Loading...
Agenda 04/23/2015 Valle H Siia5kane Spokane Valley Planning Commission Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. April 23, 2015 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 9, 2015 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: • Study Session — CTA-2015-0004 Administrative Exceptions • Study Session — Comprehensive Plan Amendments Citizen Amendment Requests • Discussion Topic — Subdivision requirements X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, April 9,2015 Chairman 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,Director Heather Graham Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the April 9, 2015 agenda as presented. The vote to approve the agenda was seven in favor, zero against. The motion passed. Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the March 26, 2015 minutes as presented. The vote to approve the minutes was seven in favor, zero against. The motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Wood reported he attended the National Federation of Independent Business meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Community and Economic Development Director John Hohman reported he attended the Spokane Valley Business Association meeting that morning. He said he had discussed the City Hall project and how the project is progressing. Commissioner Anderson said he had received notice of a public comment period for the City's Shoreline Master Program (SMP) and thought it had been adopted. Mr. Hohman explained the SMP had been through the local adoption process but was now in the hands of the Department of Ecology (DOE). The Dept. of Ecology would now put the SMP through their process, gathering comments and either adopting it as it has been submitted or returning it with comments. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Planning Commission Training—Duties,Roles and Responsibilities: Mr. Mike Connelly of Etter, McMahon, Lamberson, Van Wert & Ore skovich gave the Planning Commission training regarding Planning Commission duties as a recommending body to the City Council. Mr. Connelly also covered simple rules of order for the conducting of a meeting. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Nothing was offered for the Good of the Order ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:29 p.m. Joe Stoy,Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 04-09-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: April 23,2015 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information® admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2015-0004 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session—Administrative Exceptions DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Updates to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.40.090(Residential accessory uses and structures) and 19.140(Administrative Exceptions) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None. BACKGROUND: Since City incorporation in March 2003,development regulations have included Administrative Exceptions. The intent of the Administrative Exception is to allow minor exceptions to specific code requirements when necessary to accommodate development. With the adoption of the City's development regulations in October 2007,language was included that significantly narrowed the circumstances in which the administrative exception may be applied. As a result of this,administrative exceptions have been used regularly to make adjustments to the code requirements which do not strictly meet the requirements for approval,but do fall within the parameters of SVMC 19.140.010. Staff worked with the Commission on the development of these proposed regulations.At this time language has been developed to amend the code that will clarify under what circumstances an Administrative Exception may be granted. Staff will present the proposed text amendment. A public hearing has been scheduled for May 14th. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen,Planner ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed language SVMC 19.40.090 B. Proposed language SVMC 19.140 C. Presentation RPCA for CTA-2015-0004 Administrative Exception Study Session 19.40.090 Residential accessory uses and structures.° SHARE A._Except for the air conditioning compressors of detached single family residential, Ceooling towers and similar accessory structures are required to observe all front, side or rear yards. B. The combined building footprint of all accessory permanent structures in residential zoning districts shall not exceed 10 percent of the lot area.Accessory structure(s)are permitted as follows: 1.Fef--1Lots equal to, or less than, 10,000 sq. ft. in size may have up to=1,000 sq. ft. of accessory structure(s) 2.For 1Lots greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in size may have accessory structure that shall not exceed =10 percent of lot size C. The vertical wall of an in-ground swimming pool shall be located behind front building setback lines and at least five feet from the property line. All pools must shall be secured in accordance with the requirements of the adopted building regulationscodes. Temporary fencing is required during excavation. (Ord. 08-006 § 1,2008; Ord. 07-015 § 4,2007). Chapter 19.140 ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS Sections: 19.140.010 PurposeAllowed Exceptions. 19.140.020 Approval criteria. 19.140.030 Process. 19.140.010 Allowed Exceptions osc.O SHARE 7 An administrative exception may be considered approved,only for adjustments necessary to correct errors resulting from the inadvertent and unintentional placement of structures or incorrect identification of lot boundaries for minor deviations to code requirements in the following circumstances,provided the exception is consistent with the criteria in section 19.140.020 A. Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed one foot. B. Under the following conditions: 1. A parcel established prior to March 31, 2003,that does not meet the buildable square footage requirements for a parcel in a particular zoning district; or 2. A legally nonconforming dwelling with respect to setbacks,height and size which otherwise could not be expanded or reconstructed; or 3. A duplex constructed prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the minimum parcel size,which could not otherwise be reconstructed. A.-Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required yard. D. Building height requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the maximum building height. Additional building height may be granted to the equivalent height of adjacent buildings in areas where the maximum building height is generally exceeded. EB.Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for 25 10 percent or less of the required lot area. F. Maximum building coverage requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the maximum building coverage. C..&Lot width under the following circumstances:or depth where the deviation is for 10 percent or less than the required lot width or depth. 