision in the code now which requires the business to turn the sign around. Commissioners did mention the location of business is a business choice, choosing not to pay higher rent on a site off an arterial is part of that choice. Businesses off an arterial are allowed signage,just like any other business, but the regulations do not allow another sign just because the business chooses not to pay a premium rent. The Commissioners felt if there was a sign available to co-located on, the additional sign should be proportional to the existing structure. Commissioners again discussed that an A-frame sign is not reasonable at located at only 12 feet from the business entrance, it should not block the sidewalk and should allow name and logo. Commission took a break at 7:32, they returned at 7:41 The Commission agreed that they would like to amend the proposed amendment to the sign code. They agreed to discuss each subject and make a determination if they would like to change each issue or leave it as staff has proposed. • Wall signs for Multi-family complexes, leave as is, no change • Free standing signs based on lot frontage, one per every 500 ft. of frontage and every fraction of, is the staff recommendation. —Commissioners agreed to modify it to one freestanding sign for every 300 feet of frontage and fraction thereof in a commercial and industrial zones per street frontage and one freestanding sign for each 500 feet and fraction thereof in Mixed Use and Office zones per arterial frontage. - • Monument signs on street frontages —this is agreed as presented. 02-09-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 • Temporary signs, Can have one at any time wanted, as long as maintained. Mr Bates has an issue with temporary signs for extra events and then must be removed at the end of the sale, he feels this needs to go away. Commissioner Neill agreed, stating it is on a business owners property they should get to put up whatever they want to. Commissioner Neill handed out written proposed language for the temporary signs. There was discussion of the proposed language. Commissioner Higgins confirmed the sign regulations are only enforced by complaints. Discussion turned to changing the size of the square footage of the signs. At first commissioners wanted to increase the number of signs and increase the square footage. Talk about the change of the size of the signs to make them more viable, change requested is to 32 square feet. Commissioners talked about the need to eliminate the permit for temp signs, however they also felt the control and enforcement would be more difficult without it. Should a special permit be allowed more than two extra times a year, special events, holidays, but they worked out that this would be adequate when combined with the free sign they can have all the time. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to extend the meeting to 9:30. Motion is seconded and vote is seven in favor, zero against. Motion passes. • A-fame signs —Commissioner expressed a concern to not block a clearview triangle but it was already in the proposed language. Commissioners wanted to delete the first sentence. Remove the language that says signs may be located no further than 12 feet from the entrance to the business. • Real estate signs —fine to go as written • Electronic signs — dimming capability. Must have one- required. This is a smart requirement. • Newly proposed off-premise directional signage — After discussion Commissioners reviewed the language, Commissioners would like the language added to the current proposed amendment with the following changes add a provision that if the business is on more than one arterial could have more than one directional sign. Removed the requirement to have to prove the need to have to have the sign. Increase the square footage to 15 square feet. Commissioner Higgins made a motion to amendment the language of the motion to reflect the following changes; l. Change the freestanding sign requirement to allow one freestanding sign for every 300 feet and one for every fraction thereof in commercial and industrial zones per- street frontage and one sign for each 500 feet and one for every fraction thereof in mixed use and office zones per arterial frontage. 2. Increase the temporary sign square footage to 32 sf, 3. Remove the requirement that A-fame signs be restricted it to within 12 feet of the business entrance. 4. Add the proposed language to allow off-premise signs as was presented by staff removing the need to prove the necessiry for the sign and change the size to 15 sf. 02-09-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 Vote on the amendment was 7-0. The Chairman Bates called for the vote on the amended motion. Vote was 7-0. B. New Business: Study Session Study Session Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments: At this time Staff and Commissioners discussed either extending the meeting to have a study session before the already noticed public hearing or waiting until before the public hearing or having a special meeting in the next week After discussion it was determined it was too late in the evening to have a study session on this evening, there is too much to cover on the night of the public hearing, and that six of the seven Commissioners could meet on Thursday February 16, 2012. A meeting for February 16, 2012 will be set for that time. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER � There was nothing for the good of the order. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: � � Deanna Griffith, Secretary Bill Bates, Chairperson �. 