STAFF REPORT NO. 162-14 - City of Vancouver Home

#1
STAFF REPORT NO. 162-14
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Eric Holmes, City Manager
DATE:
12/01/2014
12/08/2014
Subject: 2014 Comprehensive Plan Map changes – Glad Tidings/Lifepointe Church
Key Points:
 The Glad Tidings Map Change request is request as part of the annual review of the
Comprehensive Plan.
 The proposal changes the zoning designation of the subject site from Commercial/MX to
Commercial/CC and Urban High Density Residential R-30.
 No development on the site is proposed at this time.
 The Planning Commission voted to recommend the approval of the zone change subject to
enhanced buffering on the northern property line.
Objectives: To review and make final determinations on proposed Comprehensive Plan and
zoning change submitted as part of the 2014 Annual Review process
Proposal and process to date: The proposal is to change designations on a 19.4-acre site
occupied by the Lifepointe (formerly Glad Tidings) Church from Commercial/MX to
Commercial/CC and Urban High Density Residential R-30. The CC zoning is proposed on 11.1
acres of the generally western portions of the site, and R-30 zoning is proposed on 8.3 acres of
the eastern portions (Exhibit A page 7). No development is proposed at this time. The applicant
indicates the church intends to remain in the center of the property for the foreseeable future.
The site is located at the northwest corner of 192nd Avenue and 3rd Street. Surrounding
properties are the Regency Place large lot subdivision located in unincorporated Clark County to
north across NE 5th St; Union High School to the east; the Section 30 gravel pit area planned for
future commercial and employment development to the west across 192nd Avenue; and a Costco
development and gas station across 3rd Street to the south.
In the short- to mid-term, the proposed CC and R-30 zoning is more likely to result in
development than the existing MX zoning, which is typically more challenging to develop and
finance. Long-term development comparisons are difficult as the MX zone allows projects to
vary from as much as 80% residential to 80% non-residential. The applicant’s traffic analysis
projects potential build-out of 392 residential units and 119,680 square feet of commercial
development under the existing MX zone vs 244 residential units and 141,787 square feet of
commercial development under the proposed CC and R-30 zones, resulting in 18% fewer vehicle
trips if the property is rezoned. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the zone change at an October 14, 2014,
public hearing, subject to enhanced buffering on the northern property line. The buffer has been
the subject of follow-up negotiations but there has been no agreement between the applicant and
Regency Place Homeowners Association. (Exhibits C and E), summarized as follows:
Staff Report
November 10 and 17, 2014
Page 2 of 2
Glad Tidings northern property line buffer options Current condition Planning Commission recommendation,
agreed to by applicant Regence Place HOA follow‐up Applicant follow‐up Applicable Vancouver Code Requirements 4‐5 high berm with trees
20‐foot wide buffer with a berm (preferably existing berm ) and 6 foot high vegetative screen, fence, or wall (L3) 15‐foot wide buffer and with 8 foot masonry wall 3‐foot buffer and 4‐8 foot masonry wall
MX: 10‐foot wide buffer where separated by street, with 3 foot vegetative screen or fence (L2) CC: Same as MX R‐30: Same as MX where separated by street The current proposal for 11.1 acres of CC lands and 8.3 acres of R-30 was recently amended by
the applicant from the original proposal of 10.4 acres of 8.9 acres of R-30. Staff recommends that
the change is within the scope of the Planning Commission recommendation, as it represents only
a 6% increase in commercial land, offset by a corresponding reduction in multi-family land, and
does not introduce any type of zoning at the northern edge of the site not already being
considered.
Advantage(s):
1. Facilitates short- to mid-term development of the site which otherwise might not occur under
current zoning
2. Provides for multi-family housing in an area generally lacking it
3. Likely results in fewer long-term traffic impacts than current zoning.
4. Provide buffering on the northern property line well in excess of code requirements
Disadvantage(s): Could result in less commercial activity and employment than might occur
under the existing mixed use zone if it were developed at its maximum allowed employment
potential under mixed use standards.
Budget Impact: No direct impacts
Prior Council Review: Proposals were reviewed at a November 3, 2014, Council work session.
Action Requested:
1. On Monday, December 1, 2014, approve the ordinance on first reading, setting the date of
second reading and public hearing for Monday, December 8, 2014.
2. On Monday, December 8, 2014, following second reading and public hearing, approve the
ordinance.
Exhibits:
A. Ordinance
B. Planning Commission staff report
C. Planning Commission minutes
D. Traffic Analysis
E. Written comments received
Staff Report
November 10 and 17, 2014
Page 3 of 2
EXHIBIT A - ORDINANCE
12/01/14
12/08/14
ORDINANCE NO. M_______
AN ORDINANCE relating to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the City of Vancouver
and Vancouver Municipal Code (VMC) Title 20; amending the Vancouver Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning map designations from Commercial/MX to Urban High Density Residential/R-30
and Commercial/CC for property at 305 NE 192nd Avenue, Tax lots 176164000 and 176164001,
proposed for re-designation as part of the 2014 Annual Review process (Glad Tidings), and
providing for an effective date.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Growth Management Act the City Council has adopted a
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Vancouver (Ordinance M-3994): and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds and concludes that the proposed changes are
consistent with all relevant criteria for Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Plan Amendments
(VMC 20.285) and consistent with the policies and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and
the Growth Management Act pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 36.70A. RCW; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Land
Use and Development Code requires revision in order to allow for re-designation of individual
properties to recognize changing circumstances as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan and
zoning map amendments at a worksession on August 26 and at a duly advertised public hearing
on October 14, at which a staff report recommending approval of the proposed change was
presented, and at which the Planning Commission, in consideration of cumulative impacts of all
the proposed 2014 Comprehensive Plan changes, voted unanimously to approve the proposal,
ORDINANCE - 1
with an added recommendation that the applicant provide a 20-foot width L3 buffer pursuant to
VMC 20.925, including trees and a berm, preferably maintaining the existing berm; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly advertised public worksession on
November 3, first reading on December 1, public hearing on December 8, following which the
Council adopted the proposed Comprehensive Plan and zone map change, subject to the
applicant entering into a covenant to provide enhanced buffering south of the northern property
line of the development; and
WHEREAS, the cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed changes have been
reviewed and determined to be nonsignificant pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. A
Notice of Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued on August 14, 2014, and no
comments or appeals were received; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the proposed change is consistent with the
relevant comprehensive plan policies that encourage orderly development within the community;
and
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF VANCOUVER:
Section 1. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council adopts the October 14, 2014,
staff report and recommendation findings of fact and conclusions.
