Loading...
Agenda 10/13/2005 AGENDA , okane j� SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION ��"" Valle REGULAR MEETING Y October 13, 2005 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 8, 2005 minutes PUBLIC COMMENT—for members of the Public to speak to the Commission regarding matters NOT on the current agenda. COMMISSION REPORTS ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT COMMISSION BUSINESS Old Business— Public Hearing (continued) and consideration of amending Ordinance No. 04-046 relating to Planned Unit Development (PUD), by repealing provisions relating to the requirement for direct access to arterials and collectors. New Business— Discussion of Land Use Definitions and Schedules of permitted Uses. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER- Discuss meeting schedule for November and December ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF Fred Beaulac Marina Sukup, AICP Robert Blum Greg McCormick, AICP John G. Carroll, Vice-Chair Scott Kuhta, AICP David Crosby, Chair Mike Basinger, Assoc. Planner William Gothmann Deanna Griffith Gail Kogle Ian Robertson www.spokanevalley.orq Spokane Valley Planning Commission Draft Minutes Council Chambers-City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave September 8, 2005 CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Crosby called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Staff attending the meeting: Marina Sukup, Director of Community Development, Greg McCormick, Planning Manager, Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner, Mike Basinger, Associate Planner and Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Commission, audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Commissioner Beaulac - Present Bill Gothmann - Present Commissioner Blum - Present Commissioner Kogle - Present Commissioner Carroll G. Carroll - Ian Robertson - Present Present David Crosby- Present APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Gothmann moved that the September 8, 2005 agenda be approved as written. Commissioner Kogle seconded the motion, Motion passed unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Kogle seconded by Commissioner Beaulac that the minutes of the August 25, 2005, Planning Commission meeting be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT No Public Comment VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Crosby reported that he attended a meeting to discuss impact fees and how to work with them. It was well attended by several groups and some elected officials. All other commissioners had nothing to report. September 8,2005 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 8 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. NEW BUSINESS: Public Hearing for PUD 04-046. Commissioner Crosby opens the hearing at 6:09 pm. Director Sukup explained to the Commission the background for making this change. She also answered questions from the Commissioners. Meg Arpin, representing Black Rock. Ms. Arpin explained that this is a significant change. She stated that over 70% of the city does not connect, with an arterial or collector. None of these areas can change in future with this wording. Ms Arpin explained that she had spoken to the City's engineers; they indicated to her that they did not write or have any input to this ordinance. According to Ms. Arpin, they do not want more access to arterials or collector streets. This wording is contrary to good transportation planning, according to Ms. Arpin. Ms. Arpin expressed this ordinance doesn't promote new growth. This should only apply to environmental/special cases. She indicated that she was aware of two PUDs were in process, six others are waiting for this ruling. James Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin, the dates on staff report are incorrect, stating this had already been finished. Director Sukup stated that this was an error on her part. She would amend the dates before it is signed. Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin, Mrs. Pollard requested some clarification on the changes. Was this in the ordinance when it was in effect with the County, Director Sukup said that no it was not in the county document, it was changed last November (2004) She stated that she does not approve of having this ordinance changed. Mrs. Pollard shared that the neighborhood is not developed outside of the PUD to handle the cars that are generated by these PUDs. The rest of the area roads are underdeveloped and it places a large burden on the community. Maybe in the future the roads will be able to handle this increased traffic but not now. Mrs. Pollard would like to have the Comp Plan in place before this is changed. Mrs. Pollard said that passing this change is premature and feels it is only catering to the developer. Unapproved of by rest of the North Greenacres community. Leads out onto roads there should be no changes in Phase I regulations, no bonus densities. Adding August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 2 of 8 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes density without impact fees it forces the cost of development on rest of community. Kathy Tabbert, 18505 E. 4th Ave., Ms. Tabbert stated she is directly affected by the PUD which first brought this question to light. She lives across the street from this development. The road that is being accessed is onlyl9 feet wide. The winter seasons do not allow enough room for cars and kids to both be on road. The road is unimproved and all the run off from the development will be running into her yard. Ms. Tabbert feels . that the builder gets preference. She feels that the PUD only increases traffic in the area along with high densities when the roads unable to handle it. Ms. Tabbert shared that she has an autistic child and worries that her child will not be safe with the changes that are going on. Ms. Tabbert feels that we will allow the developers tear up road just for their own purposes and the developers do not understand needs of the community. Ms. Tabbert said she is worried for children walking on street. Ms. Tabbert said this issue is more than just changing a requirement but is also about the problems they developer is to rush this and not dealing with dangerous road conditions. Brian Main, property owner/developer of a PUD now. Mr. Main stated that this change does not affect his project now, but He is concerned about the future development. Mr. Main feels growth will not continue if you choose to limit it now. It will affect the potential for growth. The Spokane County recognizes the need for