02-09-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7 Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 16, 2012 L CALL TO ORDER Chairman Bates 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, Higgins, Sands, and Stoy were present. Commissioner Neill was absent. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to excuse Commissioner Neill from the meeting. Staff attending the meeting:, Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager; Mike Basinger, Senior Planner; Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner; Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Stoy made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. New Business: Study Session 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments Study Session Senior Planner Mike Basinger made a presentation to the Commissioners regarding the Comprehensive Plan, why it is needed, the purpose of the annual amendments, and how the amendments are processed. Mr. Basinger stated that there were seven privately initiated site specific map amendments, and four chapter text amendments. Mr. Basinger reminded the Commissioners that the determination for them would be if the request is appropriate in this area, not what could be proposed to be built there. Mr. Basinger shared that Asst. Planner Christina Janssen would be presenting four of the seven site specific map amendments; Mr. Basinger will be presenting the other three site specific map amendments and the four text amendments. Ms Janssen started with the site specific map amendments which are have been assigned to her: CPA-01-12 — Located at 12510/12512 E Olive. Request to change from Low Density Residential to Medium Densiry Residential. Commissioners asked about setbacks, other dwelling units in the area. CPA-02-12 — Located at 16913 E Mission. Request to change from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Center. This parcel is located just north of Indiana extension. 02-16-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 3 The parcel has a single family residence and a greenhouse operation on it currently. Commissioners asked as to what was on the east, which is a single family residence. CPA-04-12 — Located at 805 N Park Rd. Request to change from low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. This is located off of Park and Broadway. The north and south east corners are both already zoned neighborhood commercial. CPA-06-12 — Located at 1114 N Vercler. Request to change from Low Density Residential to Office. This is located near the hospital and against another parcel which is also zoned Office. After Ms. Janssen completed her presentation and Mr. Basinger began his presentation of the amendments assigned to him. CPA-03-12 — Located at 15922/16002 E Broadway. Request to change from Office to Community Commercial. The applicant is asking for this change in order for it to be more marketable. Sr. Planner Basinger said the area is changing and has been for years. Planning manager Kuhta added small parcels are difficult to develop along the edge of large commercial developments. Commissioners asked for the difference between community commercial and regional commerciaL It was explained that it would be size and draw of the stores. Regional would be big parcels big box stores, like Walmart and Kohls, but it is not necessarily a zone that one would want to have creep it into the residential areas, some of the uses allowed in the regional commercial that would be a concern to allow right next to residential zones. CPA-05-12 — Located at 601 N Conklin. Request to change from medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. This is a large parcel located farther down Broadway. Utilities are available to the site. Multi-family-2 is common in large open spaces. Commissioners asked about families along Moore. The property is surrounded on sides by low family residentiaL It is an established neighborhood, however the area around it has been changing for years. It is difficult to find large parcels like this near services, however the neighborhood will probably stay. CPA-07-12 — Located at 15712 E Broadway. Request to change from Office to Community Commercial. Several owners came together to submit a request to change all of these parcels to match the surrounding transitional area. Mr. Basinger stated there is a church on one parcel and they plan to continue with the property just the way that it is, however they want to change the designation to make the property more marketable. CPA-08-12 — Text amendment to Chapter 2, Land Use, and Staff have updated population estimates, updated figure 2.1 by land use designation, revised potential annexation area language, updated Map 2.1 to reflect the site-specific map requests if approved. Commissioners asked if parks level of service was behind, Mr. Basinger stated yes, however the population figures had been adjusted based on the 2010 census. There was a discussion regarding marketable land. CPA-09-12 — Text amendments to Chapter 3, Transportation. Staff have deleted all references to non-motorized transportation and referenced back to the newly adopted Chapter 11 Bike and Pedestrian Element of the Comprehensive Plan and have removed the non-motorized goals and policies as well and referenced them to Chapter 11 as well. Map 3.1 Arterial Street Plan has been updated. Map 32 the Pedestrian Map has been 02-16-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 deleted and all the bike and pedestrian maps are now located in Chapter 11, and the rest of the maps have been renumbered. CPA-10-12 — Text amendments to Chapter 4, Capital Facilities updated the 6-year TIP, updated