Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 08-14-14 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, August 14,2014 Chair Stoy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson John Hohman, Community Development Director Christina Carlsen Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Robert McCaslin Christina Janssen,Planner Mike Phillips Marty Palaniuk, Planner Steven Neill Luis Garcia,Development Services Coordinator Joe Stoy Deanna Horton, Secretary Sam Wood Commissioner Neill moved to approve the August 14, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed seven to zero. Commissioner Carlsen moved to approve the July 10, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed, six to zero. Commissioner Stoy noted this was his first meeting since returning from an excused medical leave and he would ineligible to vote on the minutes of the previous meeting. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Wood reported he attended the recent Spokane Home Builders Association(SHBA) government affairs meeting. Mr. Wood noted Mike Allen from the City of Spokane spoke regarding changing their street repairs from capital improvements to maintenance. Mr. Wood also commented the legislature could be asked to consider a complete ban on studded tires. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Director Hohman welcomed back Commissioner Stoy. Mr. Hohman introduced Luis Garcia,the City's new Development Services Coordinator. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public to comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session — CTA-2014-0001, Code text amendments to sections of Title 19, Title 22 and Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC): Director Hohman gave the Commissioners a brief overview of the proposed amendments. Mr. Hohman stated the amendments are being brought forward as either a directive from the City Council, or issues which needed changing for clarification. Mr. Marty Palaniuk introduced a proposed change to SVMC Appendix A, definition for recreational facility to specify only indoor gun ranges would be allowed in the City limits. The Commissioners has no issues with this suggested change. Mr. Palaniuk stated the next proposed amendment is to SVMC 19.40.010(G), 19.60.010(M), 19.70.010(7), and 19.70.020(6)removing the development regulations related to landscaping, signage and lighting for community facilities and public utility distribution facilities. Mr. Palaniuk stated there are times when a power company might own a very large parcel of land and need to put a small control building on it. In many of these cases it would not make sense to require a site obscuring fence all the way around a large parcel. Commissioner Stoy asked if there would be any landscaping required. Staff responded that a Type I landscaping would be required at the building. Commissioner Carlsen asked if screening would be required if the use was against a residential use or zone. Ms. Janssen explained any public utility located in a mixed use or commercial zone would not require landscaping, but any commercial development against a residential zone would require screening. Ms. Carlsen asked if a substation would fall into this category. Mr. Palaniuk said a substation would be considered commercial development. A substation would be fenced for safety and security reasons,and if it were in a residential neighborhood it would be required to be landscaped. 08-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 Mr. Palaniuk said the next proposed amendment is to SVMC 19.60.010(H)to remove the requirement for shared access with adjacent properties on commercial development. The Commissioners had no issues with this change. The next proposed amendment would update the outdoor storage requirements including location and landscape screening requirements in Neighborhood Commercial (NC), Community Commercial (C), Regional Commercial (RC), Mixed Use Center (MUC), Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) and Light Industrial (I1) zones in Chapter 19.60. In the NC zone the amendment clarifies the language. In the (C) zone the amendment would require outdoor storage to be located behind the building and require screening if storage was visible from the right-of-way. In RC, MUC, CMU zones, outdoor storage would be required to be screened by a sight-obscuring fence. In the Il zone screening would be required only when adjacent to a residential or commercial zone. Commissioner Anderson asked for an explanation regarding the front and flanking yards. Mr. Palaniuk explained the City has setbacks in the front and flanking yards which do not allow the placement and storage of materials. Displays of material also cannot be done in border easements or rights-of-way. There was discussion about not being allowed to display merchandise in the setbacks, and Commissioner Carlsen noted a secondhand store which displays bicycles in front of their store, which would be in the front yard setback. Staff noted that this portion of the code had not changed and no change was being proposed. Commissioner Anderson asked what the intent was in adding border easements to the code. Mr. Hohman stated it would be to make sure that pedestrian traffic is not impeded and that the clearview triangle is not obstructed. Mr. Palaniuk stated the proposed amendments to SVMC 19.120.050,the Permitted Use Matrix • Allow medical/dental clinics in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones with conditions,and • Remove the requirement for automobile repair to be located within enclosed structures in the Corridor Mixed Use and Community Commercial zones and • Allow Outdoor Storage as a use in the Community Commercial zone. This amendment would allow Outdoor Storage as a use. This would be a type of outdoor storage which would allow the storage of RVs, campers and similar items as a use or a storage yard. This would be allowed with conditions. The medical/dental office would be allowed in MF-1 and MF-2 zones. Mr. Palaniuk explained there are some single family residences which are in the MF-1/MF-2 zones which could be converted into a medical/dental clinic. Commissioner Carlsen expressed concern for diluting the City's multifamily inventory. Staff expressed this was not intended for current multifamily housing but for single family residences, which are located in these zones, which could be converted. The last change is to remove the requirement for automobile repair facilities to be located within enclosed structures in the CMU and C zones. Currently, repair facilities must be completely enclosed and this includes all vehicles being repaired. Fencing would be required if it was not located against another commercial use or zone. The next proposed amendment to SVMC 19.40.130 concerns increasing the allowable density for manufactured home parks (MHP), providing for common open space within manufactured home parks, and adding a table for setback requirements. Mr. Hohman prefaced the conversation by saying that in response to the Association of