housing. They are working with the housing authority in order to acquire a grant. Mr. Main stated that changes to the ordinance could cancel out the program by making it too expensive for moderate/low income brackets to afford housing. He said he felt it will cancel program because of the restriction, making it more expensive for the developer. How will citizen be able to afford homes in future? Mr. Main stated that the county has agreed to open the West Plains to higher density. Mr. Main said he feels the commission should think about it. Tom Tabbert, 18505 E. 4th, Mr. Tabbert said he was part of the appeal against the current development. He said that many of the neighbors feel that this type of development is awkward, but recognizes this is not the issue tonight. Mr. Tabbert encourages Commissioners to look at this development. Mr. Tabbert submits pictures taken earlier in the day. The road is 18 ft. wide. 80 or more cars went by this point between Barker and the elementary school, around 8:00-8:30 am. Mr. Taber wants to address the safety issue for families, children. Mr. Taber said we do not have a definition for of an arterial. He said there is no room for pedestrians, now you want to add 22 more houses. Mr. Tabbert feels that August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 3 of 8 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes we need to stop and look at what we are doing. 70% of the Valley is rural. Mr. Tabbert would like to know what acceptable? Mr. Tabbert spoke to some of the neighbors today and they are feeling like this has already been decided and railroaded and that it won't make any difference. Mr. Taber submits a letter with pictures from Steve Hormel. Ms. Arpin stepped to the podium and asked to be allowed to address the statements made by the last two people testifying. Commissioner Crosby explained to Ms. Arpin that if he allowed her to give a rebuttal then he would have to allow all of the people who spoke to come up to the podium again. Ms. Arpin stated that was fine with that she had already made the comment in her testimony previously. The commission began their discussion. Commissioner Crosby states that before discussion we should have a motion. There was discussion between the commissioners as to whether they were ready to have a motion. Commissioner Crosby informed the commission that if the commission is not discussing a motion then they cannot have any discussion either for or against it. Commissioner Gothmann made a motion that the sentence read "all PUDs having greater than 8 residential units have direct access to a designated collector or arterial." Commissioner Beaulac second. Why 8 units? Commissioner Gothmann said that he just picked a number to get things started. Commissioner Gothmann made a motion that the sentence read "all PUDs having greater than 8 residential units have direct access to a designated collector or arterial." Commissioner Beaulac seconded the motion. There was then considerable discussion as to what it would mean to change the ordinance. Questions were raised as to what information they would like to have to make a better decision. Issues raised were traffic, concurrency, levels of service, peak trips. Commissioner Gothmann made a motion to table the item • until the staff can provide the information needed to make an educated decision, to the next meeting date of 10/13/2005. Commissioner Blum second. Commissioner Carroll feels it is not enough time for the staff to be able to come back with all the information the commission is requesting. Commissioner Crosby calls for the vote on this motion. Commissioner Gothmann and Robertson vote for, Commissioners Beaulac, Kogle, Carroll and Blum against. Motion fails. • Return to the main motion, approve with amendment of 8 houses. Discussion. What other information desired? Traffic counts, concurrency, LOS. Commissioner Blum said that he had 2nd the previous motion but would like to have information, before he votes on it. Call for the vote on original motion (more than 8) Commissioner Gothmann yes, Commissioner Beaulac no, August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 4 of 8 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes Commissioner Kogle no, Commissioner Carroll no, Commissioner Robertson abstain, Commissioner Blum no. The motion is defeated. Commissioner Beaulac made a motion to table until 10/13 in order to get as much information as possible not only transportation but concurrency, levels of service and anything else that might help this body make their decision. Commissioner Robertson 2nd. Discussion. Would more public testimony be accepted? It is closed at this time. The public testimony can be re-opened. Do we have to re-notify? Not if you re-open it tonight. Re open for 10/13, you do have to notice it. Stated that 4 commissioners are looking for more information before make a decision. Mr. McCormick/Director Sukup can continue public hearing? Can continue to a date certain tonight. Take care of table first. Amend now? Take care of it later. Director Sukup, City Council has asked the same question as the commission is this evening about PUD. Director Sukup is preparing a primer for the council which she will share also with the Commission. Commissioner Carroll, looking for a set of criteria that allows PUDs but also minimizes the impacts that occur in unsafe areas. Voteto table the amendment item will table to 10/13, staff to provide information on the issues we have clarified tonight. Commissioners Blum, Robertson, Carroll, Beaulac and Gothmann vote in favor, Commissioner Kogle votes no, 5 to 1, tabled to 10/13. Leaves floor open to continue the Public Hearing to 10/13. Commissioner Blum moves that we re-open and continue the public hearing in regard to the PUD ordinance amendment to 10/13/05. Commissioner Robertson second. There is discussion. Commissioner Gothmann more opportunity to discuss with public the better decision you can make, Commissioner Kogle agreed. Motion passes 6 in favor. Public Hearing is continued to 10/13. Public Hearing -Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Crosby opens the public hearing in regard to the Comprehensive Plan at 7:33. Hal Sarff, 13505 E. Broadway. — Mr. Sarff is not a resident but is a developer for a private senior independently living facility located at this address. Most land around this property is zoned UR-22. Mr. Sarff would like to see the parcel below this address be changed to medium density. The parcels are across the street, 13420 E. Broadway. 