Section 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Map Designation Amendments
The Vancouver Comprehensive Plan 2011-2030, adopted through Ordinance M-3994, and VMC
Title 20 Zoning Code, last amended through ordinance M-4034, are amended to change the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning map designations from Commercial/MX to Urban High Density
Residential/R-30 and Commercial/CC for property at 305 NE 192nd Avenue, Tax lots 176164000
ORDINANCE - 2
and 176164001, as indicated in Attachment 1 hereto.
Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this
ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be adjudged by any
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such order or judgment shall be confined in its
operation to the controversy in which it was rendered and shall not affect or invalidate the
remainder of any parts thereof to any other person or circumstances and to this end the
provisions of each clause, sentence, paragraph, section or part of this law are hereby declared to
be severable.
Section 4. Operative Date of Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This comprehensive
plan amendment shall not be operative until the applicant has also entered into a covenant
running with the land requiring future development of the property to construct a 20-foot width
L3 buffer pursuant to VMC 20.925, including trees and a berm, preferably maintaining the
existing berm, or as otherwise agreed to by the applicant and Regency Place Homeowners
Association.
Section 5.
Effective Date. This ordinance shall go into effect 30 days after adoption.
Section 6.
Instruction to City Clerk. The City Clerk shall transmit a copy of the
revised development code to the Washington Department of Commerce.
Read First Time:
Ayes: Councilmembers
Nays: Councilmembers
Absent: Councilmembers
ORDINANCE - 3
Read Second Time:
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
Read Second Time:
Ayes: Councilmembers
Nays: Councilmembers
Absent: Councilmembers
SIGNED this ________day of___________________, 2014
_______________________________
Timothy D. Leavitt, Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________
R. Lloyd Tyler, City Clerk
By: Carrie Lewellen, Deputy City Clerk
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
E. Bronson Potter, City Attorney
ORDINANCE - 4
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE relating to Comprehensive Plan and Zoning for the City of Vancouver
and Vancouver Municipal Code (VMC) Title 20; amending the Vancouver Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning map designations from Commercial/MX to Urban High Density Residential/R-30
and Commercial/CC for property at 305 NE 192nd Avenue, Tax lots 176164000 and 176164001,
proposed for re-designation as part of the 2014 Annual Review process (Glad Tidings), and
providing for an effective date.
The full text of this ordinance will be mailed upon request. Contact Raelyn McJilton, Records
Officer at 487-8711, or via www.cityofvancouver.us (Go to City Government and Public
Records).
ORDINANCE - 5
ORDINANCE ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Fall 2014 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission Glad Tidings/Lifepointe Church – Commercial/MX to Commercial/CC and High Density Residential/R‐30 Report Date: September 26, 2014 Hearing Date: October 14, 2014 Proposal: Amend Comprehensive Plan and zone map designations from Commercial/MX to Commercial/CC and Urban High Density Residential/R‐30 on 19.7 acres. Location: 305 NE 192nd Avenue. Tax Lots 176164000 and 176164001, located in the SW ¼ of Section 29, Township 2N, Range 3E of the Willamette Meridian Proponent: Ryan Hurley, 903‐2895 [email protected] City Staff: Bryan Snodgrass, Community and Economic Development Principal Planner, 360 487‐7946, [email protected] Recommendation: Forward to City Council, recommendation to approve the amendment I. BACKGROUND AND REVIEW PROCESS The Growth Management Act requires proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considered no more than once per year, and reviewed concurrently to evaluate cumulative impacts. Four proposed site‐specific Comprehensive Plan map designation and related zoning changes have been submitted by property owners as part of the Vancouver Annual Review process. These were initially discussed at an August 26, 2014 Planning Commission worksession, and are scheduled for Commission public hearings on September 23 and October 14. A City Council worksession is scheduled on November 3 and a public hearing on November 17, 2014. Notice of the October 14 Planning Commission public hearing items has been provided by City staff through publication of a SEPA determination of Non‐significance (DNS) and circulation of checklist on August 14, publication in the Columbian newspaper on October 1, and posting of signs at the site and mailing of hardcopy notice to properties within 500 feet on October 3. No comments have been received to date. II. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The site and surrounding area, and current map designations, are shown in Figures A and B. Figure A – Site aerial photograph. Proposal parcels outlined in white. Figure B. Site and vicinity zoning. The site is flat and contains no environmentally sensitive lands. It abuts a large lot single family subdivision to the north in Clark County zoned R1‐10, the Union High School complex to the east zoned CG, and a Costco commercial development including parking and a gas station across 3rd Street to the south zoned CC. To the west across 192nd Avenue are undeveloped lands in the Section 30 gravel pit that are zoned ECX. The Section 30 Subarea Plan intends for long term industrial development of the properties immediately west of the proposal, and commercial development to at the corner of 192nd Avenue and 1st Street. No development is proposed with the map designation change. The proposed change to MX zoning would not significantly change the probable intensity of future uses allowed on the site, although it would make development more likely to occur. The MX zone allows mixed development by combining uses within individual buildings, or by mixing different types of single‐use buildings in a larger integrated site. At least 20% of integrated sites must consist of residential use and 20% of non‐residential use, with a minimum residential density of 12 units per developable acre. Depending on site layout, development of the full 19.7‐acre site under existing MX zoning could yield a likely minimum of approximately 65 residential units, and could conceivably involve up to 400 units if the maximum allowable percentage of the site was devoted to residential use. Development of 8.9 acres of the site under R‐30 zoning, as proposed, could yield a minimum of approximately 145 units, and a potential maximum of approximately 250 units. The types of commercial uses allowed are similar under the MX and CC zones, although the MX zone provides opportunities for more overall commercial activity, and up to 80% of the 19.7‐acre site could be devoted to commercial uses. The MX zone also requires that non‐residential buildings achieve a floor to area ratio (FAR) of at least 0.5. The applicant’s narrative includes a traffic analysis of vehicular trips under theoretical maximum build‐out scenarios of 392 residential units and 119,680 square feet of commercial development under the existing MX zone, and 244 residential units and 141,787 square feet of commercial development under the proposed CC and R‐30 zones. This analysis projects that build‐out under the proposed zoning would produce 5,608 daily vehicle trips, 18% fewer than under the current MX zone. Specific impacts will be evaluated during site plan or conditional use permit review of individual building proposals on the site. III.
REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS VMC 20.285.060.B Approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan map amendments, and rezones of more than 25 acres 1. Overall. Proposed amendments reviewed under this chapter shall be approved only if demonstrated by the proponent to be in the public interest, as based on a review of all applicable principals from the following: a. How the proposal is more consistent with applicable policies of the comprehensive plan than the existing designation, and b. How the proposal is more consistent with each of the following objectives than the existing designation. Consistency is not required where the objective is clearly not applicable to the type of proposal involved. 1. Encourage more intensive development to locate in major urban centers and corridors, particularly downtown Vancouver. Encourage development of distinct neighborhoods served by commercial nodes, and discourage urban sprawl and strip commercial development; 2. Provide development of uses which are functionally integrated with surrounding areas and neighborhoods in terms of local shopping, employment, recreational or other opportunities; 3. Provide development which is compatible and integrated with surrounding uses in terms of scale, orientation, pedestrian enhancements, and landscaping; 4. Conserve or enhance significant natural or historical features; 5. Provide adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, and other public services; 6. Provide significant family wage employment opportunities and broadening of the Vancouver economy; and 7. Provide for the formation and enhancement of neighborhoods and communities. 2. Scope of review. Review and evaluation of proposed comprehensive plan or zoning map changes shall consider both the likely and possible future use of the site and associated impacts. 3. Cumulative Impacts. The review of individual comprehensive plan map or policy amendments, other than exceptions noted in 20.285.030, shall also consider the cumulative transportation, land supply, and environmental impacts of other plan amendments proposed within the same annual cycle. 4. Required Findings. No amendment to comprehensive plan or zoning maps shall be approved unless the required findings of VMC 20.285.085 have been addressed in the written staff report and the written decision of the review authority. Staff Findings: The proposed commercial and multi‐family residential designations for the site are generally more consistent with the above criteria than the current mixed use designation. In addition, having separate commercial and residential designations on the site increases its likelihood of development. The site is located on the far eastern edge of Vancouver, and is surrounded by larger, suburban style developments. Development of this site under the existing mixed use designation is less likely to occur, and may be less beneficial than other mixed use locations. VMC 20.285.085 General Rezone Criteria and Required Findings for All Rezones A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all rezones, including those involving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, except correction of mapping errors. In evaluating proposed rezones, the provisions of this chapter shall be weighed and balanced together to determine which zone best meets those provisions. In addition, the zone purpose, location criteria, and design statements, which describe the intended purpose and design of each designation, shall be used to assess the likelihood that the area proposed to be rezoned would function as intended. B. No single criterion or group of criteria shall be applied as an absolute requirement or test of the appropriateness of a zone designation, nor is there a hierarchy or priority of rezone considerations, unless a provision indicates the intent to constitute a requirement or sole criterion. C. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter shall constitute consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of reviewing proposed rezones. D. The most appropriate zone designation shall be that for which the purpose, design statement, and location criteria for the specific zone match the characteristics of the area to be rezoned better than any other zone designation. The following zoning principles shall be considered: 1. The impact of more intensive zones on less intensive zones or industrial and commercial zones on other zones shall be minimized by the use of transitions, physical edges, or buffers, if possible. A gradual transition between zoning categories is preferred. 2. Physical edges and buffers, such as natural features, major traffic arterials and railroad tracks, open spaces, and distinct change in street layout and block orientation may provide an effective separation or transition between different uses and intensities of development. 3. Physical edges, buffers and platted lot lines shall be considered in establishing boundaries. 4. Boundaries between commercial and residential areas shall generally be established so that commercial uses face away from adjacent residential areas, unless physical edges or buffers (arterial streets, waterways, topographic breaks, mature natural or landscape buffers, etc) provide a more effective separation between uses. 5. Lower Density Residential areas may be rezoned to Higher Density zones only if the applicant demonstrates that the area no longer meets the location criteria for a Lower Density designation or the change is recommended as part of an adopted sub‐area plan. E. Impact Evaluation. The review of a proposed rezone shall consider both positive and negative factors when evaluating land use and environmental impacts, including impacts on public facility and service capacities, in the area of the proposed rezone. F. The review of a proposed rezone shall include consideration of uses which can reasonably be anticipated based on the development potential of the requested zone, and the nature of the site and surrounding area. G. Consideration of changed circumstances shall include elements or conditions embodied in the location criteria, and the purpose and design statements, for the relevant zone. Staff Findings: The proposal site is separated from properties to the west and south by 192nd Avenue and 3rd Street. The site is also separated from most of the large lot subdivision north by 5th Street, as well as a short berm and trees on the property line. The proposal would change the zoning on most of the northern edge of the site from MX to R‐30, eliminating the potential for commercial buildings adjacent to the subdivision along most of the property line. VMC 20.430.025 Commercial Zone Function and Location Criteria A. General Criteria. Compact, concentrated commercial areas, or nodes, shall be preferred to diffuse, sprawling , or linear commercial areas. The