the population projections, facility and service data. Map 4.5 has been update to reflect the 6-year sewer projects. CPA-11-12 —Text amendments to Chapter 7, Economic Development, updated the entire chapter with employment status, wages, most of the statistics have been updated to reflect more current information. Map 7.1 has been updated to reflect current development activity, updated the goals and policies to reflect the current times. Commissioner Carroll stated he noticed the reference made on page 19 of 24 on the 9th line should say Spokane region or Spokane Valley, he felt that as it was currently written it only reflected a reference to the Ciry of Spokane. VL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Secretary Bill Bates, Chairperson � 02-16-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Spokane Valley Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. February 23, 2012 L CALL TO ORDER Chair called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance IIL ROLL CALL Commissioners Bates, Carroll, �a��ea 6:os� Hall, Higgins, Neill, Sands, and Stoy were present. Staff attending the meeting: Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager; Milce Basinger, Senior Planner; Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner, Kelly Konkright, Deputy City Attorney; Henry Allen Development Engineer; Dean Grafos, Councilmember; Arne Woodard, Councilmember; Cari Hinshaw, Office Assistant; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Sands made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. `� VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Higgins requested to make a point of clarification. Mr. Higgins stated that at the Feb. 09 meeting he had made a comment and which he would like to clarify. Mr. Higgins stated that at the end of the meeting in the discourse of discussing when to have, he made a statement that he felt the land use part of the amendments was a done deal. He said he did not mean that his mind was made up, he meant that he was personally ready to hear public testimony. Mr. Higgins wanted the public to know he was personally ready to hear the public testimony regarding each subject. He said his mind was open and he was interested in what folks had to say. Commissioner Hall stated he had attended the joint City Council meeting and appreciated the exchange. Commissioner Bates stated he also attended the joint meeting. VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS No administrative report. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS 02-23-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 Planning Manager Scott Kuhta said after approving the proposed amendments to Chapter 22.110, sign regulations at the Feb. 9 meeting, he was presenting the findings of the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Stoy mad a motion to approve the Planning Commission findings and recommendation and forward them to the City Council. Vote on this motion was 7 in favor, 0 against. B. New Business: Public Hearing, 2012 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments Senior Planner Mike Basinger made a presentation to the Commissioners regarding the Comprehensive Plan, why it is needed, the purpose of the annual amendments, and how the amendments are processed. Mr. Basinger stated that there were seven privately initiated site specific map amendments, and four chapter text amendments. Mr. Basinger reminded the Commissioners that the determination for them would be if the request is appropriate in this area, not what could be proposed to be built there. Mr. Basinger shared that Asst. Planner Christina Janssen would be presenting four of the seven site specific map amendments, Mr. Basinger will be presenting the other three site specific map amendments and the four text amendments. Ms Janssen started with the site specific map amendments which are have been assigned to her: CPA-Ol-12 — Located at 12510/12512 E Olive. Request to change from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. This is located east of Pines and south of Broadway Ave. Ms Janssen stated she had received three comment letters which had been provided to the Commissioners. CPA-02-12 — Located at 16913 E Mission. Request to change from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use Center. This parcel is located just north of Indiana extension. The parcel has a single family residence and a greenhouse operation on it currently. Ms Janssen stated she had received one comment letter, which had been provided to the Commissioners. CPA-04-12 — Located at 805 N Park Rd. Request to change from low Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. This is located off of Park and Broadway. The north and south east corners are both already zoned neighborhood commercial. CPA-06-12— Located at 1114 N Vercler. Request to change from Low Density Residential to Office. This is located near the hospital and against another parcel which is also zoned Office/Garden Office. After Ms. Janssen completed her presentation and Mr. Basinger began his presentation of the amendments assigned to him. CPA-03-12 — Located at 15922/16002 E Broadway. Request to change from Office to Community Commercial. These three parcels are located on Broadway east of Sullivan, across from Walmart. CPA-OS-12 — Located at 601 N Conklin. Request to change from medium Density Residential to High Density Residential. This is a large parcel located farther down Broadway, next to CPA-03-12 and this parcel has access onto Conklin as well. 02-23-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 CPA-07-12 — Located at 15712 E Broadway. Request