Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 09-11-14 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, September 11,2014 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,Absent,Excused Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Robert McCaslin Christina Janssen,Planner Mike Phillips Lori Barlow,Senior Planner Steven Neill Luis Garcia,Development Services Coordinator Joe Stoy Sam Wood Deanna Horton,Secretary Hearing no objections Commissioner Carlsen was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Neill moved to approve the September 11, 2014 agenda as presented. Motion passed six to zero. Commissioner Neill moved to approve the August 28, 2014 minutes as presented. Motion passed, six to zero. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners had nothing to report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Director Hohman said the Shoreline Master Program would be coming to the agenda for the formal adoption process. Mr. Hohman also said the state mandated update of the Comprehensive Plan,which is required to be completed by 2017,will be begin sometime in 2015 due to the City Council's desire to have to it completed ahead of time. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Continued deliberations — CTA-2014-0003, Code text amendments to sections of Title 19, Title 22 and Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC): At the August 28, 2014 meeting the Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC): • Appendix A changing the Recreational Facility definition specifying indoor gun ranges; this amendment was passed as proposed. • Sections 19.40.010, 19.60.010, 19.70.010, and 19.70.020 removing screening requirement for community facilities and public utilities;this amendment was passed as proposed, • Section 19.60.010 removing the shared access requirement for new development; this amendment was passed as proposed, • Sections 19.60.040, 19.60.060, 19.60.070, 19.60.080, 19.70.010 modifying outdoor storage requirements, this proposal passed with the change to remove the requirements for front and flanking yards and added requirements for no storage in drainage easements and for meeting the requirements of the clearview triangle regulations. • Section 19.120.050,permitting Outdoor storage as a use,this amendment passed as proposed, • Section 19.120.050, allowing automobile/truck repair as a permitted use in Corridor Mixed Use and Community Commercial zones,this amendment passed, • Section 19.40.130 modifying development standards for Manufactured Home Parks; this amendment passed with a modification for the setback on the carport based on where the car would take access from. 09-11-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 4 The following amendments were still left to be deliberated upon: • Section 19.120.050 permitting limited medical and dental clinic use in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones; • Section 22.50.020 modifying the vehicle parking requirements; • Section 22.50.030 modifying the off-street loading requirements; • Section 22.50.040 modifying bicycle parking requirements; • Table 22.50-2 modifying the table layout and specific activity parking requirements. The Commission continued their deliberations with a discussion of 19.120.050 allowing medical/dental clinics only in existing structures. Expansion would allowed but only be 10% of the original structure footprint. Commissioner Anderson asked why new structures would not be allowed. Ms. Barlow stated since the City's developable inventory of MF-1 and MF-2 zoned properties in the City was limited;the intent was not to allow those properties to be used for a use, which would not be a desired use in those zones. An existing structure on a parcel could be converted and expanded for any necessary modifications but would leave larger parcels for permitted uses. The Commissioners debated over: • The amount to modify an existing structure • allowing new structures, • if a new structure should be allowed,what size should it be, • limiting the size of the lots to be developed, • not allowing the encroachment of offices into multifamily zones to preserve the Comprehensive Plan designations and the zoning districts, • allowing new buildings but only as a replacement structure to relocate on the parcel to make it more useable • whether to allow the use in these zones. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend approval of allowing medical/dental clinics in the MF-1 and MF-2 zoning districts as presented by staff. Commissioner Neill stated this amendment should limit the size of the structures in order to stay true to the Comprehensive Plan. The vote on the motion was one to five,motion fails. (Commissioner Neill in favor) Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend approval of allowing medical/dental clinics in the MF-1 and MF-2 zoning districts with the conditions it has to be an existing residential structure and the lot size could not exceed 10,000 square feet. There was discussion about how to determine what would be the correct lot size to limit the development to, how it would be easier to limit the size of the building, but that an existing building might not be located on a property where it could be developed. Commissioners discussed needed alterations, modifying the original structure,moving the structure on the