preservation, improvement, and redevelopment of existing commercial areas shall be preferred to the creation of new business areas or districts. Areas meeting the location criteria for Lower Density designations (i.e. R‐6, R‐9) are generally not appropriate for conversion to commercial. The encroachment of commercial development into residential areas shall be discouraged, except for Neighborhood Commercial within the criteria defined below for CN. C. CC (Community Commercial) Location Criteria The CC (Community Commercial) zone designation, as defined in above, is most appropriate in areas that are generally characterized by the following: 1. Both residential and commercial areas abut the subject site; 2. No physical edges (waterways, major arterial streets or freeways, ravines, cliffs, etc) separate the existing residential or commercial areas from the subject site; 3. The site is located to provide a transition between more intense General Commercial areas and surrounding residential areas; or is located along a major arterial where parcels are generally small or shallow, and are bordered by Lower Density Residential areas. 4. . The site is located on streets with good capacity (major collector streets and minor arterials) and good pedestrian and bicycle connections to adjacent residential areas. 5. Areas where the total acres in a Community Commercial cluster or node can be limited to approximately 10 acres, with other zones providing separation between Community Commercial clusters or nodes. Section 20.420.025 Higher Density Residential Zone Function and Location Criteria. C. R‐30 (Higher Density Residential) Zone Location Criteria. The R‐30 designation is most appropriate in areas with the following characteristics and relationships to the surrounding area: 1. Areas that are already developed predominantly to the permitted R‐30 density, or areas that are within an urban center, or identified in an adopted sub‐area plan as appropriate for higher density multifamily housing. 2. Properties in close proximity to major employment centers, open space and recreational facilities. 3. Areas with well‐defined edges such as an arterial, open space, change in block pattern, topographic change or other significant feature providing sufficient separation from adjacent areas of small scale residential development, or areas should be separated by other zones providing a transition in the height, scale and density of development. 4. Areas that are served by major arterials, where transit service is good to excellent, and where street capacity could absorb the traffic generated by higher density development. 5. Principal streets in the area shall be sufficient to allow for two (2) way traffic and parking on both sides of the street. Vehicular access to the area shall not require use of streets passing through lower density residential zones. 6. Areas of sufficient size to promote a high quality, higher density residential environment with close proximity (and good pedestrian connections) to public open spaces, neighborhood oriented commercial services, and other residential amenities. Staff Findings: The proposed CC zoning on the west and south of the site is consistent with the locational criteria of CC zone as the site is located on streets with high capacity, and abuts residential and commercial areas. The proposed R‐30 zoning on the northern and eastern portions of the site meets locational criteria as the site has well defined edges, and is served by a major arterial, does not require access through lower density areas, and has transit service from the C‐Tran #38 bus. Applicable Vancouver Comprehensive Plan Policies CD‐2 Efficient development patterns Encourage efficient development throughout Vancouver to ensure achievement of average density of 8 units per acre set by countywide planning policies. Encourage higher density and more intense development in areas that are more extensively served by facilities, particularly transportation and transit services. CD‐9 Compatible uses Facilitate development that minimizes adverse impacts to adjacent areas, particularly neighborhoods. EC‐5 No net loss of employment capacity Restrict zone changes or legislative land use approvals that would lessen long‐term capacity for high‐
wage employment unless accompanied by other changes within the same review cycle that would compensate for the lost capacity or unless the proposed change would promote the long‐term economic health of the city. H‐1 Housing options Provide for a range of housing types and densities for all economic segments of the population. Encourage equal and fair access to housing for renters and homeowners. H‐5 Housing placement near services and centers Facilitate siting of higher density housing near public transportation facilities and in designated centers and corridors. The existing Vancouver Comprehensive Plan may be read in full at http://www.cityofvancouver.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_and_economic_develop
ment/page/874/vancouvercomprehensiveplan2011‐2030.pdf Staff Findings: The proposal is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. It provides efficient use of land in a manner compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed change from MX zoning would likely make commercial development more viable, consistent with Policy EC‐5, which calls for no net loss of employment capacity. It would also make multi‐
family housing more viable, consistent with policy goals of increasing housing options and affordability in well served areas. IV. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis and findings in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Vancouver City Council to approve the proposed designation change from Commercial/MX to Urban High Density Residential/R‐30 and Commercial/CC as indicated Attachments 1. Application narrative PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Present:
Erik Paulsen, Chair, Esther Schrader, Robert Haverkate, Mario Raia, John Lee, Richard
Bailey
Absent:
Dimitry Mishchuk
Glad Tidings/Lifepointe Church
Bryan Snodgrass, Principal Planner, presented a summary of the Staff Report, including a
PowerPoint presentation on site specific Comprehensive Plan and zoning map designation changes
submitted by the property owner which also involves proposed zoning code changes. See Staff
Report titled “Fall 2014 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Staff Report and
Recommendation to the Planning Commission, Glad Tidings/Lifepointe Church – Commercial/MX
to Commercial/CC and High Density Residential/R-30” dated September 16, 2014, and
PowerPoint presentation titled “2014 Comprehensive Plan Amendments – Glad Tidings/Lifepointe
map designation change; Huyette map designation change; Oliva map designation
change(continuance); Comprehensive Plan text change- Capital project list” dated October 14,
2014.
