Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 06/25/2015
SiTO1 .00.Valley® Spokane Valley Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. June 25, 2015 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 8, 2015 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: A. Public Hearing: CTA-2015-0004, Proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapters 19.40.090 (Residential accessory uses and structures) and 19.140 (Administrative Exceptions) B. Study Session: Continued discussion Title 20 Subdivisions with a primary focus on corner lots and on the screening requirements for lots backing principal arterial streets and state highways X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, June 8,2015 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 Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Heather Graham Cary Driskell,City Attorney Tim Kelley Marty Palaniuk,Planner Mike Phillips,absent excused Susan Scott Joe Stoy Elisha Heath,Office Assistant Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Hearing no objections, Commissioner Phillips was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 8, 2015 agenda. The vote on the amended agenda was six in favor, zero against, the motion passed. Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the May 28, 2015 minutes as presented. The Commission approved the minutes with a vote of six in favor,zero against. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported the regular meeting scheduled for June 11th was cancelled; the next meeting will be June 25, 2015. The City Council has had a study session on the site specific Citizen- initiated Amendment Requests (CARs), and will take action on these items during their June 9, 2015 meeting. The Council will have a study session on the text and overlay CARS at the same meeting and will make a decision on inclusion in the analysis at their June 23rd meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Update Text and Overlay Citizen-initiated Amendment Requests(CARs): Chairman Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:11 p.m. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave an overview of the Comprehensive Plan Update process. She explained where the City is in the process,what the Citizen-initiated Amendment Requests (CARs) are, how they are being used as part of the public input process, what the evening's public hearing would cover, what would be the process after the public hearing. Ms. Barlow stated there had been 26 CARs submitted in total to the City. Nineteen had been site-specific map requests and the public hearing for those had been held on May 14, 2015. This evening's public hearing would cover the CARs for the text and overlay requests. Chair Stoy read the rules for a public hearing. Ms. Barlow and Mr. Marty Palaniuk gave a brief overview of each request and then testimony was taken on that specific request. (The following testimony will be taken verbatim as had been done on previous the CAR public hearings, but cleaned for readability) CAR-2015-0021: This is a proposal from Mr. Dwight Hume. This is a request to allow multifamily development as a permitted use in the Office and Garden Office zoning districts. 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 12 Dwight Hume, 9101 N. Mountain View Lane: Mr. Hume stated the purpose of the request was to create a more useable Office zone. Currently you allow apartments but they have to be on a vertical mixed use basis,and it probably hasn't been implemented yet. A more practical approach is to allow, the Garden Office zone,which is a more restrictive office zone,to limit it to MF-1 apartment option, then in the full Office zone allow MF-2. From a practical standpoint since you allow apartments, what you are saying is office locations are suitable for apartments. Indeed they are,the infrastructure and requirements for arterial frontage are the same. Why not make it a little easier to implement and infill some of your residential population that Growth Management requires. To put your mind at ease over the idea further, the fact is that Spokane County doesn't even have an office zone. They allow apartments,they allow offices in apartment zones,there is just no Office in the zoning code. So there would be some similarities as well there. I think it is very compatible, it is already an allowed use. It is a little more realistic way of using it. It probably would allow, and spare you, annual amendments to rezone to multifamily on Office sites, and perhaps give an earlier start to a project and a little better tax base,rather than just waiting for the market to come back in the Office zone. That is the idea behind it and I hope you will consider it. Commissioner Anderson wanted to confirm that in the Office zone offices were allowed above retail on the ground floor or non-residential on the ground floor. Mr.Hume corrected to say that apartments were permitted above non-residential on the ground floor. Commissioner Anderson then asked that in the same space,then apartments would be allowed on the ground floor. Mr.Hume confirmed this, and stated since it would be an outright permitted use, you would be able to build apartments instead. CAR-2015-0022: This is a proposal from the Greater Valley Support Network. The proposal is to expand affordable housing options and create more incentives for developers. The proposal suggests other incentives might be height and bulk bonuses, fee waivers or exemptions, parking reductions, expedited permitting. Mr. Palaniuk stated there is currently a bonus density in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and there are height and setback requirements in the SVMC. He said to his knowledge no one has taken advantage of the current incentive. Commissioner Anderson asked if this was subsidized development or subsidized housing, in this application in the way we are using the word affordable. Mr. Palaniuk stated the SVMC has a defmition for affordable housing which is `Affordable housing: Where the term "affordable" is used, it refers to the federal definition of affordability stating that annual housing costs shall not exceed one-third of a family's annual income. When establishing affordability standards for moderate- to extremely low-income families and individuals, the median household income is the amount calculated and published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development each year for Spokane County." Commissioner Anderson confirmed we are not discussing subsidies from either the City or other public agencies, meaning tax dollars, to make the housing affordable. Mr. Palaniuk said the proposal was only discussing incentives to developers to build affordable housing. Commissioner Anderson said to add more units to create affordable housing how does it,because we are not talking a large volume of housing. Mr. Palaniuk said under the current incentives in the City's code a certain number of units are set aside for affordable housing and the developer has other market-rate units he is able to rent as well. A percentage of the available units are for market-rate and a percentage are for affordable housing. The proposal would provide more incentives to build affordable units. Commissioner Scott asked if there was an acre of land and it qualified for this incentive, how many apartments could they put on it? Mr. Palaniuk stated the request was to place a policy into the Comprehensive Plan which would create a situation requiring the municipal code to be changed. The municipal code must support the Comprehensive Plan. Currently there is nothing in the development code which states what the incentives are and how they would be addressed. Mr. Palaniuk stated he did not know how height or bulk would be addressed,the request is just for additional incentives to be added, and these are some suggestions as to what could be incentives. Commissioner Scott asked if we should know what the incentives should look before they are placed in the code. Mr. Palaniuk said nothing was being placed in the code right now, that 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 12 the proposal was just to review this for further study. Commissioner Scott asked to clarify that when it was added to the SVMC then it would return with specifics as to how it would be addressed. Mr. Palaniuk stated if this proposal should be added to the Comprehensive Plan and regulations were to follow, then it would come with very specific guidelines as to how it would be implemented. Commissioner Wood asked if the definition for affordable housing meant the cost of the house or if it included the utilities. Ms. Barlow interjected the discussion was becoming too detailed, the SVMC already allows for the density bonus. If someone were to come in and they had one acre and could make the numbers work and able to get 22 units, she noted she did not feel it was possible, and meet all the other regulations, and they proposing affordable housing units to families at or below 40% of the median income then they could get a density bonus of 40 percent. So if they could meet all of the standard regulations, they would be allowed a density bonus of 40 percent. Ms. Barlow stated someone needs to bring in a proposal before the City is able to calculate the numbers. When staff says they can't tell you what the density would be, it is because someone has to bring in a proposal before staff can do the math. It isn't because we don't have the tools to tell you, it