1. Lot width requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less than the required lot width. 2. Lot width requirements where the deviation is greater than 10 percent;provided, that the department may require notice to affected agencies resulting in conditions of approval. H. Up to one half of a private tower's impact area off of the applicant's property. 1. At the time the subject parcel was legally created the property was zoned under a zoning classification of the pre January 1, 1991, Spokane County zoning ordinance, and subsequently on January 1, 1991, a new zoning classification from the zoning code of Spokane County, Washington, was assigned to the subject property; and 2. Any flanking yard setback deviation granted under this section shall not exceed the required flanking street setback standards of the pre January 1, 1991, zoning classification of the subject property. J. Any improved property rendered nonconforming through voluntary dedication of right of way, the exercise of eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right of way by the City, county, state or federal agency. (Ord. 11 010 § 1 (Exh. A), 2011; Ord. 10 015 § 2, 2010; Ord. 07 015 § 'I, 2007). 19.140.020 Approval criteria l.a SHARE The Director shall Criteria for approv4e or denyital of the applications shall be established by the director if it is shown thatbased on the following criteria: A. The administrative exception does not detract from the character and nature of the neighborhood or vicinity in which it is proposed; B. The administrative exception enhances or protects the character of the neighborhood or vicinity by protecting natural features,historic sites,open space,or other resources; C. The administrative exception does not interfere with or negatively impact the operations of existing land uses and all legally permitted uses within the zoning district it occupies; D. The exception shall not apply to a series of parcels; for example,it shall not be used to reduce size or frontage of a series of lots to create another lot; DE. The administrative exception shall not be used to increase density beyond what is currently allowed within the zoning district;.- F. The exception shall not be contrary to conditions imposed by any other associated land use action,for example, a Hearing Examiner Decision,or conditions associated with the applicable short plat approval; G. The exception shall not conflict with other local, state or federal laws; and HD. Granting the administrative exception does not constitute a threat to the public health, safety and welfare within the City. (Ord. 10-015 § 2,2010;Ord. 07-015 § 4,2007). 19.140.030 Process J0 SHARE J An administrative exception is classified as a Type I permit and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.070. (Ord. 10-015 § 2,2010; Ord. 07-015 § 4,2007 SpokancV,,�Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .!P NG DIVISION! -- Planning Commission April 23, 2015 Residential accessory uses and structures SVMC 19 .40 . 090 Administrative Exceptions SVMC 19 . 140 Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TtANNING DIVISION! -- Administrative Exceptions Chapter 19. 140 SVMC Administrative Exception : A minor deviation from standards pursuant to Chapter 19 . 140 SVMC. SpokaneCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4P NSG DIVISION! -� Administrative Exceptions Chapter 19. 140 SVMC 19. 140.010 Purpose. An administrative exception may be considered only for adjustments necessary to correct errors resulting from the inadvertent and unintentional placement of structures or incorrect identification of lot boundaries in the following circumstances : Sp°'�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,TtANNING DIVISION ' 19.140.010 Purpose. a�i� t�t��xc' • i � ; �_ 4Pb�c� ;� ittOettuaistpnliae nts necessary to P �� ol���r s ti • t �Yi ���rfcement of mictadienimoisettdtweatexe..te : e'estlyriatliay-Mowing circumstances: approved for minor deviations to code requirements in the following circumstances, provided the exception is consistent with the criteria in section 19 . 140 . 020 Spo,areail COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT tPt._r... DIVISION! � J 19.140.020 Approval criteria Unit Valwrodenial ail edadDiilitetb §-theigiceittotaif it is shown that: At.. ilk (16;11111111a:111 f4Vyf:i1l)111(0)1II (kI)f.g, matt (d'1iIli"ii In woo! IIIA" Nivela ithe IIIIIF.'J II bettleclvicimiejcikmihilallaidisipie : B. The administrative exception enhances or protects the character of the neighborhood or vicinity by protecting natural features, historic sites, open space, or other resources. C. The administrative exception does not interfere with or negatively impact the operations of existing land uses and all legally permitted uses within the zoning designation it occupies. D. Granting the administrative exception does not constitute a threat to the public health, safety and welfare within the City. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Spoltare DIVISION - Valle PIAN ING D. The exception shall not apply to a series of parcels; for example, it should not be used to reduce size or frontage of a series of lots to create another lot; E. The administrative exception shall not be used to increase density beyond what is currently allowed within the zoning district; F. The exception shall not be contrary to conditions imposed by any other associated land use action, for example, a Hearing Examiner Decision, or conditions associated with the applicable short plat approval; G. The exception shall not conflict with other local, state, or federal laws. H. Granting the administrative exception does not constitute a threat to the public health, safety and welfare within the City. Willr41111,..: Spokane -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OtANIMELD26m ....IF Val ley A. B. Um.lci tlic follow 1.,1111L111:11111 . 1 . A pa1 stablishJ ptu MaiLdh 31, 2003, that kls nut mL,t th buildabk, square footage requirements for a parcel in a particular zoning district; or 2. A legally nonconforming dwelling with respect to setbacks, height and size cririfrerthermist—er triel-nert b -L--)v-p-arrird-cirru-cerrs-trtreterlreir 3. A duplex constructed prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the minimum parcel size, which could not otherwise bo reconstructed. C. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required yard. D. Building height leguitements Miele the deviation is I'm 23 peleent ui less of the • __ _ • _ _ • _ _ . _ _ " _ _ _ _ • _ _ • _ _ _ . . • w • MP MP MP MP equivalent height of adjacent building in areas where the maximum building height i3 generally exceeded. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTN NG D�vr i �v Val E. Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the required lot area. F. Maximum building coverage requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or _ _ _ _ _ _ maximum b . G. Lot width under the following circumstances: 1 . Lot width requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less than the required lot width. 