3.7 and 2.25 acres. Have option on these parcels. Would like to have this zoned to medium density. Engineers want to extend Blake Rd. south of Broadway. Have an agreement not to fight county on the north side of Broadway. But does not make sense south through private development. Children going to school, thinks a light for children to cross road would be a good addition. Not against impact fees. Thinks they should be taken care of as long as those fees are used for improvements roadways, sidewalks, and the like. August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 5 of 8 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes Bob Scarfo, 514 W. 25th Ave. Not a resident of SV. Has been reviewing comp plan and would like to lay out some things for consideration on the larger picture. Things no evident in comp plan. Did not get a sense that the plan was looking 20 yrs. ahead. Trends are coming is end of cheap oil and less driving. Creates more density and pedestrian oriented. 2nd trend, the aging of the county. 3rd trend is flexible packages for re-hire back to work. 4th trend. Work force facing higher demands on time and work. Move closer to work, less travel. Failing health is another concern and walking is not only a means of travel but helps with your health, walking is a good exercise. In the end a city center will create people using alternative methods of getting around, demand high density around the city to keep things closer to home. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Rd. — Mrs. Pollard stated she is the chairman of the North Greenacres Neighborhood Group. Had a meeting to address traffic, attended by Engineer Steve Worley. 85 people attended the discussion. They talked about traffic issues surrounding the I-90/Barker interchange, linking Indiana with a road for a pass through to Liberty Lake. Mrs. Pollard stated that most residents and some of the developers would prefer to have the extension of Indiana link with Boone Ave. Would like to see a policy that allows engineers to develop roads with the character of the neighborhood in mind. Include transit, sidewalks. Developer Greenstone wants to have Mission downgraded as it fits into his development. Feels that the railroad right of way is a better thing for a connector than mission. Too much traffic now, too many kids walking down the street r `S# James Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Rd. Mr. Pollard is submitting a written statement by a neighbor who would not attend. Pete Miller, 18124 E. Mission. Mr. Pollard stated that Ms. Miller wrote that Mission is a minor arterial. There is no change to the comp plan concerning road widths in the area. Her suggestion is to state the road diagrams in the comp plan are only a suggestion and not an actual standard. Boone is listed as a minor 3 lane road. Dave Black, not a resident, but a developer. He owns a piece of property on Carnahan Road, just south of 8th Ave. Is currently zoned as public/quasi-public. Would like to have it down graded to house a self- storage facility he would like to build there. He bought it from a church, it is across from a quarry. Please consider changing it so that he can develop it. Bob Boyle, Hanson Industries— talk about Hanson Center east. Talk about Indiana going east. Change it from the turn that would go through August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 6 of 8 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes Centennial Properties and put it through Boone. The curve now is what is in the plan, inherited from county. Sewer line also follows that path. It would be a straighter too. Next talk about the zone in the area, it will go to a mixed use zone, we support that. We have worked with the staff as to what we would like to see there. Last issue. Aesthetic corridor for Indiana. We inherited it from the county. We would like the planning commission to drop that designation from Sullivan to Flora. It is not a gateway to the city. It is not a major focal point coming into the city. Can see that Sullivan to Pines might be because it leads to another corridor. Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner. Wants to make sure that some suggestions be places on the record for consideration by the commission. Information comes from Mr. Boyle, who just spoke, with Hansen Industries, Mr. Dullanty, in regard to auto dealers, Mr. Cragg with the Industrial Park and a specific request to change the property at 102 N. McDonald Rd. to commercial, there is a defensive arts academy and dance studio. Commissioner Crosby closes the public hearing regarding the comp plan comments at 8:06 pm. B. OLD BUSINESS — Comp Plan deliberations. We are now at the point where we are going to be approving changes that have already been made to the comp plan chapters and propose that they be added as amended. Begin with chapter 7, economic development. Director Sukup realizes that the planning commission does not have her version of the chapter for consideration. She asks that the commission go to another chapter while she makes copies of what they should be looking at. Commission moves to chapter 8, natural environment. After the review of changes Commissioner Kogle makes a motion to accept chapter 8 natural environment as amended. Commissioner Beaulac seconds, passed as revised. Chapter 10, Neighborhood Chapter. Commissioner Robertson makes the motion to include Chapter 10, Neighborhood/Sub-Areas to the Comp Plan as amended. Second by Commissioner Beaulac. Several concerns are raised in regard to this chapter. Have we decided to include this chapter in the plan? Not, yet but we are at that. Look at changes made, than vote to include. Commissioner Carroll states that he believes that there are no implementation tools in place for these goals and procedures. He feels it is a bastion of prejudice and bias. Does not address how to guide the neighborhood. Commissioner Blum is concerned that a small group could come in and try to force the way they want it. Commissioner Robertson says he believes the plan will allow for this. Commissioner Beaulac agrees. Commissioner Gothmann states that all the information was in the plan already we just moved it to its own chapter. Commissioner Carroll expresses his August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 7 of 8 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes concern that people will come in and say they represent a neighborhood and they don't. Commissioner Beaulac shared that we do not have regulations yet to support many of the things we have proposed so far but they are the next step. Vote, to include Neighborhoods as amended: vote is as follows Commissioner Gothmann yes, Commissioner Beaulac yes, Commissioner Kogle yes, Commissioner Carroll no, Commissioner Robertson yes, Commissioner Blum no. Chairman Crosby states it passes with a 4 to 2 vote. Commissioners Carroll and Blum directly request that Commissioner Crosby vote and that his vote is stated for the record. Commissioner Crosby votes no, noting that it is 4 to 3 and the chapter is included as revised. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER Decision to meet next Thursday for another meeting at 6:00 pm Sept. 15. A note from staff that Marina and Greg will be gone to a Planner's Conference and Scott Kuhta will be in charge that evening. XI. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Blum motioned for adjournment, seconded by Commissioner Kogle to adjourn at 9:00 pm. Passed SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant David Crosby, Chairman August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 8 of 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: October 13, 2005 Item: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business El new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report is pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing (continued): An ordinance amending Section 4.08.19.15.3 of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code relating to Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to delete the requirement for direct access to arterial or collector roadways. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70, Spokane Valley Ordinance 03-53 PREVIOUS COUNCIUCOMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted regulations relating the Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) by Ordinance No. 04-046 on November 9, 2004. Council was briefed on the proposal on August 9, 2005. Planning Commission opened the public hearing on September 8, 2005, tabling consideration of the item and continuing the public hearing until October 13, 2005 BACKGROUND: City Council has asked to reconsider the requirement that a Planned Unit Development be required to have direct access to an arterial or collector roadway. Inasmuch as there are no regulations in place which apply to non-PUD subdivisions of similar size concerninq direct access, the requirement should apply across the board for all developments of similar size, whether developed as conventional or PUD subdivisions. The size of development which would trigger more stringent access requirements should be based on an engineering study. A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on July 20, 2005 with comments due not later than August 12, 2005 and a draft proposal was submitted to CTED and other agencies for their review on July 20, 2005. OPTIONS: Approve, provide staff with direction concerning additional amendments, or disapprove. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I recommend approval of Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 05- xxx deleting the requirement for direct access to arterial and collectors in Planned Unit Developments". BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 04-046 RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUDs), BY REPEALING PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR DIRECT ACCESS TO ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Interim Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City of Spokane Valley pursuant to Ordinance 03-53, specifies dimensional standards for residential and non-residential development; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Goal ED.5a is to "{p]rovide consistent, fair and timely regulations that are flexible,responsive and effective" and WHEREAS, Interim Comprehensive Plan Goal UL.3 is to "[e]ncourage exemplary developments by providing for flexibility and innovative design through planned unit commercial/industrial and residential developments"; and WHEREAS, Interim Comprehensive Plan Policy UL.3.1 through UL.3.3 encourage flexible regulations and incentives; and WHEREAS, there exist geographic areas within the City of Spokane Valley which would benefit from more flexibility in order to preserve and protect sensitive environmental resources; and • WHEREAS, the development of Mixed-Use and Urban Activity Centers identified in the Interim Comprehensive Plan require flexibility for successful design and implementation; and WHEREAS, the proposed development regulations must be submitted to the Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development pursuant to WAC 365-195-620; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 4.08.19 of the City of Spokane Valley's Interim Zoning regulations is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.08.19 Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone 1 Section 4.08.19.01 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the Planned Unit Development Zone is to establish a process to foster creative, efficient, and comprehensive design of site development. The overlay zone is to be used in conjunction with other zoning classification except the Mining(MZ) zone. These regulations provide flexibility in site design and offer incentives in order to: 1. Encourage innovative design and the creation of permanent open space. 2. Preserve and enhance special site features. 3. Encourage the conservation of natural features, wildlife habitat, and critical areas. 4. Facilitate the development of mixed-use projects. 5. Encourage the development of street,pedestrian and bicycle paths that contribute to a system of fully connected routes. 6. Facilitate the economical and adequate provision of public services. 7. Provide for diverse and convenient recreational opportunities. 8. Provide a variety of environments for living,working, and recreation. Section 4.08.19.02 Applications and Process 1. Planned unit developments shall be initiated by the owner(s) of all property involved, if under one ownership, or by joint application of all owners having title to all the property in the area proposed for planned unit development. 2. The planned unit development process entails a preliminary and final phase.