Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 04-23-15 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, April 23,2015 Vice-Chairman Anderson 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 Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Heather Graham Cary Driskell, City Attorney Tim Kelley Micki Harnois, Planner Mike Phillips Christina Janssen,Planner Susan Scott Marty Palaniuk, Planner Joe Stoy, absent excused Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Hearing no objections Commission Stoy was excused from the April 23, 2015 meeting. Commissioner Wood moved to accept the April 23, 2015 agenda, however it was noted the date on the agenda was April 09 and it stated the minutes to approve were for March 26, 2015. The minutes for approval were for April 09, 2015. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against. The motion passed. Commissioner Wood moved to accept the April 09, 2015 minutes as presented The vote to approve the minutes was six in favor, zero against. The motion passed COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioners Scott, Phillips and Anderson reported they attended the Comprehensive Plan Vision Report Update meeting. Commissioner Scott also attended the Senior Resource Day which was held at CenterPlace. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported on the Comprehensive Plan Vision Report Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session — CTA-2015-0004 Proposed Text Amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.090 Residential accessory uses and structures and 19.140 Administrative Exceptions: Planner Christina Janssen gave a presentation to the Commission outlining the proposed amendments to the SVMC 19.140 Administrative Exceptions and 19.40.090 residential accessory uses. Ms. Janssen stated the proposed amendment was a result of the discussions which staff had previously had with the Commission regarding these subjects. The administrative exceptions would be changed to "An administrative exception may be approved for minor deviations to code requirements in the following circumstances,provided the exception is consistent with the criteria in section 19.140.020." The proposed criteria changes are as follows based on the previous discussion with the Commissioners: A. Yard setback requirements where the deviations for 10 percent or less of the required yard; 04-23-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 7 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. While reviewing the remaining criteria Commissioner Phillips commented on item D which states "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." Mr. Phillips stated he thought part of the previous discussion had been being able to allow the exception to be on multiple parcels so an extra lot could be created. He said he felt the exception should not be limited to one or two lots. Staff discussed the options available to being able to modify one or two parcels to achieve the same result Mr. Phillips is trying to accomplish. Commissioner Scott asked to confirm the allowance for changes to minimum lot requirements was changed to 10 percent or less of the required lot area. Because of the nature of the changes, some of the criteria were deleted because they are addressed in other sections of the code. There is also language cleanup which the City has been continually doing to create uniformity throughout the SVMC. In discussing the changes to 19.40.090 accessory structures, Commissioner Scott also asked for the definition of an accessory structure. Ms. Barlow stated according to the SVMC, an accessory structure is defined as "Accessory:A building, area, part of a building, structure or use which is subordinate to, and the use of which is incidental to, that of the main building, structure or use on the same lot." Commissioner Anderson noted he did not remember any discussion of removing the word `permanent' in the proposed amendment. The proposal is to modify the allowed accessory structures on a parcel from 10 percent of the lot area to lots having 10,000 square feet or less may have up to 1,000 square feet of accessory structures and lots having greater than 10,000 square feet may have accessory structures that shall not exceed 10 percent of the lot size. Mr. Anderson said he felt a building, such as a garden shed or above ground pool, which could be portably moved or replaced should not be included in the calculation of the lot coverage. Ms. Barlow explained the City has been calculating all structures on the property when looking to calculate the lot coverage and staff is not looking to change this part of the code. Staff explained the code has been interpreted in this manner since incorporation and removing the word would help to clear things up for customers who can get confused when coming in for a permit. Trying to define currently what is and is not a permanent structure at this time is beyond the scope of the current amendment. Commissioner Graham felt it was more than semantics to remove the word however, Ms. Barlow assured her the City has a definition of structure in the SVMC "Structure:Any construction, including a building or any portion thereof erected for the purposes of support, shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or property of any kind, including swimming pools, decks in excess of 30 inches in