is because the question is dynamic. The proposal is to expand on the tool which is already available for affordable housing, a density bonus,which is what is captured in the request. Cindy Algeo, 315 West Mission: Ms. Algeo stated that she represented the Greater Valley Support Network,the organization that submitted CAR-2015-0022. The CARs submitted were based upon the data that we have found of people residing in the City of Spokane Valley. We found that 24% of the households have incomes of$25,000 annually or less and 63% of the households have two persons in their households or less. There are a fair amount of citizens in Spokane Valley that have relatively low income and so our objective is to expand affordable housing options. That option is hopefully enticing for-profit developers to make a portion of any multifamily housing development affordable to people with incomes less than $25,000. We want housing options available to them. We were proposing to add additional incentives to for-profit developers as they develop multifamily housing in the City of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Graham asked where the data on the 24% was drawn from? Ms. Algeo stated that it was from the Spokane Valley Library District data sets. Commissioner Graham asked if the information came from the 2010 census. Ms. Algeo stated that it would have come from after the 2010 census. James Johnson, 13224 East 4th Avenue: Mr. Johnson stated that he wanted to draw attention to comments made earlier in the evening. With density bonuses, if I understood what Ms. Barlow gave for data earlier,if a density bonus is allowed in a high density area it goes from 22 to 31 because they get a 40% bonus. Correct? Ms. Barlow replied it would be possible. So, that means if you are changing an MF 1 to an MF2 you are increasing the number of people allowed per units per acre by two and half times.Just want to keep that in mind. CAR-2015-0023: This proposal is from Greater Valley Support Network. The proposal is to add housing policies that support a broad and diverse range of housing options including micro-housing and co-housing. Ms. Barlow added for clarification that this would be a Comprehensive Plan policy not a regulation. Mr. Palaniuk stated that it would lead to something in the development code to address the change. Commissioner Anderson asked if we already encourage variety in housing. Mr. Palaniuk stated that we allow multifamily, single family, duplexes, and triplexes. We do not address micro-housing, which does have its own set of challenges. We allow manufactured home parks,they have certain requirements but they are not applicable to micro-housing. We have had people ask about micro-housing. We do not having any policies or regulations to address them at this time. Commissioner Anderson asked if the discussion was of micro-housing developments. Mr. Palaniuk stated that our code does not address micro-housing. Commissioner Anderson asked about co- housing under current multifamily housing code would not prevent co-housing? Mr. Palaniuk stated that there are currently buildings with co-areas. Ms. Barlow stated we allow for group living. That 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 12 there are some emerging trends that current policies in our current Comprehensive Plan that would not prevent a variety of housing. This calls out some specific emerging trends, that pushes us in the direction to look at them and afterward, develop regulations. We are pretty traditional in our housing regulations with little flexibility. Cindy Algeo, 315 W. Mission: Ms. Algeo stated that this is the second application from Greater Valley Support Network (GVSN), the objective is to expand affordable housing options to residents of the City of Spokane Valley. GVSN is a body of 250 organizations that come together on a monthly basis, with the objective to insure support for Spokane Valley residents, especially residents of low income. This policy statement would move the city in the direction of considering other options. We want to expand the options as much as possible to insure that there is the right kind of housing, especially affordable housing for the residents of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Stoy asked for clarification of the wording "other types."Ms. Algeo stated that there was not any particular type of housing where the word "other" is used. Just to have a policy that will permit the City to look at various options as they emerge. CAR-2015-0024: This proposal submitted by Greater Valley Support Network. Request to develop and establish best practices and protocol between developers and neighborhoods. The City would develop the protocol and it would become part of the building (permit)process for a certain threshold of development. Creating a process for communication between existing neighborhoods and developers,developing new projects within that neighborhood during early stages of development. Cindy Algeo, 315 W. Mission: Ms. Algeo stated that she was representing Greater Valley Support Network, another policy that offers a wide range of housing option for the citizens of Spokane Valley. This protocol would not be limited to affordable housing it would be for any multifamily housing development that is proposed by a developer. The emphasis is on early, very good communication and coordination. With a specific protocol there might be better outcomes in the provision of housing in the City of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Anderson asked if this would be a city controlled and monitored policy and not something that is monitored by a third party or independent group? Ms. Algeo stated that the City would take the lead on this. She had not thought of a third party,though it might be a possibility. Commissioner Scott stated that this would require a funding source, and stakeholders to write the protocol to establish a community neighborhood association. Ms. Algeo stated that could be an option, though not an essential component of establishing a protocol. Commissioner Scott followed up with the question what would the association be empowered to do? Ms. Algeo stated she had not thought that far down the road and that it was not a necessary component to developing the policy, rather it would be focusing on communication between developers and neighborhoods. Commissioner Graham asked Ms. Barlow about what might a developer need to do to notify the neighborhood that they are intending to put up a multifamily housing unit, if it required a zone change. Ms. Barlow replied that we were not talking about a zone change,rather talking about actual (building) projects. A zone change is not necessarily a project. The city of Spokane has processes, have a series of activities that the developer has to complete. They also have neighborhood groups that are very active. That is probably our next planning step over the next 20 years or so to engage our neighborhoods on that level. It's a very common practice to have developers of certain size projects reach out to neighborhoods and engage them early on and keep them informed. CAR-2015-0026: This is a request by Naomi Eisentrager to add specific language to our development code. The specific language would require manufactured home park owners to create a relocation report plan. The emphasis is to assist individuals residing in mobile home parks if the manufactured home park were to close or if it were to be redeveloped. It would require the City certify the relocation report plan before the owner of the manufacture home park can close or redevelop the park. RCW 59.20 and 59.21 detail what a manufactured home park owner is required to 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 12 do under state law and it is very similar to what is being proposed in this CAR Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification if we have a state law that already addresses this issue. Mr. Palaniuk stated that is correct,this (request)would just add some local regulations with more protection for the mobile home tenant but it does put an additional burden on the park owner. Commissioner Anderson asked if the burden was greater than the state regulations. Mr. Palaniuk stated it would, due to the relocation plan. Commissioner Graham asked for confirmation that the state requires a 365 day notice before closure. Mr.Palaniuk confirmed that it does. Naomi Eisentrager, 2601 N. Barker Road.: Ms. Eisentrager stated that this proposal is due to everyone who lives in a manufactured home, owns their home in our community, most communities they own their own home. Many of them are too old to move and where even the ones which are newer, like ours and in very good shape, there is no place to move them to. Which creates quiet a problem if a place (the manufactured home park)were to sell. If you can't find a(new)place or can't afford a place to move to, you lose your whole investment. There is nothing you can do and they don't pay for those homes. So I have a question for the panel, do you know how many low income units the Valley has at the moment? No? Last I heard was just like about 300 (units). That's not enough to take care of, I live at River Rose Village and there are over 100 lots (there) and they are all homeowners. If that were to close, a year is not enough for all of them to find low income housing, so that is part of this proposal. Randy Chapman, 8900 S. Mullen Hill Road: Mr. Chapman stated he is the president of Manufacture Home Owners Association (AMHO). The issue here is with the relocation assistance, the state has no money to help that along. If a community is sold and the residents are forced to move they have to pay to have the home moved up front,then they can apply for reimbursement. It doesn't work the other way around and that is why we are asking for this text amendment to strengthen that a bit. There are 1100 households in the Spokane Valley that live in manufactured homes. Many of them are veterans, senior citizens, and young families just starting out who want to live within their means as good citizen of the city of Spokane Valley. That is just a drop in the bucket to the 75,000 households in the state of Washington that live in 1,600 manufactured home communities across the state. We are proposing this and the other proposal here in a moment, to ask you to consider the affordability of our homes and our largest asset in most cases. Should a developer come in and tell us he's purchased the property and we have a year to move: we have six months of denial, and six months of trying to find a place to put it and it doesn't always work. Please help us out here. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the state assistant money not being available upfront rather after the fact. What are you asking for? Mr. Chapman said we are asking that you strengthen the pot a bit,having a developer maybe pay a portion of the relocation fees. Commissioner Anderson clarified that the owner of the property not just a developer would be responsible for payment. Mr. Chapman stated that yes the owner or new developer that wanted to develop something other than a mobile home community. Then the new owner would be liable for those fees or that assistance in some way to move the homes. Commissioner Anderson said but the owner could decide not to be in the business anymore, close and go through the evection process;you would expect the same steps? Mr. Chapman stated that it was important that this last bastion of unsubsidized housing is still available to us. For the most part those 1,100 households are pretty proud of their small investment that they've made in that community and that home. And we'd like to keep it that way. Commissioner Graham asked in addition would you expect the owners of the property to assist in finding new locations for the manufactured homes to be placed? Mr. Chapman said they may have a better source to do that than some of the elderly homeowners. To move my double-wide would cost an excess of$10,000. And as a low income home owner where am I going to come up with $10,000 to move my home. Commissioner Wood asked if the older ones (manufactured homes) built before 1978, can you still move those, the single-wide's are they still permitted to be moved? Mr. Chapman stated that he could not answer that question. He has heard stories of yes they can, no they can't. Commissioner Scott asked if a lease is signed upon moving into the park. Is there anything for 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 12 terminating that agreement? Mr. Chapman stated that it is a one year lease,according to RCW 59.20. It could be a month-to-month tenancy provided both parties, the homeowner and park owner, agree . If I decide to buy it and move it in six months, something like that, it has to be both sides. If the new owner is going to develop it other than a mobile home park, he has to give the one year notice of closure which is under 59.20. The other thing that we are trying to do under as AMHO on a state wide basis, in the six years I've been involved in AMNO, helping the communities set up home owner associations within the community. Register with the Secretary of State as a nonprofit, and should the park owner sell to a nonprofit, and it's built into the law,he doesn't have to pay the 1.78% excise tax on the sale of the property to a nonprofit. So it could be sold to a housing authority, the homeowner association, they would purchase it and run it as a co-op development. We understand nationally there are over 1,000 of them in existence right now. Not a one of them has ever defaulted on their loan. So there is pride of ownership there. We are trying to develop that idea as we go along, as we get into a community where there are issues with management. We are trying to appease everyone, it isn't easy but we attempt to get the answers and get the right answers. As far as your pre `76/'78 move ability, I'll work on that and get back to you. Commissioner Anderson asked for clarification on the requirement of a one year lease under RCW 59.20, is that a minimum or maximum lease. Mr. Chapman replied that it is a minimum lease, renewable year to year automatically. There are some twenty-five year leases out there; there are some thirty-five year leases that we've heard of. I'm not certain but I think Mission Meadows off of Barker Road, some of those might be twenty or twenty-five year leases. That's a little different set up, but they still come under RCW 59.20. CAR-2015-0018: The applicant is CPM Development Corporation. There are two components,one a text proposal which is to add a mineral resource land chapter, and a map proposal which would be to create a mineral resource land use designation and designate sites as mineral resource land. There are five locations highlighted for consideration. Ms. Barlow pointed out that the City recently established a mining moratorium. Mr. Driskell added that in addition to adopting a mining moratorium that the City has adopted a work plan to look at this issue in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan Update. Commissioner Stoy asked for clarification on the five highlighted sites, seeing only four on the map. Ms.Barlow pointed out that two of the sites are close in proximity. John Pederson, 1026 W. Broadway Avenue: Mr. Peterson stated he was with the Spokane County Department of Building and Planning, speaking on behalf of the Board of Spokane County Commissioners,who had authorized him to do so. He would submit a letter to the Clerk of the Board concluding his statements. As you know you are considering comments on CAR-2015-0018 tonight as part of your City's Comprehensive Plan Update. The purpose of this letter is to encourage the commission to consider other areas designated as mineral resource lands, consistent with the Growth Management Act. As Mr. Driskell and Ms. Barlow referenced we are well aware of the City of Spokane Valley's moratorium that was adopted on February 24th and we've provided oral and written comments to the City Council at that time and those comments are also attached with this letter to the Planning Commission Members. In the letter we point on the need that on or before September 1, 1991 each city planning under the act shall designate mineral resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth that have long term significance for the extraction of minerals. In the (RCW)36.70A.050 provides guidelines to classify ag lands, forest lands, mineral lands, and critical areas and requires consultation with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and other stakeholders. (RCW)36.70A.060 requires cities to adopt development regulations to assure conservation of ag, forest and mineral lands under RCW. And as you know and has probably been briefed by staff, your current Comprehensive Plan and municipal code does not identify or designate resources land or mineral lands as mandated and consistent with the Growth Management Act or adopted development regulations applicable to resource lands. We bring that to you attention as information to consider in your review of your Comprehensive Plan, your development regulations and also the site specific CAR-2015-18. The County has reviewed CAR-2015-18 and after review 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 12 fully support the applicant's request that the City of Spokane Valley adopt a new Comprehensive Plan chapter and associated goals and policies to designate mineral resource lands of long term commercial significance. In addition, we respectfully request that additional properties owned by Spokane County be designated as mineral resource lands. Those properties are illustrated on the enclosed maps and are identified as the Flora Road Pit, and we provide the parcel number for that site and also the Eden Pit Site. We also provide you with the parcel number of that site. Both of these properties meet the criteria under the Growth Management Act for designation as mineral lands of long term commercial significance. Prior to creation of the City of Spokane Valley, those parcels were designated by the previous Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and official zoning maps as mineral lands. In summary, we reiterate our previous comments regarding the moratorium, adopting Ordinance 2015-0009 and urge you to designate the above referenced properties consistent with the Growth Management Act as part of your Comprehensive Plan Update process and also adopt a mineral lands chapter of your zoning code to provide the appropriate development regulations pertaining to mineral lands. I will submit this letter to the Clerk of the Board and you will have copies. That is all I have for you unless you have any questions. Commissioner Graham asked in the letter dated March 24, 2015 to the Spokane Valley City Council the final sentence reads: "Finally it will impact the County's incentive to partnership with the City to extend