-, as follows: a. The preliminary phase examines the planned unit development plan for compliance with the requirements of the zone. The preliminary planned unit development is considered through a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Once approved by the Hearing Examiner,the planned unit development is a binding plan that defines the concept of the development and uses to be allowed. The planned unit development approval is valid for a 5-year period, which may be extended by a period not to exceed twelve months by submitting a time extension request to the Department.Any extension of time must be requested by the applicant, in writing, before expiration of the original approval, stating specific reasons for such a request. b. The final planned unit development plan may be approved administratively,to determine if all standards,requirements, and conditions of preliminary approval have been met. Section 4.08.19.03 Preliminary Planned Unit Developments The preliminary planned unit development shall have a site development plan, including, but not limited to,the following: 2 1. The exact boundaries and legal description of the property to be developed. 2. The name of the proposed planned unit development. 3. Date, north arrow, and scale of the drawing. 4.Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the owner(s), applicant(s), engineer, and surveyor. 5. The general location of all proposed improvements that are to be constructed on the land,including,but not limited to, all residential and nonresidential structures, building heights,recreational facilities, walls, fences,refuse areas, streets,walks and public transit facilities. 6. Setbacks to the property line, roadways, and the planned unit development perimeter. 7. Location of pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems. 8. Common open spaces showing size and functions upon completion. 9. A description of the method of ownership and responsibility for maintenance of all common open space and private streets. 10. The location and dimension of off-street parking facilities,public and private, including transit facilities for nonresidential uses. 11. Location and size of all public and semipublic sites if applicable(i.e., schools, churches,parks,plazas, etc.). 12. A tabulation of densities within each project area,phase or sector. 13.-If applicable, a subdivision map showing land divisions. The preliminary and final subdivision map shall comply with the county subdivision ordinance and state subdivision regulations. 14. A proposed phasing and/or timing schedule. 15. Topographical map of existing terrain at a minimum two foot contour level, including 100-year flood plains identified under the National Flood Insurance program. 16.Natural features to be retained, such as natural slopes, stands of trees, etc. 17. All critical areas as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Section 4.08.19.04 Final Planned Unit Developments 1. Prior to expiration of the preliminary planned unit development, approval of a final planned unit development plan is required. Approval of the final planned unit development shall be administrative. A final planned unit development differs from the preliminary planned unit development in the amount of detailed information provided. In addition to all of the information required for a preliminary planned unit development,the final planned unit development plan shall include the following items. a. Approved road plans. 3 b. Approved drainage system plans. c. Typical building footprints. d. A tabulation of the percentage of total building coverage in the development. e. A schematic landscaping plan indicating the type and the size of plant material to be used, and the method for providing permanent maintenance to all planted areas and open spaces. 2. Any planned unit development not finalised before the expiration of the preliminary planned unit development approval shall become void, unless a time extension is granted by the Director of Community Development. Construction shall not commence until a planned unit development has been given final approval. Section 4.08.19.05 Phased Planned Unit Developments 1. A planned unit development may be developed in phases, subject to an approved phasing schedule.All construction and improvements not completed within five (5) years of approval of the phased final planned unit development are subject to compliance with updated City Standards through a time extension action. Any planned unit development where construction has not commenced before expiration of the final planned unit development approval shall become void. 2. Each phase of the proposed development must contain the required parking spaces, common open space, ingress, egress and transportation circulation landscape, and utility areas necessary to sustain that phase as an independent development, in the event that the remaining property is not developed. Section 4.08.19.06 Modifications 1. The Hearing Examiner may require modifications to the application for a planned unit development to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is accomplished. 2. A substantial modification to the approved preliminary or final planned unit development plan shall only be approved through a change of condition application process. All modifications which are not minor shall be considered substantial. 3. A minor modification to the preliminary or final planned unit development plan may be approved administratively. Minor modifications shall be consistent with the following requirements: a. The modification shall be limited to minor shifting of the location of buildings, proposed streets,utility easements, or common open space. b. The modification shall not: i. Enlarge the boundaries of the approved planned unit development plan. ii. Change the approved uses. iii. Change the general location or amount of land devoted to a specific land use. 4 iv. Increase the residential densities. Section 4.08.19.07 Permitted Uses Used allowed in a planned unit development include those uses allowed in the underlying zone(s) and those accessory uses and structures ordinarily associated with a permitted use. Section 4.08.19.08 Development Standards Prior to the issuance of a building permit, evidence of compliance with provisions of this chapter,when applicable, shall be provided to the Division. Section 4.08.19.09 Density 1. The total units permitted in a planned unit development shall be determined as follows. a. In any planned unit development,the number of dwelling units per acre of land shall not exceed that which is permitted by the underlying zone(s), except as approved for density bonus by the Hearing Examiner subject to the following procedures. However,this does not preclude an applicant from transferring density from one portion of the development to another portion of the development, so long as the total project does not exceed the maximum density of all zoning classifications included within the project boundary. Residential density shall be determined by the following formula: Net Maximum number of Density Development x per acre Total Units + Bonus _ Factor allowed in Earned Permitted underlying zone b. The net development factor is the acreage of the planned unit development area minus the area set aside for, or existing in, any of the following: i. Schools. ii. Commercial and/or industrial uses. iii. Single-family residential platted areas, if determining net development factor for the multifamily portion of a mixed single-family, multifamily. development. iv. Natural water bodies, including lakes, streams, swamps,marshes, and bogs which are not incorporated in the common open space plan of the planned unit development. v. 75% of areas having slopes that exceed 40%. vi. Public or private streets. 