height, and roof overhangs exceeding three feet. A fence of six feet or less in height is not a structure, nor a masonry, brick, concrete, or cinder block wall of less than four feet in height." Commissioner Anderson argued he did not feel it was the same, there were permanent and portable structures. He said there was a definition of a structure and of an accessory structure but no definition of a permanent structure. Commissioner Wood said when he does an appraisal he is not allowed to assign a value for above ground pools, on portable sheds, or portable greenhouses as they do not have value, because they can be moved and taken down too easily. He felt when the word permanent was removed, those types of things were being allowed into the definition. City Attorney Cary Driskell stated he did not want to confuse value for purposes of sale with zoning regulations. One of his concerns would be someone bringing in non-permanent storage onto a property and using them, which is not unheard of in the City, to fill up with items and completely filling up the property. This has been a problem on some Code Enforcement cases. Mr. Driskell stated he would like to look into it before making any changes to what staff has proposed. Mr. Anderson felt there should be some allowance made for garden sheds which could be loaded into the back of a pickup truck. Mr. Anderson feels the staff has 04-23-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 7 been misinterpreting the code. Commissioner Phillips stated if the word permanent was removed from the language he would not support the change. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission that deliberations, after the public hearing, would be the appropriate time to have a discussion regarding making changes to the proposed language, statements of support or denial of the proposed amendment. Study Session—Site Specific Citizen Amendment Requests for inclusion in the Legislative Update to the Comprehensive Plan: Ms. Barlow gave a presentation to explain where in the process the legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan currently is. She briefly discussed the Vision Report which was just issued prior to the last community meeting on April 15, 2015. Ms. Barlow explained this study session was to discuss the citizen-initiated amendment requests (CARs) which have been received by the City. These amendments will be reviewed differently than normal Comprehensive Plan amendments. These amendments will be not reviewed at this time for approval as they have been in the past but for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan Update Analysis. The options for these amendments will be to determine if they should be included in the Comprehensive Plan Update Analysis, should they be deferred to a future update or should they not be included in the Comprehensive Plan update analysis. Currently the consultants assisting with the Comprehensive Plan Update are working to do the data gathering for the City which includes a land quantity analysis and a market analysis among other things. This data gathering will help the City to know what types of land uses the community needs. The City received 26 CAR applications in total, 19 map change requests, five text amendment requests and two overlay requests. The public hearing regarding the requests for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan Update is scheduled for May 14, 2015 with a deliberation meeting scheduled for May 18, 2015. The findings have been scheduled for presentation on May 28, 2015. Staff then reviewed the CAR applications with the Commission. CAR-2015-0001 — Addressed as 1618 N. Sargent Rd. Requesting to change from Office to High Density Residential/from Garden office to Multifamily-2. Near the old University of Phoenix site, faces R-3 zoning, feels it would be better used if MF-2. CAR-2015-0002 — Addressed as 115 and 117 N McDonald Rd. Requesting to change from Low Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use/from R-3 to Corridor Mixed Use. Sites do have homes on them. CAR-2015-0003 — Is a vacant lot east of Conklin and south of Broadway, just to the east of the Kohl's/Lowes development area. Requesting to change from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential/from R-3 to Multifamily-2. This is just to the east of a Comprehensive Plan amendment similar to this approved a couple of years ago. CAR-2015-0004—Addressed as 226 and 302 S. Sullivan and adjacent vacant lot; 15411 and 15423 E. 4th; and 15410 E. 2°d Ave. Requesting to change from Office/Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial from Office/MF-1 to Neighborhood Commercial. There was discussion from the Commission about what uses are across the right-of-way along Sullivan, across from this request. CAR-2015-0010 and 0011 —Addressed as 13215 and 13313 E. 4th Ave. Requesting to change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential from MF-1 to MF-2. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was any issue in the request being proposed by someone who is not a property owner. In this request, one of the parcels is owned by the requestor and the other one is not but the requestor has an option to purchase the other piece of property. Mr. Driskell said he would have to look into the legality of whether or not a request could be made by someone who was not the 04-23-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 7 property owner. Ms. Barlow stated it is within the City's power to change the zoning on property regardless of who owns it, however the reason the City is accepting applications in this manner at this particular update is allowing the community the opportunity to make requests to consider these requests in the update process. This is how these requests are different than the normal process. These requests will not be approved, the City will be looking to focus the analysis to make sure the requests make sense. Ms. Barlow stated that she would expect that some requests will not only become part of the update, but some could very well be expanded depending on what the analysis said. Commissioner Graham asked if this request had not come forward, would the consultants still have look at this request. Ms. Barlow said the consultants are looking at the zoning districts to determine if the City has the right amount of land in each of the zones. Commissioner Scott asked if the property owner would be notified of the requested change,to which Ms. Barlow answered yes. CAR-2015-0012 — Is a vacant lot which faces Skipworth just north of Sprague Ave. Requesting to change from High Density Residential to Corridor Mixed Use/from MF-2 to Corridor Mixed Use. CAR-2015-0013 —Addressed as 8021 E. Broadway Ave. Requesting to change from Office to High Density Residential/ from Office to MF-2. This request is east of Centennial Middle School. The applicant stated they feel there is too much office in this area and not enough High Density Residential. CAR-2015-0015—Addressed as 15316 and 15324 E Valleyway Ave. Requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial/ from R-4 to Community Commercial. These properties are just to the west of Sullivan Rd. CAR-2015-0016 — Located at the intersection of Barker and Laberry. Requesting to change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential/from MF-1 to MF-2. It is identified as the Southern Manufactured Home Park. Ms. Barlow stated some of the history for this request is approximately in 1996 Ms. Southern applied and was granted a High Density Residential zoning for her properties, which also include two properties to the south. When the City adopted its first Comprehensive Plan the designation was changed where the manufactured home park is located to Medium Density Residential. Ms. Southern and her children are requesting the designation revert back to what it was before the implementation of the City's first Comprehensive Plan change. Commissioner Anderson asked what would change in the manufactured home park if the change was granted. Ms. Barlow commented nothing would change, because the use on the property is allowed in the High Density Residential zone and the property is already developed. These parcels are also being requested to be incorporated into the manufactured home park overlay request. Ms. Barlow noted this would be a time when you have conflicting interests, or requests for the same property. Ms. Southern is requesting to change her property to a higher density, yet the manufactured home park people are requesting protections so the property owner can't change their property without taking steps to protect the renters who live there. Commissioner Graham stated she was going to have to consider recusing herself from this amendment, based on an amendment request in 2014 which was in this same area. Commissioner Phillips asked if staff expected for the public hearing to be concluded in one evening based on the testimony from the last time testimony was taken from the neighborhood of Sprague and Barker. Ms. Barlow stated she had no idea if there would be a great deal of testimony or if there would be very little, but staff have planned for an extra meeting on May 18,just to allow for the extra time needed to try and deliberate if necessary. CAR-2015-0017 — Addressed as 807 N. Argonne Rd. Requesting to change from Office to Neighborhood CommerciaUfrom Garden Office to Neighborhood Commercial. This property owner as well had requested a change in approximately 1990 from the County and is requesting to have that designation returned to them from the change which took place when the City implemented its first Comprehensive Plan. 04-23-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 7 CAR-2015-0019 — Addressed as 13520 E. Nora Ave. Requesting to change from Office to Community Commercial/from Office to Community Commercial. Mr. Palaniuk stated this is located to the east of one of the Comprehensive Plan amendments from this year. It is an area in which staff will be looking at the zoning to determine what would be more appropriate along this feeder road next to the freeway. CAR-2015-0020—Addressed as 12717, 12725, 12803, 12815, 12823 and 12903 4th Ave. Requesting to change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential/from MF-1 to MF-2. This request is located along 4th Ave behind Bumpers Bowling and Family Fun. Applicant is considering apartments since it will be close to the Appleway Trail and services on Sprague Ave. These are all of the map amendment requests. The next two are text amendment requests and then two requests to develop overlay zones. CPA-2015-0021 —This is a text amendment request to change the Office and Garden Office zones to allow multifamily residential uses in each zone. Currently residential uses are allowed in the Garden Office zone when it is on the second floor. Ms. Barlow noted the Office zoning districts and Multifamily zoning districts will be among those staff will be taking a closer look at during the Comprehensive Plan update. CAR-2015-0023 — This is a text amendment request from the Greater Valley Support Network requesting to create affordable housing incentives in addition to a density bonus. Suggesting in addition to density bonus allow possible height and bulk bonus, fee waivers or exemptions, parking reductions or expedited permitting. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a definition for affordable housing. Ms. Barlow stated there is not a definition in the City's code,there is a definition which relates specifically to income levels, however the City does not have any programs which implement those specific programs. She said the City has a density bonus allowance, which has never been used, but the group feels it is too limiting and they would like to broaden it to include these other incentives. CAR-2015-0023 —This is a text amendment request from the Greater Valley Support Network to add a policy to support a broad and diverse range of housing types, including micro-housing, co-housing and other types. Currently the City policies do not prevent these other styles of housing options. However,the group wants to make sure these other styles of housing options are considered,these are types they are specifically interested in at the moment. CAR-2015-0024 —This is a text amendment request from the Greater Valley Support Network for a goal for the developers to engage the neighborhoods regarding a project at an earlier point, for the city to develop guidelines for constructive communications between the two parties and for the development of a process for this to occur. Commissioner Anderson asked who the Greater Valley Support Network was. Ms. Barlow answered they are a special interest consortium of housing interest groups. Commissioner Wood asked which councilmembers were participating in this group, and Councilmembers Pace and Woodard were the two confirmed members. CAR-2015-0026 —This is a request to require the City to develop manufactured home displacement policies. The request requires a manufactured home park owner to provide assistance beyond what is required by the RCW 51.20 Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord-Tenant Act. It would require the City to review, approve and administer a relocation and report plan. The next two requests are map overlays. CAR-2015-0018 — This is a map request to develop a mineral resource land overlay, add a mineral resource land chapter and designate specific sites as mineral resource lands. Ms. Barlow said the City has already decided to look at this issue,this request is asking to have this looked at very specifically. Commissioner Anderson asked if the City was going to require the property owner to prove they 04-23-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 7 owned the mineral rights for the property before the overlay was placed on the property. Mr. Driskell stated he felt there would be a full discussion of the subject at the appropriate time. CAR-2015-0025 — This is a map request to develop a manufactured home park overlay for every manufactured home park in the City. Staff will be providing a slimmed down version of the staff report with each amendment request in the next packet. Mr. Driskell asked the Planning Commissioners not to go out and visit the sites as individuals or as small groups in order that some are not considering these with different criteria than the whole commission has the opportunity to consider. Commissioner Wood asked to confirm that Mr. Driskell was asking the Commissioners to not go out and visit these sites, which was confirmed. Mr. Driskell stated he would confirm with Community and Economic Development Director John Hohman when he returned to the office as to how they felt would be the most appropriate way to handle this issue. Study Session—Subdivision Regulations discussions: Planner Marty Palaniuk gave a presentation regarding the discussion for some subdivision changes staff is asking the Planning Commission to consider. Currently corner lots are required to be 15 percent larger than interior lots in order to provide a buildable area after setbacks from both adjacent streets. Corner lots can have issues because of side, flanking, front and rear yard setbacks and border easements on two streets. Border easements vary depending on the needs of the right-of-way. Setbacks are measured from the border easement. One option would be to link the corner lot widths to the minimum lot widths of the underlying zones. Regardless of the setbacks, border easements for the buildable lot width would still be the same size as the minimum lot width of the underlying zone. Another option could be to create a minimum lot width for corner lots for each zone. A third option could be to remove the requirement the corner lot be 15% larger and hope the developer will plan for a buildable corner lot. Commissioner Anderson asked why the flanking yard setback was so large. Mr. Palaniuk stated it allowed for a bit of privacy from road traffic, from noise, pedestrians, and in case of the City's need for further right-of-way, it would not be right up against