2. Lot width requirements where the deviation is greater than 10 percent; provided, that the department may require notice to affected agencies resulting in conditions of approval. . . • . . lc applicant's pi SPOkane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,4PtANNINlinar‘IFIRRIMMINIMIG DIVISION .00.0 Valley II. Up to one half of a private tower's impact arca off of the applicant's property I. FlankiAg 3111/4.,1/4,-t-yard sctbacks, previelrel-thrt& 1 . At thc time thc subjcct parcel was legally crcatcd thc property was zoncd undcr a zoning classification of thc prc January 1, 1991, Spokanc County zoning ordinance, and sblbsectoontly on January 1, 1991, a ncw zoning classification from the zoning code of Spokane County, Washington, was assigned to the subject property; and 2. Any flanking yard 3ctback dcviation grantcd undcr thi3 3cction 3hall not efteeet1-44e-rettttirele1-441ftik-iftg street setback s+andard3 of thc prc January 1, 1991, zoning classification of the subject property. J. Any improved property rendered nonconforming through voluntary dedication of - .7 . •, - - - • - - I . • - - I • mg - • - .y . by the City, county, state or federal agency. SpokaneCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT !P NIG DIVISION -� A. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required yard; B . Minimum lot area requirement where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required lot area; C. Lot width or depth where the deviation is for 10 percent or less than the required lot width or depth. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PI AN. _ING DrvisiON --- Valley Residential accessory uses and structures Chapter 19.40.090 19.40.090 Residential accessory uses and structures. A_ emalAgfootqleigvithithvidikiletritigectmemvoctuAglateched nerd lob vemiliftgAqvg e aticiaimAttlaat zati structures are required to observe all front, side or rear yards COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT t_r I Spokane P1AN _ING Divr�i��v =�„oval ley I�� (a(1)I I 111 ll)�I I I l��(1 I w I I I (11 I I I I1 I o o I I I u I 1 �I I I1 I w,i 1 1 1 (i(VI(VI(':,;;, :(1)1 v� 11).. plitimetuantistmositirmtiml osifil ;'gtalaidixrtinvelistriutiltelalait ifollexueed 10 percent of the lot area. 1 . Lots equal to, or less than, 10,000 sq. ft. in size may have up to1 ,000 square feet of accessory structure(s) 2. Lots greater than 10,000 square feet in size may have accessory structure(s) that shall not exceed 10 percent of lot size. °'arteVal ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT lMG Divrsiory C. The vertical wall of an in-ground swimming pool shall be located behind the front building setback lines and at least five feet from the property line. All pools isimait be secured in accordance with the requirements of the adopted building .NN vkitilimpTelonpirfgnisingli.tired dtujñg dx ainc avati on. Sprikane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING DIVISION Questions ? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: April 23,2015 File Number: CAR-2015-0001 through CAR-2015-0026 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ®new business n public hearing n information® admin.report n pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session — Citizen-Initiated Amendment Requests (CAR) to the Comprehensive Plan DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Consideration of the CAR amendment requests to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Map or text amendments that may result in changes to the development regulations for properties in Spokane Valley. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 BACKGROUND: The City is in the process of updating the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan to meet the legislative update. The Growth Management Act mandates that a complete review of the Comprehensive Plan be conducted every eight years to ensure consistency with the state law and County- wide Planning Policies. The City's legislative deadline is June 30, 2017. As part of that update, the City has accepted Citizen Amendment Requests(CARs)that propose changes to the land use map or text of the Comprehensive Plan that may lead to changes in the development regulations for properties in Spokane Valley. The Planning Commission is asked to review the CARS to provide a recommendation to the City Council on which requests should be studied as part of the update to the Comprehensive Plan, deferred to a future date, or not considered. The review process for the CARS differs from the annual amendment process in that this review does not constitute a decision on the land use designation requested, or policy language requested, but will determine if the request will move forward for analysis in the update process. The review is tentatively scheduled as follows: April 23,2015: Planning Commission Study Session May 14,2015: Planning Commission Public Hearing May 18,2015: Special Meeting for Continued Public Hearing and/or Deliberations as required June 2,2015: City Council Administrative Report June 9,2015: City Council Motion The requests are summarized in Attachment A and further identified by the application number on the CAR Location Map. Additional information will be provided at the meeting, and an overview of each request will be presented. The Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing and deliberations. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner Attachment A CAR-2015-0001 through CAR-2015-0026 Attachments: Attachment A—Summary of CAR Requests and Map CAR Wry of Request Application ment Change Comprehensive Plan Designation/Change Zoning Designation Number Type CAR 15-001 Map Site: 1618 N. Sargent. Rezone parcel from GO to MF-2 CAR 15-002 Map Site: 115 and 117 N.McDonald Road. Rezone parcels R-3 to CMU CAR 15-003 Map Site: 16608 Broadway Ave. Rezone parcel from R-3 to MF-2 CAR 15-004 Map Site: Vacant Lot. Rezone parcel from 0 to NC CAR 15-005 Map Site: 226 S. Sullivan Road. Rezone parcel from 0 to NC CAR 15-006 Map Site: 302 S. Sullivan Road. Rezone parcel from 0 to NC CAR 15-007 Map Site: 320 S Sullivan Road. Rezone parcel from 0 to NC CAR 15-008 Map Site: 15411 E 4th Avenue. Rezone parcel from MF-1 to NC CAR 15-009 Map Site: 15410 E 2nd Avenue. Rezone parcel from MF-1 to NC CAR 15-010 Map Site: 13313 E 4th Avenue. Rezone parcel from MF-1 to MF-2 CAR 15-011 Map Site: 13215 E 4th Avenue. Rezone parcel from MF-1 to MF-2 CAR 15-0012 Map Site: Vacant Lot. Rezone parcel from MF-2 to CMU CAR 15-0013 Map Site: 8021 E Broadway. Rezone parcel from 0 to MF2 CAR 15-0014 Map Site: 15316 E Valleyway Avenue. Rezone parcel from R-4 to C CAR 15-0015 Map Site: 15324 E Valleyway Avenue. Rezone parcel from R-4 to C CAR 15-0016 Map Site: Southern's Mobile Park, located at the intersection of LaBerry and Barker. Rezone parcels from MF-1 to MF-2 CAR 15-0017 Map Site: 807 N Argonne Road. Rezone parcel from GO to NC CAR 15-0018 Map Site: City wide. Develop a Mineral Resource Land Designation Overlay Overlay CAR 15-0019 Map Site: 13520 E Nora. Rezone parcel from 0 to C CAR 15-0020 Map Site: 12717, 12725, 12803, 12815, 12823, 12842 E 4th Avenue. Rezone six parcels MF-1 to MF-2 CAR 15-0021 Text Modify Garden Office to allow MF-1 density residential uses and Office Zone to allow MF-2 density residential uses CAR 15-0022 Text Create Affordable Housing Incentives CAR 15-0023 Text Add Housing Policies to support a broad and diverse range of housing options CAR 15-0024 Text Develop and establish best practices protocol for development proposals that affect neighborhoods CAR 15-0025 Map Site: Citywide. Develop Manufacture Home Park Overlay Overlay CAR 15-0026 Text Add Manufactured Home Displacement Policies Citizen - Initiated Amendment (CAR) Request Locations - April 15, 2015 111Mibk4 i 7 i i, __ oioAAd Mr , 4. ,Ea -, __-=.