Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 06-25-15 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, June 25,2015 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, absent excused Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Tim Kelley Marty Palaniuk,Planner Mike Phillips Christina Janssen, Planner Susan Scott Joe Stoy Sam Wood Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Hearing no objections, Commissioner Graham was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 25, 2015 agenda. The vote on the amended agenda was six in favor, zero against, the motion passed. Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the May 08, 2015 minutes as presented. Commissioner Scott noted on page 4, paragraph 4 under the testimony of Cindy Algeo, she said the words "according to the application" needed to be inserted between the words `that' and `this' when Commissioner Scott asked Ms. Algeo a confirming question. The Commission approved corrected minutes with a vote of six in favor, zero against. The motion passed. Note: The minutes from the May 08, 2015 meeting were done verbatim and after reviewing the recording, Commissioner Scott did not say `according to the application' at that time. The paragraph in question was Ms. Algeo's testimony regarding Citizen Amendment Request CAR-2015-0024 requesting to develop a protocol between developers and neighborhoods during large multi-family developments. Commissioner Scott's clarifying statement was "that this would require a funding source, and stakeholders to write the protocol to establish a community neighborhood association." Commissioner Scott would like to clarify she wanted to say that `according to the application' this would require a funding source. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Kelley reported he attended two meetings of the Spokane Traders Club. Commissioner Wood reported he attended the Spokane Home Builders Association Government Affairs meeting. The other Commissioners had no report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported the City Council had taken action on the site specific Citizen- initiated Amendment Requests (CARs) during their June 9, 2015 meeting and included all CARs for further review. The Council had 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 30th meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. COMMISSION BUSINESS: 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): Chairman Stoy opened the public hearing at 6:10 p.m. Planner Christina Janssen gave a brief overview of the proposal. Redefining the purpose language for the administrative exceptions, modifying the approval criteria and defining the options for when exceptions can be granted. 06-25-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 5 Commissioner Anderson commented the language shown in the PowerPoint did not have the word `permanent' in it, which was in the current language. Ms. Janssen stated based on discussions with the Planning Commission the proposed amendment to SVMC 19.140 would be changed to read: 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 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 than the required lot width or depth. 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 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; 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 granting the administrative exception does not constitute a threat to the public health, safety and welfare within the City. Commissioner Wood asked about item D, and creating an additional lot, and wondered why a developer would not be allowed to create and additional lot if it did not increase the density. Ms. Barlow stated an administrative exception is designed to address unique situations, not to allow a developer to create lots which would not normally be allowed under the current code. The proposed changes to 19.40.090 Residential accessory uses and structures. 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 sq. ft. of accessory structure(s) 2. Lots greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in size may have accessory structure that shall not exceed 10 percent of lot size 06-25-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 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 shall be secured in accordance with the requirements of the adopted building codes. Temporary fencing is required during excavation. Chair Stoy, having no one who wished to testify,closed the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. Commissioner Wood said he thought that in 19.140.020 #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 should be eliminated. There was discussion if this exception should be applied to one lot, to a series of lots, or should it be allowed to add an additional lot. The Commissioners agreed an additional lot should be allowed if it did not increase the density of the underlying zone. Ms. Barlow reminded the Commissioners this criteria also applied to any exception which might be applied to lots which would reduce lot area in order to allow duplexes in areas where they might not be allowed previously. The criteria would be applied to any exception which would come into staff. Discussion continued regarding whether or not item D should be combined with item E The administrative exception shall not be used to increase density beyond what is currently allowed within the zoning district, and how it would affect the outcome. Ms. Barlow pointed out item D is generally related to when property is platted. Ms. Janssen suggested the combined language could be 'the exception may apply to a series of parcels but shall not be used to increase density beyond what is currently allowed within the zoning district. ' Commissioner Kelley asked if it would prevent duplexes. It would not prevent duplexes, but it could relate to where a 10 percent reduction would reduce a R-4 zone to a MF-1 density based on the lot width. Commissioner Kelley left the room at 7:03 p.m. and returned at 7:05 p.m. The Commissioners had consensus to combine items D and E with the combined language of 'the exception may apply to a series of parcels but shall not be used to increase density beyond what is currently allowed within the zoning district. Commissioner Anderson wants the word `permanent' returned to the language of 19.40.090(B) The combined building footprint of all accessory structures in residential zoning districts are permitted as follows: Commissioner Anderson stated he would not support the amendment if the word `permanent' was not returned to the language. He said there is a definition for structure, and many references to permanent in the municipal code and he feels this needs to stay. Previously staff had explained the proposal was to remove the word `permanent' because when calculating lot coverage all structures on a property were used not just permanent structures. This had been the practice for many years and staff changed the language to reflect the current practice. Commissioner Scott said if you do this, it would change how you would count things in the yard, then it would change the proportion and density of the neighborhood lots. If you stick with 10 percent across the board then you could not put a 1,000 square foot shop on a 6,000 square foot lot and it would preserve some of the green space. She was concerned if changing this would change how the neighborhoods would look. This would be how you would get a guy with a house with the eave right up against the property lines. Commissioner Anderson said my backyard is my backyard and no one should be able to say anything about it unless it is a safety or health risk. He said we already ban shipping containers for storage; you have to go out and buy something made for storage. He feels gazebos, sheds, things which are not permanently attached to the ground, should not be counted in the lot coverage. Commissioner Wood,Phillips and Kelley