to change from Office to Communiry Commercial. This is several parcels which also include a church. CPA-08-12 — Text amendment to Chapter 2, Land Use, Staff has updated population estimates, updated figure 2.1 by land use designation, revised potential annexation area language, updated Map 2.1 to reflect the site-specific map requests if approved. Commissioners asked if parks level of service was behind, Mr. Basinger stated yes, however the population figures had been adjusted based on the 2010 census. There was a discussion regarding marketable land. CPA-09-12 — Text amendments to Chapter 3, Transportation, Staff has deleted all references to non-motorized transportation and referenced back to the newly adopted Chapter 11 Bike and Pedestrian Element of the Comprehensive Plan and have removed the non-motorized goals and policies as well and referenced them to Chapter 11 as well. Map 3.1 Arterial Street Plan has been updated. Map 32 the Pedestrian Map has been deleted and all the bike and pedestrian maps are now located in Chapter 11, and the rest of the maps have been renumbered. CPA-10-12 — Text amendments to Chapter 4, Capital Facilities updated the 6-year TIP, updated the population projections, facility and service data. Map 4.5 has been update to reflect the 6-year sewerprojects. CPA-11-12 — Text amendments to Chapter 7, Economic Development, updated the entire chapter with employment status, wages, most of the statistics have been updated to reflect more current information. Map 7.1 has been updated to reflect current development activiry, updated the goals and policies to reflect the current times. Mr. Basinger noted that he had made the correction on page 19 to reflect a regional XXXXXXXXX. Chairman Bates opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Scott Creighton, 815 S Marigold: Mr. Creighton stated he was the owner of the property, he stated this property is on the cusp between the zoning. Mr. Creighton said he would like this change in order to have a better opportunity for the property. Monty Lewis, 11006 E Sprague: Mr. Lewis stated he was the property owner and wanted it to become a conforming use. Mary Orcutt, 2009 N Bell street: Ms. Orcutt stated she lived not far from the property located at CPA-02-12 and she walked the trail and surrounding area and felt it should remain sing family housing. Grant Person, 11219 E Sundown Dr. Mr. Person stated he had reviewed the staff report he said had owned the property for years. He said vacancies exceed 25%, rental rates are down, the uses in office zone are more restrictive, he felt there is more of a need for retail and commercial more than the office uses and that the property was better suited for retail. Tim Severns, 611 N Moore Rd: Mr. Severns had asked a question from the back of the room and the Chairman asked him to step to the podium, and he asked how many units someone thought could go on the property. Ibrahim Farraj, 923 N Park Rd: Mr. Farraj stated that the property was an empty lot, he bought it and he wanted to put to good use for the neighborhood. 02-23-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 Dwight Hume, 9101 N Mt. View Lane: Mr. Hume stated he was representing the applicant for this map change. He stated he had read the staff report which recommended approval. Mr. Hume stated the issue is not the zoning, land map designation is high density residential. He said one of the parcels fronts on to Broadway and one on Conklin, which is across from regional commerciaL Mr. Hume stated that the properties south of Broadway were changing and along with the regional commercial was a driving force of change. High density residential was a transition designation from regional commerciaL Mr. Hume stated that this property was shovel ready. He also said that the Growth Management Act urges the City to accommodate a certain number of people, this site can assist in accommodating that many people. Commissioner Carroll stated earlier one of the requests was to change parcel adjacent parcels on Broadway to Office. Mr. Carroll asked Mr. Hume if he had considered changing parcels on Conklin to another transition zone. Mr. Hume's response was, "no I did not and did not on purpose." Gregory Arger, 300 N Mullan: Mr. Arger stated he was the property owner. Mr. Arger said he viewed the change to better implement the need for better improved luxury type apartments, to bring services to the area. Many projects developed today have parks, playgrounds and other amenities in order to compete and to transform the area. commissioner neill, apartments over off—have trails and parks and playgrounds to a Lindsay Skeen, 2602 N Sullivan Rd.: Ms Skeen stated she worked for and as reading a statement on behalf of Dennis Crapo. The statement said Mr. Crapo had entered into a developers agreement during a Comprehensive Plan amendment he applied for. It also stated that he felt CPA-OS-12 was very similar to his and he feels this amendment should be held to the requirements of his development agreement. Stan Rhodes, 16422 E Valleyway; Mr Rhodes stated within seven miles of the subject property there are properties that have hundreds of rental units, from low income restricted, to townhouses, they have standing units which are vacant. This information is relevant since there is such an excess, it shows no more apartments are needed or wanted Katharine Potter, 622 N Moore Rd: Ms. Potter stated she had sent in note previously, which had signatures attached to it. She currently has collected 90 signatures from neighbors. Ms. Potter stated she was not opposed to the development of the property she was opposed