Summary
The proposal is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and zone map designations from
Commercial/MX to Commercial/CC and Urban High Density Residential/R-30 on 19.7 acres
located at 305 NE 192nd Avenue. Tax Lots 176164000 and 176164001, located in the SW ¼
of Section 29, Township 2N, Range 3E of the Willamette Meridian.
The site abuts a large lot single family subdivision to the north in Clark County zoned R1-10, the
Union High School complex to the east zoned CG, and a Costco commercial development
including parking and a gas station across 3rd Street to the south zoned CC. To the west across
192nd Avenue are undeveloped lands in the Section 30 gravel pit that are zoned ECX. The
Section 30 Subarea Plan intends for long term industrial development of the properties
immediately west of the proposal, and commercial development at the corner of 192nd Avenue
and 1st Street.
No development is proposed with the map designation change. The proposed change to MX
zoning would not significantly change the probable intensity of future uses allowed on the site,
although it would make development more likely to occur. The MX zone allows mixed
development by combining uses within individual buildings, or by mixing different types of singleuse buildings in a larger integrated site. At least 20 percent of integrated sites must consist of
residential use and 20 percent of non-residential use, with a minimum residential density of 12
units per developable acre. Depending on site layout, development of the full 19.7-acre site
under existing MX zoning could yield a likely minimum of approximately 65 residential units, and
could conceivably involve up to 400 units if the maximum allowable percentage of the site was
devoted to residential use. Development of 8.9 acres of the site under R-30 zoning, as proposed,
could yield a minimum of approximately 145 units, and a potential maximum of approximately
250 units. The types of commercial uses allowed are similar under the MX and CC zones,
although the MX zone provides opportunities for more overall commercial activity, and up to 80
percent of the 19.7-acre site could be devoted to commercial uses. The MX zone also requires
that non-residential buildings achieve a floor to area ratio (FAR) of at least 0.5.
The applicant’s narrative includes a traffic analysis of vehicular trips under theoretical maximum
build-out scenarios of 392 residential units and 119,680 square feet of commercial development
under the existing MX zone, and 244 residential units and 141,787 square feet of commercial
development under the proposed CC and R-30 zones. This analysis projects that build-out under
the proposed zoning would produce 5,608 daily vehicle trips, 18 percent fewer than under the
current MX zone.
Notice of the October 14 Planning Commission public hearing items has been provided by City
staff through legal publication of a SEPA determination of Non-significance (DNS) and checklist
August 14, publication in the Columbian newspaper October 1, posting of signs at the site, and
mailing of hardcopy notice to properties within 500 feet on October 3, 2014. No comments have
been received to date.
Staff Findings
The proposed commercial and multi-family residential designations for the site are generally
more consistent with the approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan map amendments, and rezones
of more than 25 acres than the current mixed use designation. In addition, having separate
commercial and residential designations on the site increases its likelihood of development. The
site is located on the far eastern edge of Vancouver, and is surrounded by larger, suburban style
developments. Development of this site under the existing mixed use designation is less likely to
occur, and may be less beneficial than other mixed use locations.
The proposal site is separated from properties to the west and south by 192nd Avenue and 3rd
Street. The site is also separated from most of the large lot subdivision north by 5th Street, as well
as a short berm and trees on the property line. The proposal would change the zoning on most of
the northern edge of the site from MX to R-30, eliminating the potential for commercial buildings
adjacent to the subdivision along most of the property line.
The proposed CC zoning on the west and south of the site is consistent with the locational criteria
of CC zone as the site is located on streets with high capacity, and abuts residential and
commercial areas. The proposed R-30 zoning on the northern and eastern portions of the site
meets locational criteria as the site has well defined edges, and is served by a major arterial,
does not require access through lower density areas, and has transit service from the C-Tran #38
bus.
The proposal is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. It provides efficient use of
land in a manner compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed change from MX zoning would
likely make commercial development more viable, consistent with Policy EC-5, which calls for no
net loss of employment capacity. It would also make multi-family housing more viable, consistent
with policy goals of increasing housing options and affordability in well served areas.
Recommendation
Based on the analysis and findings in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
forward a recommendation to the Vancouver City Council to approve the proposed designation
change from Commercial/MX to Urban High Density Residential/R-30 and Commercial/CC as
indicated.
Questions/Comments from Commission for Staff:
There were none.
Applicant Testimony
Randy Printz, Planning Attorney, representing applicant Ryan Hurley, gave an overview of the
applicant’s request and a summary of why the request should be granted. Printz directed the
Commissioners to the document in their packets titled “Narrative in Support for Annual Review
HURD02-00004-941565.doc”. He explained that the current zone on property is the most dense
and intense development zone that the City has. The request is attempting to reorient the uses on
the site so that the City’s vision has a better chance to come to fruition. It does not materially
change the uses that could occur on the property under its existing zoning. The relocation of uses
will enable the property to provide a better transition from the big box retail to the south and the
neighborhood to the north. Changing the MX zoning will assure that most of the residential
property to the north does not have commercial uses facing it or using the road to the north. The
only exception to this is the northerly portion of the proposed commercial zoning along 192nd
Avenue. Under the applicant’s proposal the heights of the buildings will get lower. The current MX
zone allows for four-story buildings. The applicant’s design would be commercial on the frontage
and two-story buildings throughout the remainder of the site.
Commission Paulsen stated that there would be nothing to preclude greater heights with the
residential.
Printz agreed and explained that there are mechanisms that the Planning Commission and City
Council can impose to assure that the applicant’s commitments are binding.
Printz stated the neighbors’ concerns are traffic on 5th Street as well as the berm and
landscaping located on the north side of the property. The concern regarding traffic will be
adequately addressed under the current proposal. The neighbors would like to keep the 32-foot
wide berm and the existing trees; the applicant is willing to commit to a 20-foot wide L3 buffer,
twice the required width. There is a reasonable chance that the berm can be saved but are
uncertain.