public sewer in the Tshirley Road area". Can you further explain why the mineral resource land, where the conflict is there? Mr. Pederson stated,we have a need to utilize those pit sites for minerals resources and I believe the City of Spokane Valley was desirous of us to work with the City to extend some sewer lines on that property; and without having that mineral land designation, it would be very difficult for the County to work with the Valley in providing those kind of sewer services that we have some initial discussions with the City of Spokane Valley. Commissioner Anderson asked about both pits in the discussion of Flora Road and Eden, are either operating as active mining pits currently? Mr. Pederson stated that he would let Deborah Firkins from the Spokane County Engineers Office address the pits. She is also here, and she can address that. He believed the Flora Pit certainly has some of that ongoing activity, and the Eden Pit,were just some initial processes,I believe applying for permits and going through the SEPA process with the City of Spokane Valley, Deborah has more information on that than I do. Commission Anderson asked if Spokane County owned both of those. Mr. Peterson responded that yes they do. Commissioner Anderson asked if the County owned the mining rights or the mineral rights. Mr. Pederson said Deborah could clarify that as well. He stated that he was here speaking on behalf of the situation designating them appropriately as mineral lands and having the appropriate regulations to allow for the mining activities. Commissioner Scott asked where exactly was this Eden Pit. She could see it was on Tshirley but what was it north/south. Mr. Peterson he said he had a parcel number, he was sure staff could identify it for her. Ms. Firkins stepped up and gave Mr. Pederson a larger map. Mr. Pederson said it was an extension of Eden which is east of the extension of Tshirley, north of Euclid, west of Barker, and south of Trent and east of Flora. Commissioner Scott asked if it was within the City limits. Mr. Peterson responded that yes they were both located within the City of Spokane Valley or they wouldn't be here. Deborah Firkins, 1026 W. Broadway Ave.: Ms. Firkins stated she was with the Spokane County Department of Engineering and Roads. The Spokane County Roads Department asks that per Washington State Growth Management Act that the City designate natural resource lands that are not already characterized by urban growth. Spokane County currently owns two parcels that were zoned while under the County's jurisdiction as mineral lands. The first parcel is Floral Pit, parcel number 45121.9015. Spokane County acquired this property on August 12, 1965 and has operated it as a pit with a district shop and a dog pound. We have continually mined this site for the last fifty years. When the City's mining moratorium came into effect we were in the process of setting terms for the sale of this property to Central Pre-Mix for their operations. The lack of safeguards for mineral resources is very detrimental to us. If the County retains ownership of the Flora Pit,we will continue to mine it without taking out an average of 25,000 cubic yards a year. The second parcel is Eden Pit, 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 12 located approximately 1600 feet north of the intersection of Eden Street and Euclid Avenue, parcel number 55065.0190. This property was zoned for mining since 1980. The County has been preparing this site for mining activity for a number of years. We have completed an environmental assessment which included a cultural resource survey for the site. We also completed a SEPA review for mining for 39 of 44 acres the site has. A determination of non-significance was issued on December 2012. We currently have an application for a mining permit under review by the Department of Natural Resources which includes an SM-6 surface mining permit application signed by the City of Spokane Valley on August 2012. This site we estimate mining for the next 65 years and removing around 25,000 cubic yards per year. Spokane County is in favor of CAR-2015-0018 and asks that both the Floral Pit parcel 45121.9015 and Eden Pit parcel 55065.0190 be added to the mineral resource lands that are designated by the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your consideration. Are there any questions. Jana McDonald, 1121 S. Harmony Court: Ms. McDonald stated that she is a licensed professional engineer in the State of Washington and the Corporate Environmental Engineer for the parent companies of Central Pre-Mix and Inland Asphalt. I've been with the company for over 22 years. I'm here to speak in favor of CAR-18 which is a proposal to add resource land protection policies to the Growth Management Act, Comprehensive Plan. I ask that the Planning Commission recommend this amendment request move forward to the Comp Plan Update. I also hope to provide you with some information and education about the mining industry. The Central Pre-Mix sites we are requesting the mineral overlay for, are fully permitted and functional since before the City was a city. These sites were permitted through Spokane County, designated and protected as a resource of long term commercial significance under the committee that reviewed and ultimately designated, under the County's Growth Management Act over 15 years ago. I sat on the initial technical committee that reviewed and ultimately designated these as mineral resources. These sites are still mineral resources and need to be protected as required by Growth Management Act. Aggregates are literally the foundation and connection to economic viability. We all use the equivalent of ten tons of aggregate per year in some form, in our houses, our roads, our work places, our schools, our water and sewer systems. Their many uses are fundamentally necessary for today's society as we know it. Secondly, the City has described the mining process to have permanent irreversible effects on the property, which in most cases that is not true. Mining is an interim use of the property and often prepares the site for future development. While all sites are not reclaimed to an income generating status, all sites are required by state law to have a reclamation plan and be reclaimed. Example of reclaimed sites in the Spokane and Coeur d' Alene area have been put to residential housing, commercial or mixed use developments include the River Run Facility over on Fort George Wright, with the Real Life Church by the Community College, that site was mined for over 40 years and is now an active housing development. Windermere Development, up north was old gravel site and is now a successful commercial retail facility. Additionally the River Stone Development in Coeur d' Alene is an old gravel site that is now a condo and retail establishment, as was Ramsey Park by the Krock Center in Coeur d' Alene which houses baseball and softball fields. Lastly as Growth Management mandates protection of resources,the City should also be looking at setting criteria and look at other applicable mine sites and protecting them. It is important to remember that resources cannot be relocated and must exhaust and be mined where they are located. Because of their uniqueness, the City can't pick and choose where mining occurs, the resources drive the designation process. I urge you to approve and protect these resources, not only designate the four sites identified in our CAR request but also approve the text amendment and support designating other appropriate properties including the resources the County has mentioned; specifically parcel number 55065.0190 which Central Pre-Mix actually holds the mineral rights to. We've owned the mineral reserves long before the property was in the City. The original intent was always to mine the property as a mineral resource. Commissioner Anderson asked how does an overlay provide more protection to your existing sites. Ms. McDonald stated that right now they are not protected in any way, shape or form. They are zoned heavy 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 12 industrial. There is no mining zone. Commissioner Anderson stated that you have the mineral rights. Ms.McDonald stated we own the mineral rights but under Growth Management they are supposed to be protected with some sort of designation. There is none of that happening right now. Commissioner Anderson said that still doesn't answer the question; even with mineral rights we could prevent you from operating your facilities. (Mr. Pederson approached Ms. McDonald and they conferred.) Ms. McDonald stated under the designation or overlay you guys would be able to set criteria as to what would be allowed or as Mr. Peterson pointed out their mineral designations allow mining to penetrate the aquifer. So you can set criteria and standards for that with an overlay. Commissioner Stoy asked for clarification on mining penetrating the aquifer. Ms. McDonald stated new sites within the County rules cannot penetrate the aquifer. Commissioner Stoy pointed out that most of these sites are right over the aquifer. These are real close to the river as it is. The way that our aquifer runs these are generally right over the existing aquifer belt anyway. How are you proposing this overlay, how is that going to protect the aquifer from any further damage that may have already been done? Ms. McDonald stated that those controls have already been determined by previous approvals.We are fully