Manufactured Home Owners (AMHO) request for extra protections, City Council had requested staff to look into what could be done regarding manufactured home parks. Currently state law provides that the owner of the property on which a manufactured home park is located must give the residents, who rent space in the park, one year notice of intent to sell the park. The MHP residents would like the City to create a zoning overlay to provide them extra protection in the case of an owner trying to sell the land on which their homes are located. The Council decided they did not want to create an overlay zone. However,they asked staff to look at the density in order to make a MHP more attractive to the property owner to help reduce the likelihood of the park owner selling the park. The density of a manufactured home park would be 12 units per acre 08-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 in the MF-1 or MF-2 zones. It would need to have at least five spaces to qualify. Commissioners asked why five, and Mr. Palaniuk said the number was arbitrary, however, the idea was not to allow the creation of a MHP with just two lots so a manufactured home could be put on the back of a residential lot and used as an accessory dwelling unit. The City has standards for accessory dwelling units and a MH would not fit this criteria. This would also create open spaces for a MHP, along with setbacks for each home and accessory structures. SVMC 22.50.030 proposed amendment is to amend off-street loading requirements to allow more flexibility for locating loading spaces, remove landscaping requirements and add a table showing the loading space dimensions. This amendment was intended to simplify the language by removing the requirement for screening in an industrial zone and allow loading docks on the front of a building. Commissioners had questions regarding the dimensions in Table 22.50-6 and how they would work. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that item 22.50.030(3)All parking, loading and maneuvering of trucks shall be conducted on private property. Mr. Anderson felt it should be the first item listed. Ms. Janssen stated that there is also a provision to allow the Director to make an exception if the applicant can provide written reason as to why conditions prohibit compliance with the requirements. Ms. Janssen explained SVMC 22.50.020 was being amended to update language from `change of use' to `change of occupancy' which is the commonly used term. The term `floor area' was being changed to `gross square feet'for ease of administering the code, and change 'in accordance with'to `pursuant to.' Staff is also adding an allowance for the Director to reduce the number of required parking spaces when the applicant can demonstrate site conditions prohibit compliance, and to determine the number of spaces required if a use is not specified in the Required Parking Space table. Ms. Janssen explained SVMC 22.50.040 was being amended to clarify the language to make it consistent with the rest of the SVMC. The bicycle parking regulations are being amended to change the number, location, and size of required bike racks, which is being reduced from what was previously required. A provision for the Director to allow an exception when site conditions prohibit compliance is being added. Commissioner Carlsen would like the requirements for multifamily development to be specified if it is to be calculated differently than other commercial development. Commissioner Anderson suggested determining how many bikes need to be parked not how many bike racks are needed and therefore let the applicant decide what type of rack they want and the number of bikes they need to accommodate. Ms. Janssen explained Table 22.50-2 Required Parking Spaces had been reformatted to be more consistent with the formatting of the recently updated Permitted Use Matrix (19.120), and said the NAICS code references have been removed. The table also modifies the number of required parking spaces for several uses based on an assessment of other local jurisdiction parking requirements. Ms. Janssen reviewed a few of the changes being proposed such as espresso stands, schools, etc.,and gave as an example, that Animal processing currently requires one parking space per employee, and that the suggestion is to change that to one parking space per the number of staff on the largest shift. Schools were proposed to change to reflect the grade ranges, which change is the current practice around the area. Commissioner Carlsen felt the parking which was currently being used for schools was more reflective of what would be needed rather than the proposed change. An espresso stand is currently required to have one space plus one per employee. The change suggested was one per 250 gross square feet. Commissioner Carlsen asked how many spaces were required to be ADA (Americans with Disability Act) compliant. Ms. Janssen replied that one out of every 25 spaces must be ADA compliant, and one of every six must be van accessible. Commissioner Phillips asked if you only have one parking space required then must it be ADA Van accessible, and Ms. Janssen confirmed that was accurate. Mr. Garcia explained that if a business was on an ADA accessible route, then the business was required to be ADA accessible, and have a space for it. The Commissioners wanted to know when an ADA space would not be required. Commissioner Stoy said he thought that less than four or five spaces did not require an ADA space. It was noted the public hearing for these amendments is scheduled for August 28,2014. 08-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Wood asked if he could make a statement regarding the bicycle parking. He said he had been a small businessman all of his life, and the idea that he would be forced to provide another cost to do business is ludicrous. He said he opposes it and he does not support something like it. Mr. Wood said he understood he could not change it, but he felt he had to express his displeasure with the whole idea of bicycle racks. Mr. Hohman clarified for Mr. Wood that the requirement for a bicycle rack was already in the SVMC and that this process was amending the current requirements. Mr. Hohman explained that Mr. Wood was welcome to express his displeasure again at the public hearing and offer a change to the code at that time. Mr. Wood said he understood. Mr. Wood also offered that he rode a bicycle himself, however he had a problem with forcing businesses to absorb a cost. He said he sees many bike racks with no bikes in them. Commissioner Phillips stated he agreed with Mr. Wood and he was opposed to requiring bicycle racks and when it came time for deliberation, he would probably vote to not have the requirement. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Mr. Stoy thanked the Commissioners for their assistance regarding his absence. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Attizi .1)6 Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 08-14-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4