Public Testimony
Chair Paulsen opened the floor for public testimony.

Stephanie Millman, 19500 NE 5th St., requested a 30-day contingency to allow more time
to evaluate the rezone proposal, review and learn the City’s policies, and try to influence
the process. She stated that she is representing 16 families that live near the site.
Chair Paulsen asked what the notification process for the application was. Snodgrass expanded
on what the notification process was for the application.
Millman stated that her experience was consistent with what Snodgrass indicated regarding
notification.
Commissioner Schrader explained what the next steps are and that a built in time factor is there
for public review and input. She asked staff to expand on the deadlines.
Snodgrass explained that the requirements of WA state law when changing the Comprehensive
Plan is that you essentially need to do them all at once so that cumulative impacts can be
reviewed. Typically, Planning Commission devotes one or two hearings to the zone changes and
City Council reviews them at one hearing. A 30-day Planning Commission continuance would put
all the other proposals on that same timeline in terms of Council review. Another practical
considering is the City Council’s schedule. Added that staff can serve as a resource to explain
what we think the probabilities are of the two zones and what kind of development you might
get. The willingness of the applicant to commit to some slightly different process than what code
would normally require would need to be established at City Council. The system does allow for
more opportunities to provide input from the public.
Millman stated that the buffer has been recognized as necessary by the church and by Costco.
She feels that there needs to be a buffer between high density and one-acre lots and would like
Planning Commission to recommend that the berm stays.
Printz stated that he has no objections to the Commissioners recommending the proposed
upgraded L3 buffer. He urged the Commissioners not to recommend a standard that they
wouldn’t have the authority to impose. He is sympathetic to the neighbors’ concerns.
Commissioner Bailey asked how wide the berm was and if the applicant is okay with keeping the
berm and the existing trees.
Printz said that the berm is approximately 32 to 35 feet wide. He cannot commit to saving the
existing trees. If the property remains MX zone there is no question that the berm will be
eliminated. He is willing to continue to work with the neighbors and will work hard to keep the
existing berm and trees but cannot guarantee it.
Chair Paulsen closed the floor for public testimony.
Commissioner Deliberations
Commissioner Bailey stated that the proposal is a better use of the property and that more likely
apartments will go in there than mixed use. With the current zoning, the probability of the site
being developed as MX in the next 5 to10 years will be low because of the required density. The
neighbors would probably prefer that the site remain undeveloped. He is torn between progress
and the plight of the neighbors.
Commissioner Lee stated that, with the current zone, 5th Street can be built out and it would
further erode the neighborhood. He would like to see activity on the site and see growth, jobs,
and residents. If an agreement can be put in place affirming a buffer and no access to 5th Street
it will preserve some neighborhood feeling and community togetherness rather than having
commercial across the full length of the north side of the property.
Commissioner Raia agreed with Commissioner Lee. The buffer preserves some semblance of
separation for the neighborhood. If it retains MX the buffer will be eliminated.
Commissioner Bailey stated that he would prefer to make the recommendation to keep the
existing berm and trees. It will take a long time for new landscaping to get the same height as
what is currently there.
Motion by Commissioner Lee, seconded by Commissioner Schrader, to forward a recommendation
of approval to Vancouver City Council the proposed designation change from Commercial/MX to
Urban High Density Residential/R-30 and Commercial/CC with an additional provision agreed to
by the applicant to do a 20-foot L3 buffer with a berm and trees, ideally maintaining the existing
berm, on the northern portion of the property.
Discussion on the Motion:
Commissioner Schrader stated that she is very sympathetic to the neighbors. The Commissioners do
the best they can to get the right recommendation to City Council. It is up to the neighbors to go to
City Council workshop to prepare for their testimony at the hearing.
Commissioner Bailey voiced support knowing that the process allows the property owners to give
testimony about their concerns at the City Council hearing.
Commissioner Paulsen agreed to what has been stated by the other Commissioners. Also, what has
been proposed accomplishes the predictability and increases the likelihood of development. As
currently zoned the likelihood of short-term development is less. Considering what might happen
with the current zoning, in all likelihood, it would be much less desirable outcome from the
neighborhood perspective.
Motion passed unanimously
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
WRITTEN COMMENTS
From: Randall B. Printz [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 11:35 AM
To: Snodgrass, Bryan
Cc: Stacey A. Shields
Subject: RE: glad tidings
Bryan, here is the issue. The code is very clear on what screening standards are required under either the MF, Commercial or MX zones. In a proactive effort, before any hearings, we went to the neighbors and told them what we were proposing and offered a lot more than the code required. We offered a six foot vinyl fence with landscaping and a buffer that exceeded code. Neither the MX nor the MF zones require a fence. That is what PC recommended approval of. Despite the in excess of code offer, we continued to try and work with the neighborhood to see if there was something that we could do that would work for them, regardless of whether the City could make us do it or not. They wanted a more substantial wall and we said we could do that 3’ off the existing street, but could not build it 15 feet off of the street, because we end up with no back yard for our future residents. We offered that in exchange for the neighbor’s support. We do not currently have that support. So, unless we can get some movement from the neighbors, then we are back at our original offer that we made to the PC, which the PC supported. While we have had very pleasant conversations with the neighbors, they have not really moved in our direction at all despite our attempts to alleviate their concerns. Most recently, they have told us they will litigate this issue if they do not get what they want. Bryan, I don’t really know what else we can do here. We are offering far in excess of what the code requires. We are actually requesting a down zone of the property. The Applicant’s proposal will create fewer impacts to the neighborhood than the existing zoning will. That is where we currently are. I do think it is important that the Staff Report make clear what the code requirements are and the that the Applicant’s proposal and PC recommendation exceed those. Please feel free to make this email part of the record. Thanks. November18,2014
Mr.RyanHurley
HurleyDevelopment
PacificTower
915Broadway
Vancouver,WA
DearMr.Hurley,
As we discussed some time ago, I passed your “final offer” on to all the members of the
RegencyPlaceHomeOwnersAssociation.Roughlystated,youofferedtoprovideathree‐
foot setback from 5th street and to build a masonry wall ranging from 4 feet to 8 feet in
heightdependingontheconditionsagreedtobytheVancouverCityCouncil.