permitted through the department of Natural Resources, Department of Ecology. There are other agencies that regulate water quality and the mining activities. Commissioner Wood asked where in the Comprehensive Plan those are quoted so he can look it up. Ms. McDonald stated that the RCWs were quoted in Mr. Peterson's letter. He referenced the RCWs that require the Growth Management Act to designate materials. Is that what you are asking for? (yes) It is in the RCW quoted in Mr. Pederson's letter. Commissioner Anderson mentioned he didn't get you there; then he asked if they expected the proposed policies to be challenged in the long term. Ms. McDonald stated that she would hope that the agencies or companies that have the interest actually work with the City to be able to help develop those policies to move forward. Commission Anderson asked about the odds of these policies being the gospel in the final rendition, do you expect that to be unchanged? Ms. McDonald stated she had no expectation, I mean, that is what we proposed. I would propose to be able to work with the City or a committee to further develop those and be involved in the process. Commissioner Scott asked for clarification if a zone would be as effective for protecting the mineral rights and resources on those policies. Make it a mining zone or a mineral resource zone as opposed to an overlay which when reading their goals and policies seem to put a lot of buffering and restrictions on the adjacent properties that are not zoned mineral resource but are within this overlay. It seems like you are putting off a lot of things that would cause conflict off on to adjoining property owners. Ms. Barlow stated that remains to be seen as to what is the most effective way to deal with this. Right now the question before you is should the City be looking at this further in our analysis? We know that we have issues because our regulations do not adequately address it. The only way we address it right now is in our matrix, and in our industrial zone we identify that in the heavy industrial areas mining is allowed. Once we get beyond that,we defer to the Department of Natural Resources to handle all the details. That is not enough to protect our interest because we have more of a vested interest than that. We know we need to be more involved; is it an overlay zone or is it a special zone,we don't know. We are not sure the best way to handle it. They have proposed policies; they proposed an overlay zone and include several different aspects for text considerations, Comprehensive Plan policies. In the past we've worked with CPM on several different issues and I'm sure after the analysis is complete we will continue to work through this. This is an issue for the City and we know that we need to work through this. How is it going to look in the end, I'm not sure if it's going to be an overlay or a zone. That remains to be seen. We know that it warrants further analysis. Commissioner Scott said then we don't have much choice than to move it forward. Ms. Barlow stated that the Council is definitely interested in what the Commission's thoughts are on the issue but the Council has already identified this is an area of concern and a direction they need to go. Commissioner Graham asked Ms. McDonald, that during your statement that one of the City's main concerns is that it is permanently irreversible. Mining is an interim use and all sites are required to have a reclamation plan in place. Who bears that cost of the reclamation plan? Ms. McDonald stated that the company does and we are required to hold a 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 12 bond to cover reclamation cost if we were to default on the permit. Commissioner Stoy asks how long permits are good for. Ms. McDonald stated either till they are revoked for some reason or the site is depleted and reclaimed. The DNR does do annual inspections and does request bi-annual inspections and requests updates as necessary. Commissioner Graham asked one of the concerns could be that a permit could be revoked at will if there is no protection in place, is that some of what is driving this proposal. Ms.McDonald replied no,the DNR acts independently of the City. Stacy Bjordhal 505 W.Riverside: Ms. Bjordhal stated she was present on behalf of Central Pre-Mix and CPM Development Corporation. I wanted to offer some general comments that are somewhat responsive to the questions that have been raised and some of it might reiterate what has already been stated this evening. Point number one is that the Growth Management Act does mandate that cities and counties designate and protect mineral resource lands, so it is a nonnegotiable item. The City has honestly and openly stated they have not done that yet. These sites were previously all designated when it was pre-incorporation of the Valley. So they have been in existence, I believe in particular I believe Ms. Firkins mentioned since 1965, been around for a period of time. The policies and the designation criteria submitted as part of the application that was actually pulled from Spokane County's Comprehensive plan so it mirrors that very closely if not identical to that. Certainly they went through an exhaustive process with the technical committee to develop that criteria. It's been vetted. It's gone though a hearing process and has been deemed GMA compliant. So, it's a good place to start in terms of the policies. These mineral resources are unique in the sense that they are intended to be designated but protected from incompatible development encroaching upon them. Because of their unique nature and the inability for these resources to be relocated. They are located where they are. The idea is to identify those resources, exhaust them until they are depleted, then go and mine new areas. That's just the economics of the resource itself. I wanted to add those comments, if you have any additional questions I am happy to answer them, but you have been briefed very well and asked a lot of really great questions so it is clear you are on board and understand the issue which is before you. Commissioner Stoy asked other than these locations that have been indicated on the overlay map that we have, is Central Pre-Mix looking for any new additional sites?Ms. Bjordhal replied no. Just to clarify Jana McDonald had indicated another site in her presentation. CAR-2015-0025: The applicant is Naomi Eisentrager. They are seeking to establish a manufactured home park overlay; create a land use designation for manufactured home parks for the Comprehensive Plan.; and create either an overly or a manufactured home zone. Commissioner Anderson asked if it was called map overlay that property would stay forever as a manufactured home park and could not be converted. Mr. Palaniuk explained the process of an overlay, the underlying zone then the overlay regulations would also apply over the zone. Commissioner Anderson asked about current locations of mobile home parks, many are not located in just multifamily zones. The overlay would supersede all those zones. Mr. Palaniuk state that the overlay would apply no matter what zone was underneath. Commissioner Scott asked if the mobile home park owners were notified of this CAR. Mr. Palaniuk replied no. Randy Chapman, 8900 S. Mullen Hill Rd: Mr. Chapman requested that the Commissioners go to the website www.wamaho.org to see the Tumwater Ordinance and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that came down a couple of years ago. A lot of what you'll be dealing with and deliberating on will be in that decision. It is very comprehensive and answers a lot of your questions. The City of Tumwater was sued by the park owners association because they did not like some of what the City of Tumwater had done. They had designated certain of their mobile home communities in a either a zoning or overlay and they threw out a couple of them because they were a small community of six or eight units. They were in commercial development. In the long run the City of Tumwater prevailed. There are other ordinances in Snohomish County, city of Marysville, and other west side of the state cities. Earlier I spoke of the one-year notice of closure and with the zoning in place a developer 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 12 comes in,maybe he wants to develop a piece of property with a mobile home park on it, it may take him up to five years or he may have to change the zoning back. It gives the mobile home owner more time. That is all we are asking there. Again, save our seniors,protect our vets and protect our young families with young children who want to live within their means. Commissioner Stoy closed the public hearing at 8:03. The Commission took a Break from 8:05 p.m. to 8:11 p.m. and then began their deliberations. CAR-2015-0018: (mineral resource land chapter and overlay) Commissioner Graham moved to include CAR-2015-0018 in the Update. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not understand the overlay process as being a benefit but understood the City needed to address this. Commissioner Graham said she agreed in regard to the text proposal, not necessarily to the map proposal. She said she understood according to the Growth Management Act (GMA) this was a requirement,relating to mineral resources. Commissioner Stoy agreed this needed to be addressed. Commissioner Graham asked if the proposal could be split and Ms.Barlow stated there would be no benefit to breaking it up. Mr. Driskell advised it needed to stay as a unit. The vote on the motion was six in favor,zero against, motion passed. CAR-2015-0021: (text amendment to allow multifamily in Office and Garden Office) Commissioner Anderson moved to include CAR-2015-0021 in the Update. Commissioner Scott stated she was concerned about existing single family residences which are in multifamily zones or are going to be in a zone which could become multifamily. Commissioner Anderson thought the proposal was for a different standard for this, but Ms. Barlow stated this was just a request to allow MF-1 and MF-2 in the Office and Garden Office zones. Commissioner Wood said he thought it would create flexibility, to which Commissioner Stoy agreed. The vote on this motion was five in favor, one against, with Commissioner Graham dissenting. This motion passed. CAR-2015-0022: (density bonus incentives) Commissioner Scott moved to exclude CAR-2015-0022 from the Update. Commissioner Scott stated creating additional bonuses which might include height, bulk, and parking, affect the existing neighborhoods. She felt there are plenty of incentives in place, so there is no reason to create more. Commissioner Stoy commented there was only one incentive currently, which is a density bonus. Commissioner Graham said she thought Mr. Palaniuk stated there were also height and setback waivers available, and to his knowledge no one has taken advantage of them. Commissioner Scott commented if the parking was reduced, it would put the parking out in the neighborhood. Commissioner Anderson stated the increase in density is a factor to lower the unit cost of any existing structure, everything else would not lower costs,but raise costs of development. He said if the current system is not producing incentives, then he did not see how the proposal would create more. Commissioner Graham said she appreciated what the Greater Valley Support Network is trying to do, but all she can picture is tenements when she thinks of the type of incentives being proposed. The vote to exclude this CAR was six in favor, zero against, motion passed. CAR-2015-0023: (add housing type policies) Commissioner Anderson moved to exclude CAR-2015- 0023 from the Update. Commissioner Anderson felt we have diverse housing types, felt some of the other types, Co-ops or tiny houses, don't have a sense of fit in a community residential area here. He did not feel either of those as being positive. Commissioner Wood said he thought this would add layers of confusion, when we have different types of housing already, and does not feel the other types are necessary. He has heard of micro-housing but does not know where it would fit. Commissioner Graham she said she felt we needed to be aware of our low income families but she wasn't sure if this proposal was the way to go about it. She felt that micro-housing or co-housing were fads and what would happen to the development after the fad. She supports the exclusion of this CAR application. Commissioner Stoy agreed with excluding this CAR, he felt the micro-housing 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 12 was a trend because a 300-500 square foot home would get very small quickly. The vote to exclude this CAR was six in favor, zero against, the motion to exclude passed. CAR-2015-0024: (develop protocol for neighborhood engagement) Commissioner Wood moved to include CAR-2015-0024 in the Update. Commissioner Anderson stated he had concerns about this request. He said as long as this was City developed, City controlled, City monitored to make best practices he would support it; but if it was a third-party function,he would not. Commissioner Wood said he liked open government and the earlier we can notify people of what is going on, and communicate earlier in the process,then you eliminate problems. The more we can do that the better. Commissioner Stoy said he agreed with that. He said in the work he has done with developers he has found talking with neighbors early develops rapport with them instead of having a tense relationship later. Commissioner Scott stated she agreed with what the Greater Valley Network is trying to do, but feels they are making it over-complicated. She stated Spokane County has an informational handout which might serve to do the same thing. She feels there is a better way to handle it. The vote to include this CAR was four in favor, two against with Commissioners Kelley and Scott dissenting, the motion passed. CAR-2015-0025: (develop manufactured home park overlay) Commissioner Scott moved to exclude CAR-2015-0025 from the Update. Commissioner Anderson said he thought this was a tough subject but he felt this was stepping beyond what a city should be doing for its citizens. Commissioner Wood said he agreed with Commissioner Anderson, and didn't like bringing in new rules to a property so the owner could not sell it. Commissioner Scott stated she felt the property owners who were listed on the map (owners of the manufactured home parks noted on the overlay map) were not notified so they could speak to this request from their perspective. Ms. Barlow noted one of the site specific requests was to have a manufactured home park changed to a higher density. The vote to exclude this CAR was five in favor, one against with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, the motion passed. CAR-2015-0026: (Adding manufactured home policies) Commissioner Stoy asked if Mr. Driskell knew what the state requirements were and Mr. Driskell said he was aware of the year's notice regarding closing the manufactured home park (MHP). Mr. Palaniuk stated there are many requirements at the state level under RCW 59.20 and 59.21 in regard to MHP and their tenants. There are very specific requirements, notifications, relocation submittals which go to the Department of Commerce. Mr. Palaniuk said the proposal somewhat mirrors the state requirements but the submittal is more specific with asking for help with relocation and relocation assistance. There are public funds available through the state, but they are after the fact, not upfront costs. They are asking the City to administer and certify their plans. However, it is too early to try and analyze this now. Commissioner Wood wanted to know if we were to implement something like this but we conflict with the state, how would that work. Mr. Driskell responded,the City can make stronger regulations but cannot conflict with state regulations. Commissioner Anderson moved to exclude CAR-2015-0026 from the Update. Commissioner Anderson said working through the state would be a better solution than adding an additional layer of regulations at the City level. Commissioners Wood and Stoy both said they agreed. The vote on this motion was five in favor, one against, with Commissioner Kelley dissenting, the motion passed. GOOD OF THE ORDER: ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Joe Stoy,Chairperson Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary 06-08-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 12 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: June 25,2015 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: Public Hearing—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. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on this amendment on April 23,2015. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to recommend approval of CTA-2015-0001 to City Council. 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 Public Hearing COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PLANNING DIVISION ne `alle STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2015-0004 STAFF REPORT DATE:May 13,2015 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 14, 2015, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley,Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A text amendment proposing to amend Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.090 and 19.140, updating the Administrative Exception and accessory building size code requirements. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 General Provisions. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION:Move to recommend approval of CTA-2015-0004 to City Council STAFF PLANNER: Christina Janssen,Planner, Community and Economic Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Proposed text amendment to SVMC 19.40.090& 19.140 A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following summarizes application procedures for the proposal. Process Date Published Notice of Public Hearing: April 17,2015 and May 1,2015 Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: April 17,2015 SEPA - Pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(19)(b) this action is exempt from SEPA review. PROPOSAL 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 Report and Recommendation CTA-2015-0001 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. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on this amendment on April 23,2015 and a public hearing on May 14th, 2015.. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17(General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment,if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive plan goals for maintaining a flexible and consistent regulatory environment and preserving and protecting neighborhoods. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below: Land Use Policy— 1.1: Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Land Use Policy-1.3: Review and revise as necessary,existing land use regulations to provide for innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments, accessory dwelling units and in-fill development. Land Use Policy -13.1 Maximize efficiency of the development review process by continuously evaluating the permitting process and modifying as appropriate. Economic Policy EDP-7.1: Evaluate,monitor and improve development standards to promote compatibility between adjacent land uses; and update permitting processes to ensure that they are equitable,cost-effective,and expeditious. Economic Policy EDP-7.2: Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,consistency and predictability. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety, welfare,and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment provides for minor code deviations to be granted to property owners if criteria are met. The criteria consider the character of the neighborhood,the environment, and public policy. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. Page 2 of 3 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2015-0001 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): Public noticing was completed for CTA-2015-0004 on April 17,2105. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): No concerns are noted. C. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the applicable approval criteria, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed amendment. Page 3 of 3 19.40.090 Residential accessory uses and structures.° SHARE A._Except for the air conditioning compressors of detached single family residential, Cooling 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 ,hall not exceed 10 percent of the lot area.Accessory structure(s)are permitted as follows: 1. Lots 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 ose a 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 docs 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 docs 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.Fr 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. I. Flanking street yard setbacks;provided, that: 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.a SHARE The Director shall Criteria for approv 1e or denyini 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 ProcessiO SHAREI 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 Spokane Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - Nr G Divrsibry `�= Planning Commission Public Hearing June 25, 2015 Residential accessory uses and structures SVMC 19 .40 . 090 Administrative Exceptions SVMC 19 . 140 Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - Nr G Divrsibry `- = Administrative Exceptions Chapter 19. 140 SVMC Administrative Exception : A minor deviation from standards pursuant to Chapter 19 . 140 SVMC. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Nr G Divrsibry `�= jwueY 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 : Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �P Nl� G DIVISION! 19. 140.010 Allowed Exceptions. 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 Spokani COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TtANNING DIVISION 1hall;y Existing co a provisions: SpokanValley e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 01 ANI ING DIVISION A. Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed 1 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. C. 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 building in areas where the maximum building height is generally exceeded. Existing code provisions: Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .�: t mN NG DivisiDN F Valley 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 less of the maximum building coverage. 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. H. Up to one half of a private tower's impact area off of the applicant's property Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT t ttANNING Drvisi DN H. Up to one half of a private tower's impact area off of the applicant's property I. Flanking street yard setbacks; provided that: 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. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'MANNING DIVISION Valley Proposed Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING Divrsibry A.Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required yard. B . Minimum lot area requirements 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 of the required lot width or depth. Spokani COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TtANNING DIVISION 1hall;y Existing co a provisions: WWWIIIMMEMIrW' . .� Spokane COMMUNTY DEVELOPMENT n AN NG Drvis�DN �. 19.140.020 Approval criteria Existing code provisions: Criteria for approval or denial of applications shall be established by the director if it is shown that: A. The administrative exception does not detract from the character and nature of the 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 designation it occupies. D. Granting the administrative exception does not constitute a threat to the public health, safety and welfare within the City. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT {5 ttANNING Drvisi DN 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. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'MANNING DIVISION Valley Proposed Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .. ttANNING Drvisi DN 19.140.020 Approval criteria The Director shall approve or deny the application based on the following criteria: A. The administrative exception does not detract from the character of the 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 designation 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; Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .�. ttANNING Drvisi DN 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; and D. Granting the administrative exception does not constitute a threat to the public health, safety and welfare within the City. Spokani COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TtANNING DIVISION 1hall;y Existing co a provisions: Wwwlimmenew-A Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT tAN GDvrsioN Residential accessory uses and structures Chapter 19.40.090 A. Except for the air conditioning compressors of detached single-family residential, cooling towers and similar accessory structures are required to observe all front, side or rear yards. B. The combined building footprint of all accessory structures in residential zoning districts shall not exceed 10 percent of the lot area. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'MANNING DIVISION Valley Proposed SpokanValley e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT t t1 AN NG vvisiDN A. Cooling towers and similar accessory structures are required to observe all front, side or rear yards. B. The combined building footprint of all accessory structures in residential zoning districts are permitted as follows: 1 . Lots equal to, or less than, 10,000 sq. ft. in size may have up to 1 ,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. Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'MANNING DIVISION Valley • CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: June 25,2015 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business n new business n public hearing n information ® admin.report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Continued Study session — Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 20 Subdivision Regulations DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Continued discussion on the general design of lots when subdividing with a primary focus on corner lots and on the screening requirements for lots backing principal arterial streets and state highways. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.106; SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: The Planning Commission received a staff presentation and then discussed corner lot widths, screening requirements, and electronic plat submittal requirements at the April 23, 2015 meeting. The Commission decided corner lot widths and screening requirement required further discussion. 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 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: None STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk,Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Memo April 15, 2015 2. Presentation 3. PC Meeting Minutes April 23,2015 RPCA for Subdivision Regulations Study Session 1114 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 backinji 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 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 defmition 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 defmition 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. 2nd 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 Commercial/from 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 defmition 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 SOkane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I'tANNINGValley Planning Commission Study Session — continued discussion from April 23 , 2015 June 25, 2015 Subdivision Regulations Spokane Valley Municipal Code -Sikikane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TtANNING DIVISION! --- Valley _. .:._.ua..�.. Subdivision Regulations • Corner lot widths • Screening on lots backing arterials • Electronic Final Plat map Municipal Code Text Amendment 2 spo—karieCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNIJE2visioN 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 SO' kane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING Divrsibry `- jValley _. .:._.ua..