-....=---- - i or 111 N■ 111 1111111 City of _° iit .� �all 0 Millwood f� EVA. Pi vilir 14111 iii peraill LE. (i.,)__ rimpirrl ....m__, ...... . ,,,_,,, ,1111:0,1 11-6., ...,,i City of 1122 0 Spokane V ith � __ � SCAR 15-0019 � �I'¢CAR 15-001impO to C Av 01=1,.. ..dollin till, -, OtoHDRIMINBIllsommmoill EalliElarm % NM — � �� f71 LCAR 15-0013 CAR 15-0017 ® � ��\\�� U� l - Oto HDR ��� Oto NCmi ®% ®� CAR 15-003 _` " 'fiber. I��r�ppp���� V 11 mm�001111 1 _LDRto HDRLake L = . r ■ ® ■ am 15-0014-0015 , . CAR 15-0016 % CAR 15-0012 CAR 15-002 a LDR to Cappip....,,,,,,407.4:,...D,_R•ito.HDR �� % I.LDRtoCMU � �� pp_ © O = HDR to CMU �_ LJ - , —mom— m, O -,,,,,,,..i,CAR 15-0020`- 6,__. \ �.\ `\\\ MDRto HDR,a4111= \O\ Jf !!-m... ''''.•, a Se° SP1 \ \M � if , , f_'ML_r 1.%iiiiilo --- 41i.a i ice' aimumnirrAR 15-010-O�S -00�•• CAR 15-004-007 4ip L_ MDR to HDR J Oto CMU or NC ___ MDR to CMU or NC NNW O71 0 _ 4 m__ L•I'M tits g ■■■o■■■ miwo ...— ar- . i Citizen - Initiated Amendment (CAR) Request Locations - April 15, 2015 II1Mtib -1I- i m„ --: '-rms../ lilliti-mm-' ., ,,:7:, 111 N■ JtI �MIIII 111/11111 c,ryot W , "VAMP ."..v 1 _ ■ Millwood icy .0 INIMMENNIME 11.11110 41 ,, .M.71111 City ofIT 1 1iim O - SpokancNM ird&W Mil V ■ _- E 1 � � /SCAR 15-0019 ® �■ lulmir �'¢CAR 15-001 INESTEV O to C — eilig Milli Illb"- ____NI _ our Oto HDR N, Nm.i.J1 mai m pm rirm. xitacAR 15-001 1CAR 15-001 ■ ■®® MMMI VAkJ- S'bcrtLJ Oto HDR i� Oto NC ®� MC LDRtSHDR ��Lakc DINM Ai n / �� . 'e Mir 15-0014-0015AQII I CAR 15-00'6 I- 7 mimmillil . CAR 15-0012 CAR 15-002 LDR to C MDR to HCR O....,4F / _ ELDRto CMU w M� ' wpm„,-.„-.-,,.. © HDR to CMU �� 11 - —�� CAR 15-0020gailwailw © � ,,, q ima \\, mo\ \ ''' I I- • • Ill =I., 7611124 li ____;," I lumnli 1 r_ –4 [1111416 - 1 1 CAR 15-010-0�S �-� !■• CA117M,007 © Mal, CAR 15-008 009 \ L_ MIIMILMDR to HDR J _ Oto CMU or NC _Lai M MDR to CMU or NC MI-ft=M Milleji= • mmmil. ■■■o■■■ L i�viii ffl _' :Al 1 0111110" miriarml.WM N■■ ' wow, -,,i1■■ NAM VIP 10 W Overlay Locations ■dIt d�• ■ ■ Legend CAR Application Description of EN==== _CAR Parcels Number Request X qv lli■=n Comprehensive Plan Mixetl Use Center(MUC) Develop a Mineral Resource �� ::::::::: Land Designation Overlay Develop Manufactured _ r Home Park Overlay ;EMI -High Density tial(HDR) WI AT ra Office(0) 11‘ WO • .. Neighborhootl Commercial(NC) Community Commercial(C) -Reg onal Commercial(RC) Light IntlusUial(LI) 7_,� -Heavy Industrial(HI) Spokan� I _Pa k/Open Space(POS) �Ualley „ -water. es(we) n..u�a�rn�� RaA�Az M I CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: April 23,2015 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ® new business n public hearing n information® admin.report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session — Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 20 Subdivision Regulations DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Discuss the general design of lots when subdividing with a primary focus on corner lots. Discuss electronic final plat submittal requirements. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN:None BACKGROUND: The Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 20 Subdivision regulation requires an increase in lot width for corner lots. The increase is intended to allow a buildable lot width after applying side and flanking street setbacks when the house is sited. Variable border easements can create issues when siting a building on a corner lot. The discussion will define the issue and present options to address the issue. The SVMC states when a lot is created that backs to an arterial street it requires a screening device, however it is not specific on the type of screening device required. The discussion will present an option to clarify the issue. The SVMC requires the submittal of a Final Plat map in an electronic format. The accuracy of the electronic maps created inefficiencies with the GIS staff. This will be included in the final code text amendment developed as a deletion from the code. The attached memo summarizes the issues and provides a critical analysis based on current regulations, historical building and platting activity, and existing conditions. Staff has developed several alternatives for discussion with the Planning Commission. The discussion will assist staff with developing the code text amendment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk,Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Memo April 15, 2015 2. Presentation RPCA for Subdivision Regulations Study Session ley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum Date: April 15,2015 To: John Hohman-Director Lori Barlow-Senior Planner From: Martin Palaniuk-Planner Re: Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)Title 20 Subdivision Regulations Issue 1 — Corner Lots SVMC 20.20.090 (B) (2) SVMC 20.20.090 is unclear when addressing corner lots. The issue of corner lot widths is included in the section addressing development along the intersection of two arterial streets. The inclusion in this section makes it unclear whether the width requirement applies to all corner lots or only corner lots on two arterial streets. Additionally, the SVMC requires corner lots to be 15-percent greater width than interior lots in order to provide a buildable footprint consistent with the interior lots. In many cases a border easement is required for placing improvements. The 15-percent increase in lot width on corner lots does not work when a border easement is required. Discussion: During the plat process lots are proposed to meet or exceed the minimum width, depth and area standards. Corner lots are required to be wider than interior lots to provide a reasonable building envelope. Corner lots require a front yard setback and a flanking street setback to ensure the structure is setback an appropriate distance from the street and traffic. In many cases a border easement is typically required along the street frontages to accommodate future street improvements such as curbs, gutters, swales and sidewalks. A border easement encumbers the lot and the width of the easement is determined