lot,allowing a new structure but not exceeding the footprint of the original structure, how big a structure would the Commission want to allow to be built. The Commissioners were concerned about digging into the inventory of MF properties if the buildings were allowed to be too large. Commissioner McCaslin felt that possibility limiting the size of the structure and the lot would be difficult and it was discussed to just allow the use as permitted and not as a use with conditions. Then Commissioner Neill suggested the size of the building suggested limiting the size of the building to 3,500 square feet. It was noted the height limits in the MF-1 zoning district is 40 feet and in the MF-2 it is 50 feet, which would allow a multistory building. Commissioner McCaslin stated it would be limited by the size of the lot. Commissioner Neill stated limiting the size of the building would keep a developer from buying a large lot and putting up a large building, keeping the larger lots available for multifamily development. Ms. Barlow explained that if it is permitted, then it could go anywhere in the zoning district, at any size whether it was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Barlow said it could be limited by size of the building, then it could be more consistent with the multifamily development in the area,if you limit the size of the lot,at this time she did not believe staff nor the Commissioners had enough information to make an educated decision on how to regulate this way, if it is limited to existing structures then it is limited to small professional offices, but there would be no new buildings. Commissioner McCaslin felt that that it should be permitted but not allow expansion any more than 10%of the existing structure. The vote on the motion to limit the lot size to 10,000 square feet failed with a vote of zero to six. Commissioner Anderson moved to allow medical/dental offices in existing residential structures in the MF-1 and MF-2 zones. Existing structures would be allowed to be modified to increase by 10%. New structures would be permitted, but the square footage would be limited to the same amount of the original structure plus 10%. Vote on this motion was six to zero. Motion passed. 09-11-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 The next subject was off-street parking in 22.50.020. This was some simple changes to keep up with some vernacular which is commonly used in the department and an addition to allow the director to make provisions when site conditions prohibit compliance. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend the changes to 22.50.020 as presented by staff. Motion approved by a vote of six to zero. The proposed amendment for off-street loading spaces in 22.50.030 has moved the required dimensions for the spaces from text to a table, and removed the landscaping requirements; only allow docks in the rear or on the side of the building. Ms.Janssen displayed the main points which were discussed at the last meeting and which are important points which should be maintained, all parking and maneuvering must be done on the property, loading locks must be on the side or back of the building(except in industrial zones)and they must not impact landscaping or required parking. Commissioner Anderson, McCaslin, Wood felt this subject should be market driven. They felt that loading docks should be allowed to be located where the retailer feels it works for them but unloading should not occur in the right-of-way. Commissioner Stoy felt there were valid reasons for requiring where the loading docks and maneuvering to occur on private property to keep trucks from unloading in the right-of-way. Mr. Stoy felt the length of a loading space should be 30 feet not 60 feet if there were more than one dock. Ms. Barlow noted the sizes have been in the municipal code and were not changed when staff moved them to the table. Mr. Hohman noted that a loading dock in the front of a building is done to not restrict the developer, but to make a pleasant viewing building and to attract more pleasing buildings to the neighborhood. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend approval of 22.50.030 as presented by staff. Motion fails with a vote of two to four,Commissioners Stoy,McCaslin,Anderson and Wood dissenting. Commissioner Wood moved to recommend approval 22.50.030 proposed amendment with the following changes: no limitations where the dock will be located, define the minimum loading space size as 12x30, no height restriction. The motion passed with a vote of six to zero. Ms. Janssen moved on to bicycle racks in 22.50.040, added regulations to look at racks for multifamily developments differently than other commercial developments. New requirements ask for less bike racks than were required previously and a provision for the director to make an exception in certain cases. Commissioner Anderson asked about the desire to have bike racks, or bike parking spaces. Ms. Janssen responded the desired result was to provide the spaces. Commissioner Anderson would like to propose the requirement be changed to space and not required racks. Commissioner McCaslin asked if bike parking was regulated by the state law,if it was just use the state requirements and allow the state to regulate and enforce the requirements. Deputy City Attorney Lamb stated he was not aware of any