5 2. Bonus Density: The following units per acre may be cumulatively earned as additional density to the maximum base unit density of the underlying zone. a. Common Open Space. i. 0.3 unit-per-acre bonus if at least 50% of the dry, common open space has a slope of 10% or less. ii. 0.5 unit-per-acre bonus if significant recreation areas are developed and equipped with at least 2 of the following features: hard surface biking,hiking or walking trails connecting the entire development; improved playfields, sport courts; swimming or wading pool; or children's play areas that incorporate play structures/equipment and are at least 10,000 square feet in size. b. Environmental Concern. i. 0.3 unit-per-acre bonus if general public access is provided to lake or river;to trails, 0.1 unit-per-acre bonus;to scenic viewpoint, 0.1 unit-per-acre bonus. ii. 1.0 unit-per-acre bonus if 40% or more of the existing, disease-free trees over 10 inches in diameter, are retained on the site. Tree diameter shall be measured at 6 feet above the ground. This bonus shall only apply in forested areas where the density of the above-described trees is equal or greater than 10 trees per acre. The health of the trees shall be certified by a licensed arborist. c. Internal Circulation and Parking. i-0.2 unit-per-acre bonus if nonresidential parking areas are kept small (10 to 20 spaces in a group) and interspersed with landscaping, or provided within or under main buildings. ii. 1.0 unit-per-acre bonus for an interconnected roadway system without cul-de- sacs. iii. 0.5 unit-per-acre bonus for an un-gated development allowing through access to the public. d. Public Service and Facility Availability. i. 0.3 unit-per-acre bonus if public transit is available within '/4-mile walking distance of the majority of dwelling units and offices. The walking route shall be hard-surfaced and accessible, and may require an off-site sidewalk/pathway. ii. 0.2 unit-per-acre bonus if off-site convenience shopping facilities are functionally accessible within reasonable walking distance (approximately '/4- mile). The walking route shall be hard-surfaced and accessible, and may require an off-site sidewalk/pathway. iii. 0.5 unit-per-acre bonus if special facilities for public transit are incorporated into the design and approved by the STA(e.g., sheltered, lighted waiting/loading facilities,including benches and park-and-ride spaces). iv. 0.2/acre for school bus loading shelters approved by the school district. 6 Section 4.08.19.10 Parking, Signage, and Landscaping Standards Parking, signage and landscaping standards shall be as provided in chapter 14.802, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards; chapter 14.804, Signage Standards; and chapter 14.806, Landscaping and Screening Standards. Section 4.08.19.11 Storage Standards All storage in the planned unit development zone shall be within a closed building, except for the storage of retail products that are for sale or rent,which may be stored outdoors during business hours only Outdoor storage of retail products shall not be within any required front or side yard, nor in any public street or road right-of-way. Section 4.08.19.12 Refuse Storage All outdoor trash, garbage and refuse storage areas shall be screened on all sides from public view and, at a minimum,be enclosed with a 51/2-foot-high concrete block, masonry wall, or sight-obscuring fence with a sight- obscuring gate for access. Single-family and duplex residences are exempted from this provision. Section 4.08.19.13 Mechanical Equipment All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be screened from adjacent roadways and properties, so as not to be visible by persons standing at the property line. Section 4.08.19.14 Utilities All utilities shall be underground. Section 4.08.19.15 Additional Requirements 1. All streets shall meet or exceed the current design and construction standards for public streets adopted by the City of Spokane Valley, as they may be amended from time to time. 2. All areas which are to be occupied or traveled over by motor vehicles shall be paved. 3. No proposed street shall impede the current or future development of any arterial or collector identified on the Arterial Road Plan. ' -" . - • - . " - • designated collector or arterial_ 4. Energy efficient street lights shall be located at the entrance of the development and at each intersection. The lights shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association or local electric utility. 5. Maintenance of Private Streets and Common Areas. a. Residential developments. A homeowners' association shall be created pursuant to RCW Chapter 64.38. The association shall be created for the purpose of managing and maintaining private streets, common areas, and 7 other improvements not otherwise owned by individual lot owners, and any other lawful purpose allowed under RCW Chapter 64.38. b. Nonresidential developments. An association or other legal entity shall be created pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington for the purpose of managing and maintaining private streets, common areas, and other improvements not otherwise owned by individual lot owners, and any other lawful purpose. c. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded with the Spokane County Auditor for all planned unit developments containing private streets and/or common areas._The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall include the following provisions: i. Repair and Maintenance Rights and Duties of Association: The Association shall maintain, repair and replace all parts of the common area including private streets, drainage systems, and retention ponds or similar drainage facilities, or shall contract for such maintenance, repair and replacement to such areas are maintained in good condition and function for their intended use. ii. Maintenance of Private Streets: The private streets, as designed and approved by the City of Spokane Valley, have been or are being constructed for the purpose of providing ingress and egress and pedestrian access to the property. The City of Spokane Valley has no obligation to maintain, repair or reconstruct the private streets. The Association is responsible for repairs and maintenance. The Association shall maintain the private streets in reasonable conformance with the approved private road plans on file with the City of Spokane Valley. iii. Dissolution of Association: The Association may be dissolved only if ownership and maintenance responsibility of common areas, common area roadways, and drainage control features is assumed by a governmental entity with the authority to assume such ownership and upon written acceptance of the same by the governmental entity. It is not the policy of the City of Spokane Valley to assume ownership of common areas, private streets or other common area improvements. iv. Enforcement: The Board, any Owner, and any governmental or quasi-governmental agency or municipality having jurisdiction over the Project shall 8 have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants, reservations, liens, and charges now or hereafter imposed in the Declaration, and all such action shall be entitled to recover cost and reasonable attorneys fees as ordered by the Court. v. Reserve Fund: The Association shall exercise good faith and best efforts to maintain a Reserve Fund for the maintenance of private streets and other improvements such as common greenbelts, security station structures and equipment, and other infrastructure. This Reserve Fund should not be co-mingled with any other association fund. The balance of the fund should be equal to the total replacement cost of the private streets and other improvements divided by the average life expectancy of those improvements times the age of the improvements. vi. Access Required: Emergency vehicles utility personnel, the U.S. Postal Service, and governmental employees in connection with their official duties shall have access to the planned unit development 6. Drainage improvements shall be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the current Spokane Valley Storm Water Management Standards, as they may be amended from time to time. 7. Pedestrian Circulation Facilities. Within planned unit development projects,pedestrian circulation facilities serving each unit shall be provided on both sides of the street or private road and shall be: a. Hard-surfaced with asphalt or concrete. Asphalt walkways shall be only allowed when physically separated by a minimum of 7' from the vehicle roadway. Alternative hard surface material may be used when approved by the Public Works Department. Sidewalks separated by less than 3' from the roadway shall have a vertical curb separating sidewalk from roadway. Walkways shall meet accessibility standards. b. Functionally and safely convenient to each dwelling unit served; c. Functionally and safely convenient to schools and to industrial, commercial, recreational and utility areas within or adjacent to the project; d. Sufficiently wide(minimum of six [6] feet for commercial areas and five [5] feet for residential areas)to accommodate potential use; e. Located and designed in accordance with approval from the City of Spokane Valley Section 4.08.19.16 Required Open Space 9 1. Required Open Space: A minimum of 10% of the total area of the planned unit development shall be designated and maintained as common open space. Required landscape areas and storm water facilities shall not be used in the calculation of open space. 2. Types of Open Space: Land dedicated for open space should be usable for either greenbelts that serve as a buffer between land uses,using existing vegetation and new plant materials, active or passive recreational activities, or for protecting environmentally sensitive areas or critical areas. Unusable open space includes the design of areas that do not meet the intent and purpose of this chapter, such as open space areas that are not accessible to residents of the development, or do not function for active/passive recreation or do not conserve wildlife habitat or other natural features. 3. Maintenance and Ownership of Common Open Space: The applicant shall choose 1 or any combination of the following methods of administering common open space: a. Dedication of common open space to the City,which is subject to formal City acceptance; or b. Establishment of an association or nonprofit corporation of all property owners or corporations within the project area to ensure ownership of and responsibility for perpetual maintenance of all common open space. 4. Transfer of Ownership. Where dedication to the public or a homeowners' association is proposed required improvements shall be completed prior to any transfer of ownership. Where improvements are not completed in accordance with these requirements,building permits and/or approval of permitted structures may be withheld upon notification to the Building Official by the Community Development Director,pending completion of said improvements. 5. Phasing: All common spaces, as well as public and recreational facilities, shall be specifically included in the phasing schedule and be constructed and fully improved by the applicant at an equivalent or greater rate than the construction of structures. Section 2. Section 4.15.1 of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code is hereby amended to add the dimensional standards for residential PUDs as shown on Attachment"A"made a part hereof for all purposes. Section 3. Chapter 14.704 Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone of the Interim Zoning Code is hereby repealed. Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on the official date of incorporation provided publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2005. 10 Mayor, Diana Wilhite ATTEST: City Clerk, Chris Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Deputy City Attorney, Cary Driskell Date of Publication: Effective Date: 11 • Section 4.15.1 Residential Zone Dimensional Standards UR-3.5 3)(') UR 7(3)") UR 12(3)))) UR 22(3)(1) Residential Single Single Multi- Single Multi- Single Multi- PUDs t3)(1) Family Duplex Family Duplex family Family Duplex family Family Duplex family Lot Area/Dwelling Unit 10,000 20,000 6,000 11,000 15,000 4,200 5,000 6,000 1,600 3,200 6,000 1,600 Lot Frontage 80 80 65 90 100 50 50 60 20 40 _ 60 30 Lot Depth _ 80 80 100 80 80 100 50 Front Yard Setback , E (5) 1 15"z) 15"z) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(5) E Garage Setback 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) cz) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) iz) (s) '� 20 20 20 ' Rear Yard Setback (4)(5)(6) 20 20 20 20 15 20 20 15 20 20 15 15 Side Yard Setback (4)(5)(6) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Side Yard Setback (flanking Street)(5) , 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 10 Open Space ! 