based on the right-of-way requirements for the street type and whether improvements are already in place. When a border easement is required and placed on the plat, the setback is taken from the border easement line versus the property boundary line. This constricts the buildable footprint of the lot. In the R-3 zone for example, the minimum lot width is 65 feet. For an interior lot, if you subtract the two 5-foot side yard setbacks that are required, the buildable footprint width is 55 feet. If the corner lot met the minimum lot width requirement the buildable footprint width would be less than the interior lots and may be unbuildable. For example, a 65-foot wide corner lot may have a 13-foot border easement along the flanking street. After subtracting the interior side 5-foot side yard setback, the 13-foot border easement, and the 15-foot flanking street yard setback the buildable footprint width is reduced to 32 feet. This creates a challenge to the property owner when siting the home on the lot. The SVMC currently requires a corner lot to be 15 percent wider than the average interior lot. Because of the varying requirement of border easement widths, a 15-percent increase in the lot width does not fit well in every case. When a border easement is not required it achieves its intention; however when a border easement is required it leaves the buildable footprint width too narrow. 1 SVMC Title 20 Subdivision Regulations April 15,2015 The requirement also forces the creation of lots that are unnecessarily wide by linking the lot width to the "average interior lot". In some cases the average width of the interior lots is wider than the underlying zone would require. For example, in the R-3 zone the minimum lot width is 65 feet,however the plat may have an average interior lot width of 80 feet. This would force the developer to create a corner lot that is 92 feet wide or 27 feet wider than what is required by the underlying zone. The effect is to force the developer to create a corner lot width that goes beyond what the SVMC is trying to address. Because the lot widths vary by zone, and the border easements vary by project, and because the average of the interior lots may exceed what is required, a percentage requirement does not work well. Background: The Spokane Valley Interim Zoning Code in effect from incorporation until the adoption of the SVMC in October 2007 did not have a requirement for wider lot widths on corner lots. SVMC 20.20.090 (B) (2) (b) addresses the issue of corner lot widths by requiring a 15 percent greater width than the average of the interior lots. A survey of 15 jurisdictions within Washington State indicates that 1/3 of the jurisdictions addressed corner lot widths at the platting stage, and 1/3 of the jurisdictions addressed corner lots thru the implementation of setbacks. (See Table) Table 1 Survey of Jurisdictions—Corner Lot Dimensional Standards Spokane Corner lots shall be designed to ensure setbacks are met from both streets. Spokane County Not addressed in the subdivision code. Planners address the issue at the preliminary plat stage by highlighting the flanking street setback requirements and the need for a buildable lot. Airway Heights Not addressed in the subdivision code. Planning highlights the corner lot width setbacks at preliminary plat stage but rely on the developer to create a buildable lot. Liberty Lake Not addressed in the subdivision code. Planning relies on the form based development requirements to establish a corner lot width that is suitable for that type of development. Yakima County Corner lots for residential use shall have extra width to permit appropriate building setback from and orientation to both streets. City of Yakima Not addressed Wenatchee Other code provisions provide the ability to require an increase in the size of corner lots. This is derived from RCW 58.17 which requires lots to be buildable. A reduced setback is also allowed to mitigate the width challenges. Walla Walla Corner lots do not have a designated rear-yard setback. The lot has a primary front and a secondary front while the back yard is considered a side yard. This setback flexibility allows for a larger building envelope. Vancouver Corner lots must meet standard minimum lot widths. The flanking street setback is 10-feet. Street standards push the driveways away from the corner which has some effect on widening the lots. Kirkland Not addressed. Right-of-way contains the improvements. Setbacks are based from the property line. Corner lots the applicant can choose which street is the front and then can apply the setback on the flanking street. Cheney Not specifically addressed in the subdivision code. Zoning code corner lots require a 10 foot setback. 2 SVMC Title 20 Subdivision Regulations April 15,2015 Kennewick Lots having more than one abutting street shall be ten percent(10%) larger in area and wider than the minimum required by the zoning district to allow for adequate setbacks. Pasco Corner lots in residential districts shall be designed to allow for appropriate setbacks of a building from both streets. Richland Lot widths and lot areas shall conform with the zoning restrictions.....except that corner lots for which side yards are required shall have extra width to permit appropriate setback from and orientation to both streets. Bellingham Require additional lot width on corner lots abutting arterials Bremerton Not addressed Federal Way Front yard setbacks are 20 feet from main access street with a 10-foot setback from the flanking street. They do not put improvements in border easements. They require the improvements to be installed and dedicated as part of the right-of-way. They also require a 10 foot landscaping strip along arterials that must be a separate tract. In addition to researching how other municipalities addressed corner lots within their municipal code, a review of previous City of Spokane Valley plats was completed. The review was intended to determine whether corner lots met the corner lot requirements contained in the SVMC and whether any issues had been created by corner lots that do not meet the requirement. Staff's review divided the subdivisions and short plats into those recorded prior to the 2007 adoption of the 15%requirement and those adopted after 2007. Prior to 2007 and the current 15% requirement, 17 subdivisions were recorded. Sixteen of those subdivisions had corner lots. The corner lots in 12 of the 16 subdivisions met the 15% corner lot width requirement. Of the remaining four subdivisions that did not meet the 15% requirement, two exceeded the minimum lot width required in the zoning district. The remaining two subdivisions created corner lots with 33' and 46' buildable lot widths. Ten subdivisions have been recorded after the 2007 15% requirement. Three of these subdivisions avoided the corner lot requirement by creating a drainage tract on the corner adjacent to the lot. Six of the remaining seven subdivisions met the 15%requirement. The one subdivision that did