state requirements for bike parking however he did say that the Growth Management Act has requirements for transportation and there are requirements in the Comprehensive Plan regarding transportation including the Bike and Pedestrian Plan. Mr. Lamb also noted there are transportation grants associated with bike lanes and other bike facilities. He said he was not aware of any state requirements for bike racks, there could be other implications if we are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other opportunities, if the requirement was eliminated. Ms. Barlow reaffirmed that the biking community also needs to have facilities to be able to shop and commute with a bike and the racks assist in that process. She also explained that having the regulations and the bike plan in the Comprehensive Plan allowed us to meet the needs of the community. Commissioner Neill noted when the Bike Plan came before the Planning Commission there were people in attendance who supported the Plan;however there was no one against it. Commissioner Phillips stated he had expressed this disapproval of the requirement of having to have bike racks at the previous meeting. He feels a retailer should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not he would like to have bike racks in front of his business. If the retailer doesn't care, then he would not make the effort, and that was fine with him. He as in favor of the amendment as it stands, because it was a reduction in the requirements. He also liked the fact that a smaller business would not be required to have any. Mr. Phillips would like the subject to be readdressed in the future. Commissioner Wood stated he resented the fact, personally, as a tax payer and as a citizen that he votes for things because of available funding, then he is manipulated by powers outside of this area to do things that he might not agree to. He said he does them so that he can get that funding. He personally resents it. Ms. Barlow said she would like to clarify a previous comment (that the Bike and Pedestrian Plan is in the Comprehensive Plan) being in a higher category of being able to receive grant money is spurred on by the fact that the community went through a process to identify the Bike and Pedestrian Plan was an important asset that the community wanted to have included in their Comprehensive Plan. Therefore the funding and the grants being pursued are implementing the community adopted standard. The grants are not driving the standard; the standards are driving the pursuit of the grants. When the City went through a community based process to 09-11-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 develop the Bike and Pedestrian Plan that was what the community said it wanted to see, so staff is implementing a community based standard. Ms. Barlow stated she wanted to make sure that the Commissioners understood this was a community desire which drove the pursuit of the grants,not the other way around. Commissioner Neill also reminded the Commissioners that the people who showed up for the community meetings and the public hearing on the Bicycle Plan were all in favor,every one. This is the reality of life. Things are dictated by the people who show up. Commissioner Wood commented that sometimes the minority gets pretty loud and we listen to them a lot and it is unfortunate that the majority does not speak out, and he does not know how to address that. He said he could not believe that because only a few people showed up,that it represents a majority of the citizens of Spokane Valley. Director Hohman reminded the Commissioners their job was to do what was best for the community, not to bring forward what was best for them as individuals,but looking beyond that and looking for what would be the best for the community. Mr. Hohman said the Commissioners should listen to the Mayor, who approves of the bike plan, and things like it,because it is a quality of life factor. If the City does not have these types of things, it is more difficult to recruit new companies into the area. These are all quality of life factors which need to be looked,and looked at for the entire community. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend approval of 22.50.040 as presented except to change parking racks to parking spaces. The vote on the motion was six to zero, the motion passed. The next subject was Table 22.50-2 the parking matrix which has been reformatted to match the recently changed use matrix to match the broad use format, removed the NAICS codes, the parking requirements have been reduced. Staff has compared the parking requirements in several jurisdictions and has reduced the number of required car parks in all cases. Commissioner McCaslin asked if developers have come and asked for less parking requirements for their projects. Mr. Hohman commented that in many cases the developer installed more parking spaces than staff was requiring. Commissioner Neill moved to recommend approval of 22.50-2 as presented by staff. The motion passed with a vote of six in favor and zero against. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner McCaslin thanked staff for the hard work on the amendments. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. • Joe Stoy,Chairperso Date signed /11.1/CL.¶1 .! Deanna Horton,Secretary 09-11-14 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4