�.. 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 IAN ING DIVISIONlimil . .:. . __ _ , . , • . . .,::. ...,__. _.,",, A, - .f-1 . r - li-laii i _ 1r '� _ - If hM a sookane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING DIVISION Lot Factors Corner • Setbacks — side, flanking, front and rear • Border Easements • BuildingFootprint Municipal Code Text Amendment 6 kSpian .0.0 Valley TWIIIIVN ING__DIVISION! 7 ilai i 1,._ , .._ ___ t w , 91°''' M; F a - 15' Fla - - - _ . • r 20' Front Yard Setback '- } OP - —– - n _ y' - '°'ane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .tAN 7 f INGDrvrsio� Valley ., , , , 5' side yard setback ,f _ -Zan' i l�- Y 1 W r irlariliiiiW5Iiir.- -, Spilka rq.! ' COMMUNRY DEVELOPMENT OtANNING DivisioN - --- - 20' rear yard setback ,,,,,,,, / -..... ,,- .., 'N __ .... .---'` - • : .,. 1 ..- , -, , .,-•-.-'--- k . . il. . .r*. . - - I" 1 1 I 1 1 I .'•iv a i AK.: iniP, Aeon.AL __ ._„,.,.. L. , ......41- ..,.. ., r1 - • - - • - •- -..r. ' -":'''' ' • . '. *' '' ....3.: ,J,- . ,,,' '- '•. .•. •••• .--- .•`- '..r.; L..4.." •' ,..i. .1J.:4,172' '.:•1' - - - ''' ••: ; % •••• • •". ''..jjrdiflIcrft7i,r7-7-2..'' • - .. , 9 Sikikane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING Divrsibry `- Border Easements • Based on right-of-way ( ROW) needs • Accommodate required ROW improvements • Width varies based on improvements and existing ROW • Setbacks taken from the border easement Municipal Code Text Amendment SOOkaneArillriini. r.: "--. .......Valley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _lptAN,m9...±AvisioN ---- - 0 MAN5F I EL-D 0 45vor.10.p, -- ° 61.0e; 4 "06 713 4 ii MOO' MOO' , tr g --- --- i 4 --- - • — izi—tue„ MILL 1.141ga EE 11(--.N1 0 ;I II III ETA L 1 6 6 k.I PK 1 lq 611.00 1 141.001 8 -- t 8 700:4 Border Easement , ;a, ,,, .,.. 8 LOT 15 '3/4} LOT 16118-4-37S-1. 8- Z LOT 1711.02. 70.00 10.004 6 o • . 0 1415-711424E 1 1 . i 4 Ne1717 24 E Netr'724E DLOCK 1 tl I i 1 F.:7,7.7.7_7;i 1 71)04 i 6 94 1 A 1 ......k ii Spak ne --- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT iliPtAN ING DivisioN f- .000 Ni ii i 10 ra =_ a p ti 13' Border Easement . ..... . • 1141\111.1 • I �k111111 r 550 . 1 9.17 I • . 1i may . Sikikane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING Divrsibry `- Right of way • ROW width determined by road classification • Collector Arterial • Local Access Commercial • Local Access Residential • Street Standards for each classification Municipal Code Text Amendment WIIIII kane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IP-LAN Walley �yNC7 bIVI�ION Typical ResidentialStreet Section _... , ._ 11 „. . ti PLANTER STRIP SECTial SECTION BORDER ASEMENT f 51 BORDER EASEMENT - ,1 -,.t'� r -- 30, , I _ ,I., y PA NG I L'01 L 1. 53 SIDEWALK / \\L 7' PLAh�TFR STRIP 10' S YALE 0-' SIDEWALK k'IMA CLASS 1/2' (Mlh{. 3 5,E NOTE 3) C.SaB,C.A.S.T.C..(MIN. 5", SEE NOTE 3) APPROVED SUBGRADE F059 f ODIFIED PROCTOR /I 4 " , 2: v , * 4' 'e.` SOkaneValley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING Divrsibry `- Right of Way Improvements • Pavement widening • Curb & Gutter • Swale • Sidewalk • Need determined by impact of development Municipal Code Text Amendment COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NG DIVISION spnkan VAN __ Pavement Widening Fl 4401 0 si 2 V . 3 I ., _ ,f . , ,.„,.,..,,-- a _ I _ ______ -iw ,.. l _ ___ l 4 I'f' ' s ,.. ...,.. ---- ''.1 .=' . ` g , f r te* , _ �, 13 ' B.E. .. N ' ems® ,-,.- __.. ,4 .__ - - ,LSO 5' Sid to.--, . k - 10' ware----,„_,„_ e- 06 y 2' C rb & Gutte -,. Stiokane00""\--. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT lotANNING DIVISION! `— jValley _. .:._.ua..�.. 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 Stiokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TtANNING DIVISION --- Buildable 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 Spokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT = AIVmDivrsio�v - 15/20' front yard 5' side yard setback / setback from border _. Lot 91.02' easement Side Setback 5' " izAj2_, ___,,ieE ti..4-' ' 0 6 ri DETAIL I Flanking Setback 15' Border Easement 13' , a 1 1 , rtc 6A Buildable Lot Width 58.02 Buildable Footprint to 0 15' flanking street 1 ] setback from border easement i' - ' T 20' rear yard setback X1.0 ' Ni + it 1 endment iiMPIPIIIIMIN - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ;PtANXIGEvLsIoN Lot Widths Minimum Lot 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 20 Sikikane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING Divrsibry `- 15 % increase on Corner Lots • Doesn't always fit. • 15% increase not adequate when a Border Easement exists • Property owner penalized for having interior lots larger than necessary Municipal Code Text Amendment . Spok e i— COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IAN ING , Milky DIVISION LOCAL ACCESS STREET -g: 1 ROW I Ca V r \S il 5' ` l' 1-:.t: a O b T f I 75' (15% WIDER) R-3 CORNER LOT WITH NO BORDER EASEMENT - 15% 1"=30" MIN. LOT AREA: 7,500 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH: 65 FT. Municipal Code Text Amendment MIN. LOT DEPTH' 00 FT. 22 . bp0k 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N ING „� Vatic" bIVI�IOIV LOCAL ACCESS STREET 1 ROW BORDER EASEMENT z CC cam.L. 4`'i-"1w H s +� va" r in W r:LL;Lt' •. +�- •_ ` w VVI LI°q 55' .F 55 + ®' 15' 13' 10 O I L- 65' _ _ 75' (15% WIDER) R-3 CORNER LOT WITH 131 BORDER EASEMENT - 15% 1°_V MIN. LOT AREA: L500 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH: 65 FT, MIN. LOT DEPTH: 90 FT. 23 Sp°kaCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTN ING DIVISION Valley LOCAL ACCESS STREET a ROW I . .,n t P P P ,--. ,•oa ,,, L ui a un w ,4 4 41 rvi g f+ �{ 4¢ 7 W 03 Q 4 m rte} ©J c) 5' an Lo' 40' -Mb 15' 19' C 1 cv f 50' _ _ 50' __ 57.5' (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. k"Sp ianCOMMUNTY DEVELOPMENT PLNNING DIVISION -- - ...., Valley LOCAL ACCESS STREET ROW rr I BORDER EASEMENT rr Ri ' � I IwC CL I CO Ld kii)1....******** 4O' 40' _ 15' 13� 19' 0 L_ - - � L - - I 1_0_1- _t_ _ _1 N 50' 50' 57.5' (15% WIDER ..] R-4 CORNER LOT WITH 13' BORDER EASEMENT - 15% ]"=30" MIN. LOT AREA: 6,000 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH: 50 FT. MIN. LOT DEPTH: 80 FT. 25 kaneCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R Nr AvisioryValley 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 SOkane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING DIVISION 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 Width 70 70 55 40 35 10 20 10 Municipal Code Text Amendment Simkan� PIAN . ING vdllLy COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT _ <— Min interior Lot Width 65 feet < Total Corner Lot Width 88 feet —> T - - - _I — — I I I I ' I I , I I I I I I I 11— I I I Buildable Lot Width ; Buildable Lot Width II 11= 55 feet ; : = 55 feet I I I w ' I Typical R-3 Lot I , I i } 13' border easement i > I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15' flanking street 4> 11 5 side : I yard : : i setbacks ' ! I 5' side yard ; I I I I11 - - � ; - - 28 Stiokane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT !MANNING DIVISION 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 29 Simkane .0000 A PtAN .. ING Vlley COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT <— Min interior Lot Width 65 feet Total Corner Lot Width 73 feet - - - - I , I I I � Buildable Lot Width ; Buildable Lot Width = 55 feet ' : = 40 feet I ' w , Typical R-3 Lot , I 13' border easement :> I I 15' flanking street 5 side I , yard , setbacks ' I ' 5 side yard I ' SOOkane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TtANNING DIVISION Option 3 • Eliminate the 15% requirement and allow propertytoplan for buildable corner owners lot widths . Municipal Code Text Amendment 31 aka COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NIING DIVISION n I i Co c usn o • Corner lots need adequate width • Current 15% requirement not appropriate in all cases Municipal Code Text Amendment SOOkane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING 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 kine ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT =SAN ING DIVISION! ff . illift 1 . � [ il f # A tor E,1f t[ LFil .-.. illr ir 717. . illiL .,, `1 1 , e. ::.,..A., : • --, : ..- - ,, , 1 i a Lob .,, -T 1 , iii , . _ _ ... . . 1 , , . . , 'sir- 11 -Iirlinlir =Pr -1111r- bid __- Screening Device Elmaw 11/114FAI ,- .T. ' - _ ., EL ; . SO—lane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MING 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 sookane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TtANNING DIVISION Option • Require 6-foot si ht-obstructin fence with sight-obstructing Type II vegetative plantings Municipal Code Text Amendment wwweimmen sookane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING Divrsibry `— Electronic Final Plat Map • Required at final plat submittal • Not always accurate • Requires staff to verify accuracy • Easier to create from the recorded paper copy Municipal Code Text Amendment sookane COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANNING DIVISION Option • Delete the requirement for an electronic final plat map . Municipal Code Text Amendment ... 11e COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT !MANNING DIVISION -. Municipal Code Text Amendment 39