agreed with the 'my back yard is mine' and only permanent structures should be counted. Then the discussion moved to the item which says Lots equal to, or less than, 10,000 sq.ft. in size may have up to 1,000 sq.ft. of accessory structure(s). Commissioners were reminded that this option was proposed to allow people with lots smaller than 10,000 square feet to have a larger shop, because many of the exception requests were to allow a larger shop on smaller lots. Commissioner Scott stated she felt like the people who built shops would change the sizes they 06-25-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 built shops to be different if the regulations were different. They discussed if it was fair to allow someone with 6,000 square feet to have the same allowances as someone with 10,000 square feet. However, one of the things Ms. Barlow wanted the Commissioners to keep in mind is that some people will try and use a gutted out manufactured home as a shed for storage and if it isn't attached to the ground as Mr. Anderson is suggesting, people will take advantage of it. Ms. Janssen said she had that specific proposal presented to her twice in the last six months. Commissioner Anderson said while he agreed, the City doesn't have a code which says you should paint your house either, but he still feels your back yard is your own and what you do with it is your own business. Commissioner Kelley said he was for any allowance which helped the property owner increase the value in their property. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve CTA-2015-0004, combining items D and E in 19.140.020 to read the exception may apply to a series of parcels but shall not be used to increase density beyond what is currently allowed within the zoning district. and in 19.40.090(B) placing the word `permanent' back into the sentence so it reads The combined building footprint of all permanent accessory structures in residential zoning districts are permitted as follows:. The vote on this motion was five in favor, one against, with Commissioner Scott dissenting. The motion passes. Study Session—Title 20 Subdivisions with a primary focus on corner lots and on the screening requirements for lots backing principal arterial streets and state highway: Planner Marty Palaniuk stated currently corner lots are required to be 15 percent larger to allow for setbacks and border easements. All setbacks are taken from the border easements. There have been times when the buildable area has been a problem at the time of building permit. Border easements are based on the right-of-way needs. Corner lots need adequate width but the current 15 percent requirement is not always appropriate. The options which were offered by staff were: Option 1: Link the corner lot width to the minimum lot width of the underlying zone. This would leave the buildable lot width the same as the other lots. Option 2: Create a minimum buildable lot width for corner lots for each zone Staff looked at several general house plans to average the minimum buildable lot sizes. Option 3: Have no minimum buildable lot width and allow the developers to plan for the corner themselves. Commissioner Anderson asked for the purpose of a flanking street setback. He also wanted to know how or why stormwater facilities were part of a person's property. Mr. Palaniuk stated it was a property owner's advantage to have the stormwater facilities on their property. If not, then the property owner would have to dedicate part of their property to the City. Mr. Anderson stated the developer might gain but the home owner did not, since the swale was on the other side of the side walk in our current design process. He said in other states the swales were maintained by Public Works Departments and not a property owner's problem. He said he looked this up because this issue makes the setbacks more of a problem for us. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb said there are requirements in the state of Washington for treating stormwater and the swales are the solution for treating that stormwater in accordance with the Regional Stormwater Manual. The only other way would be an underground system which would be more costly to everyone. The Dept of Ecology requires stormwater is treated by a swale of some kind. Ms. Barlow also offered the busier a street is, the larger a setback is from the street. It helps to protect from the noise and allows some privacy from the traffic. Commissioner Anderson likes Option 1, where the buildable lots are all the same. Commissioners Scott and Stoy like Option 2, but Commissioner Scott would reduce the minimum lot width a little. 06-25-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 Commissioners Kelley, Phillips and Wood prefer Option 3 where the developer will decide and make a buildable lot on their own. Commissioner Phillips stated he has laid out many subdivisions in his practice and he believes that most developers will police themselves. There was discussion if a buildable lot could be 35 feet wide and Ms. Barlow stated staff would look at some building permits and come back with what fits on a 35 foot buildable lot to provide perspective to the Commission. The next subject was when lots back onto arterials screening was required. The code currently requires that when lots back on to arterials a screening device shall be installed in accordance with SVMC 22.70. However the code does not say what type of screening. The option presented is to ask for a site-obscuring fence with Type II vegetative plantings. Commissioner Phillips stated he is against a fence because no one maintains the strip of land outside the fence and it looks bad and it really bothers him when he has to drive by it all the time. Commissioner Anderson asked if a chain link fence with slats would be considered site obscuring and it would. Staff has also proposed to change the language to principal arterials only. Mr. Palaniuk stated he talked to the traffic engineer to see if it would need to be applied to collectors, and the engineer did not see the need for collectors. Mr. Anderson said he did not believe chain link was site obscuring, but he did not like vegetation requirements. Ms. Barlow offered staff to determine how many properties would be affected by this requirements. Commissioner Kelley asked if there were other ways to develop a site obscuring barrier, such as arborvitaes. Mr. Lamb stated the current code read Fences may be 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 of these. However there would still be a landscaping requirement as well. Commissioner Scott asked if the landscaping was on the inside of the fence. Ms. Barlow said that part of the intent of the code was for the benefit of the public, but also to buffer the private party from the noise and pollution from the arterial, and restrict access, and pedestrians and traffic safety. Commissioner Phillips said it was all good, but how do you maintain it. Staff will research how many parcels this would apply to and then return. The next topic is regarding electronic final map submittals. Currently final plat maps are required to have an electronic submittals, but they are not always accurate, require staff to verify their accuracy, and it is easier for staff to create from a recorded paper copy. Commissioners had no issue in changing this requirement. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Scott asked how much time they would be allowed to review the draft once the consultants have one ready for the legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Barlow stated they would be given ample time to review the draft once staff had one, but at this point she was unable to give a time until draft would be ready. ADJOURNMENT: There being no other business the meeti g as adjourned at 8:39 p.m. 1 Joe toy.. -,i,s erso r Date signed rpt) Deanna Horton, Secretary 06-25-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5