not meet the 15%requirement created a corner lot width that was greater than the lot width required by the underlying zone. Staff reviewed 38 short plats recorded prior to 2007. Nine of these short plats created corner lots. Five of the nine short plats met the 15% requirement. All four of the short plats that did not meet the requirement created corner lots wider than what was required by the underlying zone. Staff reviewed 24 short plats recorded after 2007. Nine of the short plats created corner lots and all nine met the 15% requirement. It appears that corner lots are routinely made wider by the developers, but there is not a consistent dimensional increase in width. Staff contacted several engineering firms and developers and asked them their opinions based on their experience on corner lot widths. The consensus was that corner lot widths should not be regulated and the market and the homebuilder should determine an adequate lot width. Homebuilders and developers understand their home product and what the market requires and they create lots and homes that sell in the current market environment. They would like to retain the flexibility to develop their lots to accommodate their house plans and the market. When asked what a 3 SVMC Title 20 Subdivision Regulations April 15,2015 reasonable buildable lot width would be,the consensus was 40 feet. They all felt Table 2 this width was reasonable and would accommodate their development and home Study of Lot Width / Building product needs. Width Relation over 25 building Staff reviewed 25 random building permits to determine the lot width, the width permits of the building placed on the lot and the remaining side-yard width. Results are Lot Building Remaining shown in Table 2. Based on this Width Width Side Yards research, a 40-foot wide required I 60 38 22 building footprint width would accommodate over half of the - 60 percent (15) of 65 40 25 50 40 10 buildings being placed on residential the buildings 65 40 25 lots. were less than 40 89 66 23 Proposed Solutions feet wide. 51 40 11 62 51 11 Option 1 - Since the requirement to - 32 percent (8) of 55 45 10 increase the lot width attempts to the buildings 70 51 19 create the same buildable envelope as were greater than 50 40 10 the interior lots; the proposed solution 45 feet wide. 50 40 10 is to link the buildable width 90 53 37 requirement of corner lots to the lot width requirements for the underlying - 8 percent (2) of 50 28 22 zone. Each residential zone has a the buildings 105 65 40 minimum lot width requirement. For 75 51 24 interior lots this minimum lot width ', 50 40 10 leaves a minimum buildable footprint 50 36 14 width at the setback line. Buildable footprint width is the width of the lot in 50 40 10 which a building can be placed or sited at the building setback line. On interior 65 40 25 lots this buildable footprint width is equal to the minimum lot width minus the 52 36 16 two 5-foot side yard setbacks. In the R-3 zone this would be 55 feet of buildable 50 40 10 footprint width (65 feet minus the two 5-foot side yard setbacks). Linking the 96 41 55 corner lot width requirement to the minimum building footprint width for the 65 46 19 underlying zone would customize the corner lot to account for the varying border 65 55 10 easement width requirements. A corner lot in an R-3 zone with a border 50 38 12 easement of seven feet would be required to have a minimum lot width of 82 Average Average Average= feet. Table 3 provides a dimensional breakdown of the 82 feet. A corner lot in =63' =44' 19' Table 3 an R-3 zone with a border easement of R-3 Zone Corner Lot Width 13 feet would be required to have a minimum lot width of 88 feet. Dimension Reason Table 4 provides the minimum buildable footprint widths for each zoning 55 feet Required buildable lot width district. Based on the table, each corner lot would add the required side yard 5 feet Side yard opposite the and flanking street setbacks widths along with the border easement width to the flanking street buildable footprint width to arrive at the required lot width. 15 feet Flanking street setback 7 feet Border easement 82 feet Required total lot width 4 SVMC Title 20 Subdivision Regulations April 15,2015 Table 4 Option 1 -Minimum Buildable Footprint by Zoning District R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MF-1 MF-2 PRD Mixed Use Minimum Buildable Lot 70 70 55 40 35 10 20 10 Width Option 2 — Based on feedback from developers and engineering firms, and a review of 25 random building permits, require a minimum buildable footprint width of 40 feet for each of the low density residential zones and base the minimum width for the multi-family and mixed use zones on a reasonable buildable footprint width of 20 feet. Based on the table, each corner lot would add the required side yard and flanking street setbacks widths along with the border easement width to the buildable footprint width to arrive at the required lot width. Table 5 identifies the buildable footprint for each zoning district. Table 5 Option 2-Minimum Buildable Footprint by Zoning District R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MF-1 MF-2 PRD Mixed Use Minimum Buildable 40 40 40 40 20 20 20 20 Lot Width Option 3 — Eliminate the additional lot width requirement altogether and let the developer account for the reduced buildable lot width on the corners. In most cases the developer/engineer understands the impacts caused by flanking lot setback requirements on the corner lots. Some of the bigger subdivisions have specific homebuilders who are very familiar with their home product. They understand the lot width requirements specific to their product and account for the additional width required on corner lots. Many subdivision layouts will minimize the interior lot widths and push any excess width to the corners. A note of caution however, not all developers are experienced and not all developers will account for the flanking street setback and increase the corner lot width. Issue 2 -Screening on lots backinj an arterial roadway SVMC 20.20.090 (B)(4) (b) Issue: The SVMC states "When lots back to arterials, a screening device shall be installed on the lot(s) limiting visibility between the arterial and the adjoining lots in accordance with Chapter 22.70 SVMC". Chapter 22.70 identifies two types of screening with different requirements. It is unclear what type of"screening device"is required. Discussion: SVMC 22.70.030 Screening and buffering, provides for Type I —Full Screening and Type II — Visual Buffering. Type I screening requires a 6-foot high, 100-percent sight-obscuring fence 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 thereof. The required fence must be further screened by a mix of plantings 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. Type II screening requires 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. Screening requirements for previous platting actions have been inconsistent. The SVMC does not specify which screening device shall be used. A survey of previous platting actions reveal that screening was required as indicated in Table 6. 