to increasing the density. Ms. Potter stated she found it interesting the owner talk about children running around, she is a member of the PTA at Progress Elementary and this school is full. She shared that the school district considers crossing Sullivan as a danger, which requires busing. Increasing the population would add costs to the school district more money. She said the Greenacres middle school is already busing students to other schools because it is over capaciry. Ms. Potter said she felt the property should remain medium density residential, the owners can make all the money they need from it that way. Tom Felton, 409 N Sonora: Mr. Felton stated he was a retired Idaho state policeman. Mr. Felton Mr. Felton said the traffic on Valleyway has increased 50% since the three large stores have gone in. He said the average speed is 35-40 mph, on a street which the speed limit is 25 mph. Mr. Felton said he did not want the cul-de-sac turned into a through street. Mr. Felton shared he felt the hospice plan was a good idea, a high rise is not a good idea. 02-23-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Jeffery Potter, 622 N Moore Rd; Mr. Potter started with a thank you for allowing the neighbors to speak Mr. Potter stated he was opposed to the plan. He said he had called the police dept. to ask what happens to crime rates when high densiry goes into an area. Mr Potter shared he was concerned about traffic, worried about over populated schools. Mr. Potter stated he was insulted by reference to his neighborhood. He said he do not want apartments up against his yard. Mr. Potter said he would love to have more neighbors, but not apartments. Del Liljegren 418 N Moore Rd; Mr. Liljegren said he has lived in the area for 25 years, he moved to the valley because of the space, and is very concerned about the proposed change. Mr. Liljegren said he had submitted a letter previously regarding issues with traffic, school population and other issues regarding the change from medium to high density. Mr. Liljegren said he felt that medium density was a transition between the areas.. Joseph Wetzler 424 N Moore: Mr. Wetzler said he enjoyed his residence. He said there are several elderly living on Valleyway he was concerned about, if the properry is changed to high density residential. He shared he is worried about the traffic going out and in and out and in. Mr. Wetzler said there are bicycles going down the street which you really have to watch for. Mr. Wetzler said that there are bike routes, but no one uses them, bikes are always going the wrong way. He said watches for the elderly going by his home. Vicki Endicott. 613 N Conklin: Ms. Endicott said that the development would be on two sides of her. She said she is not opposed to single family homes however she said she did not like the insinuation the neighbors don't need a buffer zone. Ms. Endicott said she does not want apartments. Robert Endicott, 613 N Conklin: Mr. Endicott stated his property next to the proposal. He also said he had seen the drawings of what they want to put behind our property. On one side they said they were putting a day care. Mr. Endicott said that the traffic for 260 units would mean at least 520 people moving in. He stated he did not want to live in a fish bowl. He shared he liked living with the wide open spaces. Mr. Endicott stated there are enough empty apartments. There are plenty on Conklin and Sprague. Single homes is fine, he said the area can remain that way. Mr. Endicott said he took offense to the statement that the property owners did not feel the need for a buffer zone... Jason Camp 618 N Conklin Rd: Mr. Camp said he was 3rd generation living on the property, he had history of the area and nature traffic increase and he is concerned about the increase in traffic since the opening of the larger stores, with this increase it will make the traffic that much worse and unsafe for his children to play in neighborhood. Jan Wood, 503 N Conklin Rd: Ms. Wood said she lived two houses south of the proposed development. She stated that traffic since stores have been built has increased, people going up to 50 mph. She said there is a group home on Broadway, the only place for the residence to walk is on Valleyway, there are children walking, riding bikes, foot traffic on Conklin, it is all dangerous, and it will get worse with apartments on the property. Cheryl McManamon, 504 N Conklin Rd.: Ms. McManamon said this was the best neighborhood she has lived in, she knows all her neighbors. Ms. McManamon said she has a neighbor in a wheel chair which was hit at mission and Sullivan. She shared the traffic has increased, but not it is not being policed enough. She said she feels the streets have not 02-23-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 updated for the increase in traffic. She shared that since the bigger stores ha�e come, semi- trucks are coming up Conklin instead of using Sullivan so they don't have to make the corner. (need to address truck traffic) She also shared she felt there are too many apartments now. Brian Groff, 16316 E Valleyway: Mr. Groff stated that traffic is terrible on Conklin, he has a seven year old son and he will not let him ride his bike because it isn't safe. He shared he is afraid the crime rate go up and the property values will go down. Mr. Groff stated that the other day a deer come out of that field with a little baby. He did acknowledge development can't be stopped but he would rather not have a bunch of apartments. Alyssa Camp, 608 N Conklin Rd: Miss Camp said she really didn't want this development to go in because she couldn't even