There has been a unanimous rejection for your “final offer” by the residents of Regency
Place. We are prepared, with advice from consul, to ask the Vancouver City Council to
attacharestrictivecovenanttothere‐zoningrequestthatmandatesthatanydeveloperof
thelandprovidealandscaped15‐footsetbackandaneight‐footmasonrywallbetweenany
proposed development of the re‐zoned Lifepoint/Glad Tidings Church land. If such a
request is denied we will argue that the land remain zoned as MX since the buffering
requirementswillprovidemoreisolationforRegencyPlace.
Wehavedecidedtoappealourcasetotheappropriatecourtsandagenciesifwefailtogain
our goals with the City Council and with any further actions taken by the Vancouver
PlanningCommissioninregardtothedevelopmentoftheabovementionedland.
AsanHOAwefullyunderstandandrespectyourrighttodevelopyourfuturelandasyou
seefitandconsistentwithCityOrdinances.However,asindividualswecherishthenature
ofourneighborhoodandwillpursueallwaysandmeanstoretainitsnatureandintegrity.
Whiletheaboveisaseriousmatterforbothofus,westillwishyouandyourentirefamilya
wonderful Thanksgiving with your relatives and friends. While we disagree strongly on
thisissue,westillwishthebestofholidaycheertoyouandyours.
Sincerelyyours,
MichaelA.Kriss,President
RegencyPlaceHomeOwnersAssociation
506NE193rdAvenue
Camas.WA98607
VancouverCityCouncilMeetingTestimony
ForMonday,December8,2014
Good evening. I am Michael Kriss, President of the Regency Place Home Owners
Association,andIresideat506NE193rdAvenue,Camas,Washington,98607.
I am here this evening as the representative of the 15 home owners, which make up the
RegencyPlaceHOA,andassuchIspeakforthemall.
Iamheretoaddressthere‐zoningrequestofGladTidings/LifepointChurch,locatedat305
192ndAvenue,toconvertexistingMXusagetoacombinationofR30andCC/commercial
usage.
On behalf of the Regency Place HOA, I am asking the Vancouver City Council to attach a
restrictivecovenanttotheproposedzoningchange.Therestrictivecovenantshoulddictate
that an 8‐foot solid masonry wall with an effective 15‐foot setback from the southern
boundaryofRegencyPlace,thesouthedgeof5thStreet.Thewallshouldrunfromtheend
ofthecurrentwall,parallelto192ndAvenue,for15‐feetsouthandthenwiththesame15‐
feet setback running from west to east to the Union High School fence, a distance of
approximately1280feet.
Therationalfortherestrictivecovenantisasfollows:
 The current boundary has a well‐established 4‐5 foot berm, which is 32 feet wide
withatotalof52matureevergreenanddeciduoustrees.Thisalsoincludesabout22
redcedarsprovidedbythedeveloperoftheCostcolandtoprovidelongtermvisual
shielding of the undeveloped Church property and the intense commercial
developmenttothesouthandsoutheast.
 Forthelast15yearstheRegencyPlaceHOAhasmaintainedthebermaswellasthe
22redcedarsforthelastfouryears.
 TheCityofVancouverhasstatedinitsGrowthManagementActthattherewillbea
gradual and harmonious transition between commercial property, high‐density
housingandlow‐densityhousing.TheproposedplanforR30andCC/Commercial,
like the current MX zoning, has no such gradual or harmonious transition and a
checkofthecurrentzoningmapsprovidedbytheCityofVancouveron‐lineshows
no other areas with such abrupt transitions. Since there is not enough space to
provide a gradual, harmonious transition between commercial and high density
housingtotheexistinglowdensityhousing,an8‐footwallisrequiredtoprovidethe
semi‐isolationbetweentheproposeddevelopmentandRegencyPlace.
 The additional commercial space added since the Planning Board meeting of
October 14, 2014, and your Workshop of November 3, 2014, to meet the job
creationrequirements,furtherimpactsatleasttwoofthehomesonthewesternend
of Regency Place. The requirement for an alley way to service this commercial
propertywilladdtothedailynoiseandthusjustifyanF2typewallof8‐feetdueto
theneedfornoiseandstraylightabatement.
 Duetoseveraldifferentsetbackandlandscapingrequirementsalongtheborderof
RegencyPlaceandtheproposeddevelopment,duetothechangefromcommercial
tohigh‐densityhousingalongthepropertyedge,andbecauseoftherapidtransition
it only makes sense to have one type of setback and buffer between the two
developments.InthiscasewefeeltheF2 bufferwithan8‐footmasonrywallfor
noiseabatementisthemostsuitable.
 The 15‐foot setback isneeded toprovideenough area to grow evergreen trees on
the north side of the proposed development, which in turn will provided the
required harmonious transition between commercial and high‐ density housing to
low‐densityhousing.
 At the Planning Committee meeting of October 14, 2014, Randall Printz,
representingbothHurleyDevelopmentandGladTidingsChurchstatedthathewas
proposingadoubleL3bufferof10feeteach.Inaddition,Mr.Printzsuggestedthe
developerwouldinstalla6‐footvinylfencebetweenthetwobuffers.Ourproposal


ofa15‐footsetbackandan8‐footmasonrywallprovidesmoreareafordeveloping
theland,beitcommercialorhigh‐densityhousing.