5 SVMC Title 20 Subdivision Regulations April 15,2015 Table 6 Survey of City of Spokane Valley Plats—Screening requirements for lots backing an arterial road Subdivision Screening Requirements SUB-08-04—Flora Estates Lots are separated from the arterial road by a Tract. No screening was required. SUB-05-05—Ponderosa Pointe Lots back a minor arterial road. Hearing Examiner decision did not require screening. SUB-02-09 Crosby Landing Screening was required in the Hearing Examiner's decisions along Adams Road. The decision states "The screening barrier...will help prevent the double frontage lots along Adams Road from directly accessing such road, and also provides a noise and visual buffer for such lots from the road. The screening requirement is reasonable and necessary." The Conditions of Approval did not specify what the "screening device" would consist of. Screening consisting of a six-foot fence and tree plantings was approved at final plat. SUB-2012-0002 - Covey Glen Conditions of approval required a "screening device" to be North installed along Sprague Avenue. The Conditions of Approval did not specify what the "screening device" would consist of. Screening consisting of a six-foot fence and tree and shrub plantings was approved at final plat. SUB-2014-0003 —Mathis Addition Conditions of approval required a "screening device" to be installed along Forker Road. The Conditions of Approval specify that the "screening device" shall consist of Type 1 — Full Screening, as defined in SVMC 22.70.030 (B). A fmal plat has not been approved as of this date. Proposed Solution: Require a 6-foot high sight obstructing fence consistent with Type I screening and the vegetative plantings consistent with Type II screening. The intent of the screening requirement is to restrict pedestrian and vehicle access from the lots to the arterial and to provide relief for the lot owner from the visual, noise and pollution impacts caused by the traffic along the arterial roadway. Screening may increase traffic safety along principal arterials and state highways where the traffic speeds and volumes are higher. A 6-foot sight-obscuring fence and vegetative plantings will buffer visual,noise, and odor impacts and serve to restrict unwanted access to the arterial. Screening has been established as a reasonable requirement through previous Hearing Examiner decisions for lots that back an arterial roadway. Issue 3—Final Plat electronic map submittal SVMC 20.40.010 Issue: SVMC 20.40.010 requires the final plat applicant to submit a fmal plat map in an electronic file format. Discussion: The original intent of this requirement was to assist the City's Graphical Information Systems (GIS) technician when entering the mapping data into the GIS system. The mapping data from the electronic file was intended to increase efficiency when entering new lot data into the GIS System. However, staff found that in many cases the mapping data on the electronic file was inaccurate. Data was also inconsistent from one project to another. This created inefficiency because the data on the electronic file had to be reviewed to ensure its accuracy. The GIS staff actually spent significant time verifying the data on the electronic submittal was correct and accurate. GIS staff finds it more efficient to simply enter the data from the paper copy of the recorded final plat map. Proposed Solution: Delete the requirement for submitting the electronic file containing the final plat data. This will alleviate the inefficiency that occurs with poor data as well as rectifies the municipal code consistent with procedures. 6 SVMC Title 20 Subdivision Regulations April 15,2015 S'°'ane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTP N G Divrsm Val ley Planning Commission Study Session April 23 , 2015 Subdivision Regulations Spokane Valley Municipal Code Municipal Code Text Amendment SOO'ane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT vrsiory Subdivision Regulations • Corner lot widths • Screening on lots backing arterials • Electronic Final Plat map Municipal CodeTextAmendment 2 S'°'�" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTVG �ivisiory j�alleY :+:, Existing Corner Lot Regulation "Corner lots in single-family or two-family residential development shall have an average width at least 15 percent greater than the width of interior lots along both adjacent streets to permit building setback and orientation to both streets:" Municipal Code Text Amendment �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT !P NN G DIVISION! -� Buildable Area • Corner lot width determines the area into which a building may be placed . • Inadequate area leads to problems at building permit Municipal Code Text Amendment COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1PtANING DIVISION -- J _. ...„ 4 4_ , -4,',..7.4- . , _ ----- - _ ' --1 1 Zi i , , is I _ w. _. SOO'ane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT vrsiory Corner Lot Width Factors • Setbacks — side, flanking, front and rear • Border Easements • Building Footprint Municipal CodeTextAmendment 6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANiivisi ING= -alt .........1 s t nt, 4, I, $tr ■■66 '111111111- . _._ ,-.,..''' - 11111111111111.46.' POO Y 15' FIa - .' Frit YardSetback Ar , ii* . _' — - y,i .•a ql. .. y. -- K - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ° lo ING DrvIS'ON J 5' side yard setback are _ , 4, -A -.. k . i„ ;1� i AO 11 1 • Atilimi.ris P --9101•0111111.-1- , f,��r1t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .. -- .0006`1;V11 IIVG DIVISION � J 20' rear yard setback :71 . 40 1 ' grAp .ain.40 . _ , ..., • , t... _ • •.,, . _ ..., it , . _ ,l 19 �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P N, , G DivrsIary Border Easements • Based on Existing right-of-way ( ROW) • Accommodate required ROW improvements • Vary based on improvements and existing ROW • Setbacks taken from the border easement Municipal Code Text Amendment .000 Val ley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPIAN :.. ING diviSioN -- J 0 MAN5F I ELIV AVE 4.da. 0 0 46,brso,, 0 61.0 ' d` 70.00 moo' i-- - ----- ---\------ t , --- 1 Q TAIL ! i r-7 ,. , 8 7002 x.00' i to F ! 1 p . LOT 15 LOT 16 8605.. \ 8- 1 LOT 17 Z moos ; 91.0 ' s 70.00' , Neiri24HE Neal-7424"E I -7(-)04 1 6 11I.4 1 A 1 ---. 11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTIAN NG DIVISION! ,L a _. 1 ._ ,._.. . ........ . ........ . ........ E ==. .wEl.044.4., : . - - - nt 1 1 1 4 [I , , ._;„, _, . 11. ,,, . 0 I:- - A. I I I ....=. ,4 u _ m _ • Yrs r iha i I i ,_11 -I -I,I I 14 11. • ■ r . G f: a. 1) ggiP - I k 1 ' I e .4- . . rAlderAir' A piir 'ane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT vrsiory Valley Right of Way Improvements • Curb & Gutter • Swale • Sidewalk • Need determined by impact of development Municipal Code Text Amendment Stioiiiin IIIMPP",111,4,: •, 40.00 Miliey COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT :A:PUNNING DIVISION --4.