ride her bike. Kathy Groff, 16316 E Valleyway: Ms. Groff said she recognized the need for progress and development, she loved the fact she lives within five minutes of stores but still have a little piece of property and neighbors. Ms. Groff said she agreed with everything everyone else had said. She shared that she knew all of her neighbors and she could list the neighbors half way down the street, and they are all friendly and wonderfuL Ms. Groff said she would like to keep our neighbor hood as it is now. Shawnee Stewart, 503 N Sonora Lane: Ms. Stewart said she has raised three boys in this neighborhood, one in a wheelchair. She said she also has three neighbors in wheelchairs. Ms. Stewart said people speed down her street regardless of dead end sign. She stated the neighbors had to watch for the children before, then the development starts bringing in the stores, the City made it worse when they detoured traffic through the area, and then add in 500 more people, she did not want to see communities where the children would not be able to go out. She acknowledged she was not opposed to single family houses, it would be great to have new neighbors but she is worried about having that many. She said she was distressed over the proposal. The Commission took a break at 7:32 p.m. They returned at 7:46 p.m. Dwight Hume, 9101 N Mt. View Lane: Mr. Hume stated he was representing the property owner Dean Riddle. Mr. Hume said this was vacant property. Mr. Hume shared that the property to the north had been sold to Cancer Northwest. He also said most of the vacant property around the specific area belongs to hospitaL Mr. Hume pointed out the staff report supports it. He said the property is proposed to be used in the same manner surrounding the area. He shared that the property to the south is zoned residential. Levi Johnson, 12815 E Desmet: Mr. Johnson said he lived two houses to the east of the proposal and he is in favor of the proposal however he wanted to make sure there would not be real traffic on Virginia, is not really a street. Mr. Johnson said travelers use it as a high speed shortcut. He would ask that the Commission approve the request with reservation so there would be no access onto Virginia or Desmet, increase in traffic was his concern. Commissioner Hall asked staff if Virginia was a dedicated right-of-way. Staff confirmed it was half of a dedicated right-of-way. Larry Click, 1119 N Vercler: Mr. Click said his main concern traffic along Vercler, he felt it is a freeway. He said if the Commission approved this proposal then the traffic will 02-23-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 increase. He stated Boone is already an active street. He expressed his concern for his grandchildren's. He also said he did not want to look out the window and see an office building. Mr. Click said everything surrounding us is single family homes, except for the apartments on Broadway. He hopes it won't change. Kristin Payne 617 N Moore Rd: Ms. Payne stated she was a property owner and her property looks out over CPA-07-12. She shared she has spent time and resources updating her property and contributing to the neighborhood. She shared that her children enjoy their large backyard, the privacy, peaceful street. Ms Payne stated she was concerned that loss of privacy, light pollution, safety for children if this amendment were approved. If office zone stays, then would allow for more peace during off hours, less light pollution. Ms Payne said she would like the commission to consider what they would do for their own families. Tim Severns, 611 N Moore: Mr. Severns said he had concerns with the commercial zoning. He said that during good parts of the day, a person can't get west to Sullivan Rd. Traffic at certain times of the year it is difficult to get around the area at all and the traffic comes down Moore Rd. This would ruin the neighborhood. He said he felt a full commercial designation would be a detriment to the neighborhood, Kelly Johnson, 1811 S Madison: Ms. Johnston she was a commercial realtor who was representing the owner. She shared she was the one who suggested the change. She explained that they have been having trouble selling the property with the Office designation on it, anyone who wanted to buy the properry found it was too limited in its allowed uses under this zoning. Katharine Potter, 622 N Moore: Ms. Potter stated she was opposed to this change. She explained she was looking at these things (CPA-03,05,07-12) like a package deal. She said she felt they were basically choking the neighborhood. She asked the Commission what would they do if it was their neighborhood. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, the Chairman closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. The Commission discussed and agreed to address each amendment as individual motions. Commissioner Neill made a made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council CPA-Ol-12. Commissioners noted staff had received three comments in opposition to the proposal. Commissioner Carroll noted it was a natural extension of the zoning. Vote is 7 in favor, 0 against. Commissioner Carroll made a motion to recommend approval of CPA-02-12 to the City Council. Commissioners noted staff had received a comment about a good the property owner being a good neighbor. Vote is 7 in favor, 0 against. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of CPA-03- 12. Commissioner Hall asked about a comment Mr. Hume had made about a regarding a subarea plan in this area. Sr. Planner Basinger explained the process required in order to try and develop a subarea plan. (council would need to feel the need, make the request for staff to investigate, staff to research and write the plan, public input, process through the Planning Commission and Council in a very shorten version) Commissioners wondered if it was requested could it happen this year, the likely hood would be not. Commissioners 02-23-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 said this amendment would allow a bit of buffering. Commissioner Sands was concerned for the neighborhood although she could see the area is changing in spite of the residences. She too expressed concern over the amount of traffic in the area. Commissioner Bates stated he felt that the business community has moved east and is the hub of retail area at this time. Vote on the motion is 7in favor, 0 against. Commissioner Sands made a motion to recommend approval of CPA-04-12 to the City Council for approval. Commissioners agreed the neighborhood commercial proposed on this properry was a good use of the properry. Vote is 7 in favor and 0 against. Commissioner Neill made a motion to recommend approval of CPA-OS-12 to the Ciry Council. Commissioner Sands said she drove through the neighborhood and feels there are other transitions zones that they could have chosen. She said the neighborhood could have has had turnover and it will be the way it is for a while. However, she did not thing that high density residential was the highest and best use for this property. Commissioner Bates stated he felt this was a difficult situation. He too drove the area, and there are areas for improvement. He said it is a large parcel, however he was unaware of the school situation and it had an impact on him that the school district was busing kids now, there will always be the traffic problem, and he felt this is a tough one. Mr. Bates said there are other apartments in the area. Commissioner Neill said he felt this is a difficult decision, and that this was a wonderful area for progression. Commissioner Neill recounted a development near where he lives, it has not made the changes he thought it would. He expressed his concern about the schools. Commissioner Higgins stated that vacant property is a vacuum, which attracts lots of bad things. He also drove the property and walked on the property. He expressed he felt the pain but progress. Commissioner Stoy shared he had driven around the neighborhood, and it is 10 acres of undeveloped ground. He wondered what would make best use? Commissioner Stoy said he would rely on staff to make the recommendation. Commissioner Carroll said he felt this project needs more buffering, for the neighborhood, and made reference to the Crapo letter. Commissioner Sands recounted some of the steps for Mr. Crapo to come to being in the developer agreement with the city for his development on 4th Avenue. Planning Manager Kuhta discussed with the Commission what options they had at the moment, since they appeared to conflicted and stalled on this amendment. He said he they could go ahead approve it and send it forward to council, approve it and recommend a developer agreement, deny and recommend the need to have a developer agreement, or move this to a time certain for more consideration. Commissioner Higgins made a motion to continue the motion on CPA-OS-12 to March 8 2012. The vote was 7 in favor and 0 against. At 8:56 Commissioner Carroll made a motion to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. The vote was 7 in favor 0 against. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to present CPA-06-12 to the Ciry Council. Commissioner Carroll asked about Virginia if the half of a dedicated right-of-way would become a road. Staff responded they did not know if in the future if development would require it to be developed into a road. At that time Deputy Ciry Attorney Konkright pointed out that the motion was only to present the amendment to Ciry Council not to recommend approval. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to amended this original motion 02-23-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 to read recommend approval. Vote on the amendment is 7 in favor, 0 against. Vote on the amended motion is 7 in favor, 0 against. Commissioner Carroll made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of CPA- 07-12. He stated he felt this is a natural change. Everyone expressed the same comment. The vote on the motion is 7in favor, 0 against. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of CPA-08- 12. Commissioner Higgins stated he would support the motion as made however, he read into the record a request for the land use chapter, specifically the city center information be added to the docket for next year. Staff stated they would talce his request to the Director who would discuss it with the City Manager where they would talk about how to proceed with the request Vote on the motion is 7 in favor, 0 against.. Commissioner Stoy made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of CPA-09- 12. To update the bike and pedestrian information. Vote on the motion is 7 in favor and 0 against. Commissioner Neill made a motion to recommend approval of CPA-10-12 to the City Council. The vote on the motion is 7in favor and 0 against. Commissioner Carroll made a motion to recommend approval of CPA-11-12 to the City CounciL The vote on the motion is 7 in favor, 0 against. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Stoy gave thanks to the audience for being here. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: ,�� Deanna Griffith, Secretary Bill Bates, Chairperson 02-23-12 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9