the home. Staff's conclusion is corner lots need adequate widths and the current 15 percent increase in size is not appropriate in all cases. Commissioner Phillips feels the third option is best because most people who plat out subdivisions know how to make sure there is a buildable area on the corner lot. Ms. Barlow said that on occasion when a developer is laying out a subdivision, frequently he forgets about the setbacks and easements and the City has to give an exception when the property owner comes in and wants to build a home on the lot which does not fit. It could also create a lot which would have a home which would be notably smaller in comparison to the rest of the homes in the subdivision. Commissioner Scott said it is not the City's obligation when the house will not fit on the property. Mr. Palaniuk commented, many times people will have invested in the property, hired an architect, had the house drawn up before they come in and figure out what the setbacks and easements are. Many times people do not do all the homework they should before they do some of the work. Commissioner Wood moved to extend the meeting to 9:10 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous, the motion passed. Commissioner Anderson stated we are focusing on the width but not the depth, the house could face the other street. Mr. Palaniuk pointed out how it could change the size of the lot in that case. Commissioner Phillips commented it was not the City's responsibility to protect against every possible issue. Commissioner Wood stated he likes the way Airway Heights does it, they allow the developer to figure out what a developable lot is and he is not a believer that government should come up with every single exception. He would prefer to give the developer the freedom. He likes option 3. Commissioner Scott stated she preferred option 2, she asked if when someone brings in a 04-23-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 plat, did someone look at it and tell the applicant it was a problem. Mr. Palaniuk stated when a submittal comes in they look at the design standards and evaluate the proposal to see if it meets those standards. She asked if anyone ever drew out a corner lot and showed it to the applicant that it could be a problem. Mr. Palaniuk responded no. Ms. Barlow stated we discuss what the setbacks are and that they are measured from the border easements. However, if the builder/developer says, that is good enough, then the conversation stops. What staff is trying to say is there is no authority for the City to say anything more than the corner lots needs to be 15 percent greater and there are times when that isn't working. Commissioner Anderson asked if we tell the applicant what the maximum building could be, staff said we explain what the setbacks are, he asked if that could be confused. Commissioner Graham feels there should be some regulation telling there should be some lot width. This subject will need further discussion. Commissioner Scott moved to extend the meeting to 9:20 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous, the motion passed. The next subject is screening of lots which back up on an arterial. This section of the code has two types of screening; screening device is not defined. The suggested option is to require a six-foot sight obstructing fence with Type II vegetative plantings. Commissioner Anderson asked who maintained the vegetation. He has a problem with the trees and the liability of the trees, and the cost to maintain the trees as a mandatory. He has no problem with the developer putting the trees in, but he has a problem with the City requiring the trees being put in. Mr. Palaniuk explained this is already a requirement of the SVMC, staff is just looking to clarify the code. Commissioner Phillips stated along 32nd Ave in one section of a development they put up fences right up against the right-of-way and in a different phase, the fence is setback from the right-of-way. He said it is more expensive to put the fence back from the right-of-way and more desirable to look at, if it is maintained. He feels a six-foot sight obscuring fence is not always the answer. He believes you cannot make people do what they don't want to do. You can't make people mow down weeds if they don't want to. He said he understands the need but he doesn't think a fence is the only answer. Mr. Palaniuk stated this would only apply to principal arterials, not collector arterials, roads like Pines, Sullivan, 32nd Ave., etc. Mr. Palaniuk said the idea of the fence is to limit noise onto the property and to limit access to the property from those busy streets. Right now the code requires a screening device consistent with that section of the code, but it does not say which type of device, this is to just to clarify what type of device. The next little thing is the submittal of a final plat. There is a requirement for an electronic submittal and staff would like to eliminate this requirement. Commissioner Phillips stated he was in complete agreement with this and had argued against this since it had been adopted. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Nothing was offered for the Good of the Order ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Joe Stoy, Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 04-23-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 7