-* - 4V111111k, ----- I ...1 , ,.. _ .......00- 1,, , ' Nil • v• i ., ZI: 1 - - - 1' if --.. .-1.0C. . , F 1 i 1- , 1 .,-- )1 ' . '"k- 1 1, mimo „------ iniL - . , , ,-„r,f,.. ., - .. --z-• -,-.,- i ....„.---, . - -,,,- ' ,g; ;-f • - , 110,0m•••• . . 1 - ----1 _ -----, ..- Sidewalk1 - - 1111 5 — - / 7X ------____ 10' S ale -, 4 2' Cyitrb & Gutter -,'------ ,.. �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT k NcG Divrsiary Existing Right of way • Width determined by road classification • Arterial • Collector • Local Access • Street Standards for each classification Municipal Code Text Amendment �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R � ,NG DivrsIary Relationships • Building lot width ( buildable footprint) is determined by setbacks which are taken from the border easements, when they exist, which are determined by existing right-of-way. Municipal Code Text Amendment COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R N , G Divrs�ary Buildable Footprint • Area into which the building may be placed • Defined by setbacks, lot width and border easements • Should be reasonable • Inadequate width leads to problems at building permit Municipal Code Text Amendment �kane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . PIAN NG DIVISION -4" J vel ley —#116--- '' 20' front yard Widths 5' side yard setback setback from border y easement Lot 91.02' Side Setback 5' juldr___,IEE--Z-I6 ri DETAIL Flanking Setback 15' , mc Border Easement Buildable, a , 1 Lot Width 13' Building Envelope > sA 58.02 , 15' flanking street setback from border easement Lar 17 1_11' 7,- 20' rear yard setback 0 Nei-1 ' {' endment Spol:a `~ ' ne COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APtAN NG DIVISION Val ley Lot Widths Minimum of Width by Zone R1 R2 R3 R4 MF1 MF2 MU 80' 80' 65' 50' 45' 20' 20' • Higher densityzone allows less lot width • Widths vary by by zone • Subdivisions may exceed the requirement Municipal Code Text Amendment SOOkaneCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 50tANNING DIVISION 15 % increase on Corner Lots • Doesn't always fit. • 15% increase not adequate when a Border Easement exists • Property owner penalized for having lots larger than necessary Municipal CodeTextAmendment 20 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNIN =: G DIVISION LOCAL ACCESS STREET ROW I 1.. - 1. I Ctr_`� w 14 743 q 4, pp \S 11 7 5' 1` l' ' €a 55" 55" `I� 1 ,15."_ r 19 . O b T 65' 65' 75' (15% WIDER R-3 CORNER LOT WITH NO BORDER EASEMENT - 15% r=30' MIN. LOT AREA: 7.504 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH: 65 FT, Municipal Code Text Amendment MIN. LOT DEPTH: 90 FT. 21 . . -,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT `-PLANNI,NG DIVISION � J .0,00Valiey _, LOCAL ACCESS STREET ROW BORDER EASEMENT In ---„ \ oiii; W \,:i L 4 r1 \i,11-1 C 0 ,0 CC Ld `YLW `_ L `, 55` AM" 15' 13' 19 0 0 4,1 ' I [-- ' 75' (15% WIDER) R-3 CORNER LOT WITH 13' BORDER EASEMENT - 15% iru=l(]° MIN. LOT AREA: 7,500 S.F. MIN, LOT WIDTH: C FT, MIN- LOT DEPTH: 9O FT- 22 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION - LOCAL ACCESS STREET a ROW I I t ,.• 1 mac` ",, LV' '5. Sn to W rti ci _ caw w� `` 0 1 uv m \l'i:.-9 5' 4n.CD iZr.)'-: 0 F 40' r — 1 19' O 1 0 50' _ _ 50 I_ 51,5' (15% WIDER) R-4 CORNER LOT WITH NO BORDER EASEMENT - 15% 1"=30' MIN. LOT AREA: 6,000 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH: 50 FT. MIN. LOT DEPTH: 80 FT. COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION LOCAL ACCESS STREET T ROW * I BORDER EASEMENT 1 ----- 1r) �1`) 1 r I; � I W w I . kzr Ul< Q0 In \x ICO SI I� I 5` 40' 40 t �� 17' 13 r_ 1 B' 0 N i 54' 50° 57.5° (15% WIDER) R-4 CORNER LOT WITH 13' BORDER EASEMENT - 15% ]"-30' MIN. LOT AREA: 8.000 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH; 50 FT. RAIN. LOT DEPTH. BO FT. 24 S'°'�" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,- �G �ivisiory jVal ley . k Lot Widths and Building Widths • Analyzed 25 random building permits • Average lot width was 63 feet • Average building width was 44 feet • Average remaining side yard was 19 feet • 60 percent ( 15) of the buildings < than 40 feet wide • 32 percent (8) of the buildings > than 45 feet • 8 percent (2) of the buildings were > 40 and < 45 feet Municipal Code Text Amendment kan COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' ANNING DIVISION J. Option 1 • Link the corner lot width to the minimum lot width of the underlying zone Table 4 Option 1- Minimum Buildable Footprint by Zoning District R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MF-1 MF-2 PRD Mixed Use Minimum Buildable Lot 70 70 55 40 35 10 20 10 Width Municipal Code Text Amendment SOOkane DEVELOPMENT !MANNING NG DIVISION - .0,00 Valley Option 2 • Create a minimum buildable lot width for corner lots in each zone . Option 2- Minimum Buildable Footprint by Zoning District R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 MF-1 MF-2 PRD Mixed Use Minimum Buildable Lot 40 40 40 40 20 20 20 20 Width Municipal Code Text Amendment kaCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' ANNING DIVISION Option 3 • Eliminate the 15% requirement and allow propertytoplan for buildable corner owners lot widths . Municipal Code Text Amendment SOOkane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPtAN NG Drvr � �v J n I i Co c usn o • Corner lots need adequate width • Current 15% requirement not appropriate in all cases Municipal Code Text Amendment 29 �'°'aneCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VtANNING DIVISION -� Lots Backing Arterials "When lots back to arterials, a screening device shall be installed on the lot(s) limiting visibility between the arterial and the adjoining lots in accordance with Chapter 22 . 70 SVMC ." Municipal Code Text Amendment °' Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . = _ _NL........_ IMG -DIVISION --- J - 4 , i ._ X law A ___ EV:5t lilI r Nikidui - 4 1 t. illiiiii ant I me- Screening Device or Ai .. limir IMF SOOkane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING DIVISION Screening • "Screening Device" was not defined Fence Buffer Trees Shrubs Points Type I 6' 5' wide Every 35' Every 6' 24 pts per 25 feet Type II Optional 5' wide Every 35' Not specified 18 pts per 25 feet Municipal Code Text Amendment Slianne COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT !NANNING DIVISION - Option • R6-foot fence with Type II ve etative � plantings Municipal Code Text Amendment SOO'ane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT vrsiory Electronic Final Plat Map • Required at final plat submittal • Not always accurate • Requires staff to verify accuracy • Easier to create from the paper copy Municipal Code Text Amendment kaCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' ANNING DIVISION - Option • Delete the requirement for an electronic final plat map . Municipal Code Text Amendment ka COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ItANNING DIVISION Questions ? Municipal Code Text Amendment 36