The15‐footsetback,withtheappropriatelandscapingand8‐footmasonrywalldoes
notprovidethecurrenteffectiveandaceticbufferingofthe32‐footberm,butitdoes
makeitpossibleforRegencyPlacetomaintainitscurrentintegrity,andatthesame
timesusstainthevalueofeachhomeintheRegencyPlaceHOA.
Recentseverewindstormsandpropertydamagefurthersupportstheneedforan8‐
footmasonrywall.
I urge each of the Council Members to visit the site and see for yourselves why we are
requestingthe15‐footsetbackandthe8‐foothighmasonrywall.
FailuretoachievetherequiredrestrictivecovenantwouldleavetheRegencyPlaceHOAno
choicebuttotakefurtherlegalactionintheformofanappealtotheSuperiorCourtand/or
totheWesternWashingtonGrowthManagementHearingBoard.
Wehavetriedtocometosome logicalandfairagreementwithHurleyDevelopment,but
theirproposalshavefallenfarshortofwhatisneededtoretainthebasicnatureofRegency
Place.
From: The Yorks [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 4:29 PM
To: Snodgrass, Bryan
Subject: Rezoning concerns
Hello Mr. Snodgrass,
I have been made aware of a request to rezone the parcel of land off 192nd Ave and 1st St between
the new Costco, Union high school, and the Church there on the corner. I am very concerned that
this piece of land might be turned into high density housing. I know that it is the tendency to gravitate
that direction for many reasons, but for this particular piece of land, I believe it is a very bad idea.
The property is sandwiched between 3 non-housing entities. In other words:It doesn’t match the
neighborhood.
The one-acre properties adjacent to that land already do not have a sufficient buffer and this would make
it way worse.
At least commercial properties would be consistent to that division that already exists. The schools that
this property
would feed into are currently WAY WAY WAY over-stuffed as it is with no way to correct for the bursting
seams in sight.
Zoning was originally planned/made with a specific plan in mind. Changing the zoning undermines the
original intent of the city and negatively impacts the integrity of the town. We need to keep with the longrange planning plans.
I’m all for in-fill, but a high-density housing project in this area is not appropriate.
I’m also extremely concerned about traffic issues that have already risen from the Costco.
Last week, my husband got his vehicle totaled in a crash trying to exit out of the Westridge
neighborhood onto 1st street. This is a dangerous intersection that has no signal light. An increase
in traffic that comes with high density housing would just exacerbate the problem. We’re already
looking at the medical buildings that are going to be built in that same area as a major traffic
problem that will make a bad situation worse once built. Westridge was promised that traffic
cutting thru our neighborhood would not happen because of the addition of Costco and the “right turn
only”
out of Illahee Elementary. The fact of the matter is that traffic has increased dramatically in a
very negative way. Our children have to walk to school. All the children in Westridge have to walk.
(elementary, middle, and high schools). The traffic is dangerous enough. Please do NOT rezone
that parcel of land next to Union to allow it to become high density housing. It will be trouble
in traffic and trouble for school enrollment among other things.
Sincerely,
Karen York
516 SE 200th Pl
Camas, WA 98607
360-931-7819
From: Wendy Barney [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 8:12 AM
To: Snodgrass, Bryan
Subject: Rezoning off 192nd behind Costco
To whom it may concern,
It has been brought to my attention that the property behind Costco on 192nd and 1st in the City
of Vancouver has the potential to be zoned for more apartments.
I have lived in Westridge for 8 plus years and find the location great, schools wonderful (I
currently have two at Union, one at Shahala, two at Illahee and one more at home), and enjoy the
solid neighborhood in which we live in. Since we have lived here, shopping has dramatically
increased, several apartment complexes have gone up within 1 mile of our home and cut through
traffic through our neighborhood has become dangerous.
Illahee and Shahala are highly sought after schools and are already overcrowded. Adding high
density housing would make that even worse.
I also believe that adding apartments will make this neighborhood less desirable, driving down
property values as the city encroaches more and more around us. More highly educated families
would be pushed further into Camas.
Changing the zone to single housing units would be more neighborhood friendly. The
neighborhhod directly to the north of the property are custom built homes with high property
values and I am sure their home property value would remain higher with single home residents
over any high density housing.
I believe that it was in 2012-2013, our neighborhood suffered from a massive increase in crime.
Cars were broken into and homes robbed whether or not people were home. As a stay at home
mother, there were times I was afraid of answering the door during the daytime for fear of having
someone push through. I worry if yet more apartments go in, crime will increase again.
I know of another high density housing unit located between 1st and 164th that is currently in the
construction phase and I have heard that it is low income housing. I also believe there are
apartments zoned for the Mill Plain property between 172nd and Lowe's on 192nd. Several
complexes have already gone up. If the city continues to build high density housing in our area,
I believe property values will decrease, schools will become less desirable and higher income
families will move into Camas.
Please find a way to preserve the over all feel of eastern Vancouver.
Wendy Barney
Resident of Westridge on 4th Way
"Children are not an interruption of my work, but the mere purpose of it."
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Les Hartsfield [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 6:56 PM To: Snodgrass, Bryan Subject: Proposed Apartments behind Costco in E. Vancouver Mr Snodgrass: This proposed project of building apartments behind Costco is yet another bad decision that will further stress our infrastructure with unneeded congestion given current traffic patterns. I live in Westridge Place, we are contending with congestion by many drivers who speed along Westridge Blvd at speeds far in excess of 25 MPH, ignoring stop signs. This project will add even more drivers. I am on record of strong opposition of this apartment project, which would be another bad decision by the City of Vancouver. Sincerely, Les Hartsfield 19814 SE 4th Way Camas, WA. 98607 I live in the City of Vancouver Sent from my iPhone