10%gross area Density(DU/Acre) 4.35 4.35 7 7 7 12 12 12 22 22 22 Zone+Bonus Lot Coverage 50.0% 50.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 60.0% E Building Height(in co feet) 35 35 35 35 35 40 40 40 50 50 50 Zone Building Height(in stories) 2% 2% 2% 2% 3 3 3 4 4 4 Zone (1) "Clear view"Triangle required (2) Measured from property line outside border easement,if any Zero setbacks along rear and/or one side are allowed provided that a 5'-0"construction and maintenance easement(s)is recorded with the Spokane (3) County Auditor prior to issuance of a building permit.Minimum rear yard setbacks on zero lot line configuration shall not be less than fifty(50)feet or the sum of the rear yards required by the underlying zone,whichever is greater. (4) Minimum side yard setbacks between dwelling units and adjacent lots shall not be less than 10 feet on the side opposite the zero in a zero lot line configuration (5) Institutional and Office uses have the same setback as residential uses in zones where permitted. Attached garages loading from the side may have the same setback as a principal structure. (6) Permitted accessory structures shall maintain a five foot(5-0")side and rear yard setback ATTACHMENT "A" 12 September 8, 2005 City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission Re: PUD Ordinance restricting Planned Unit Developments on Rural Roads My wife and I are owners of property at 516 South Barker Road. This property sets adjacent to the property that is sought to be developed by Mr.Dennis Crapo,along with Whipple Consulting Engineers, Inc (the Applicants). That Applicants initially applied for development of a PUD on property that is located along the south side of 4'Avenue,west of the intersection of 4'Avenue and Barker Road. This property is approximately 4.6 acres. The Applicants also sought a rezone from UR 3.5 to UR *7 zoning. The hearing examiner granted the rezone,but denied the PUD. The PUD was denied because the access road would be made on 4' Avenue, a rural road. The PUD Ordinance at issue in this hearing prevents placing PUDs with access on rural roads. It is being suggested by the Applicants(through counsel)that such ordinance does not make sense and that they know of no other community that has such a restriction. It is suggested that normally municipalities want access to smaller roads to avoid traffic congestion on main arterials. I do not believe that the Applicant's position is accurate. It may well be that local government's attempt to prevent access to PUDs on 4 lane arterials,but that has no bearing on the types of roads in our immediate neighborhood. For example,Turtle Creek development has access from Barker Road. Long Road is the access for the development where Mr. Crapo lives. Both of these roads are wider collector or arterial two lane roads. They are not rural roads. The Applicant also takes the position that the PUD Ordinance restricting PUDs from access on rural roads is somehow unconstitutional. As the Applicant's attorney will concede,the Ordinance is constitutional if there is some"rationale basis"to justify the ordinance. Here,especially when you look at 4"Avenue, it can easily be established that the Ordinance in question has a"rational basis" in the law. Finally, I understand that the Applicant believes that some engineer justification is needed for the ordinance or that the recommendation should have come from an engineer before the ordinance was recommended to and Council and passed by the Council. Such belief is not warranted here. One drive, or one look at the narrowness of 4" Avenue provides plenty of justification and needs no engineer to figure out why the Ordinance at issue here is wise. I have taken some pictures of 4th Avenue. They are attached. The first picture shows two 1/2 ton pick-up trucks side-by-side on 4th. This picture demonstrates the narrowness of 4th Avenue. The picture is taken from the spot of the PUD application, submitted by the Applicants(part of the sign is located on the right side of the picture for reference). The next two pictures show the narrowness of the road at the intersection of Barker Road and 4th Avenue. The narrowness of 4th Avenue is key. At the other end of 4th Avenue, at the intersection of Long, is the Greenacres Elementary School. There are school children that walk along 4th and ride bikes on 4th Avenue. Increase traffic by a higher density PUD on 4th is a massive health and safety issue for the children and property owners living on 4th Avenue. 4th Avenue is a rural road with no sidewalks. As can be seen by the pictures,the residential properties abuts the street with no real or natural walkways. This distinguishes roads like Barker and Long and Sprague from roads like 4th Avenue. Prohibiting PUD access on rural roads like 4th makes complete sense in light of the health, safety,and morals of the community. In order to preserve health and safety on these narrower roads, it is rational that our city officials would limit access to streets like Barker Road and Long which are wider and don't present the safety issues presented by a PUD's access on to rural roads. I am unable to attend tonight's public meeting due to a family emergency. This family matter may keep me from attending any City Council meeting next week. I ask the Planning Commission to delay any recommendation to the City Council until the end of next week so that I may attend any public meeting on the City Council's decision based on your recommendation. Additionally, this affects me directly because I have filed in the Superior Court of Spokane County a "LUPA" Petition on the decision to rezone the subject property. I do not want to be prejudiced on the PUD decision and my ability to participate fully in that decision since I was a respondent in the appeal before the City Council on the PUD Ordinance at issue. I therefore request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the current ordinance restricting PUD access on rural roads remain in affect. This ordinance helps preserve the health and safety of our community and for that reason is rationally b e s. Sincerely, Stephen R. Hormel Affected Property Owner 516 South Barker Road Spokane Valley, WA 99016 \ k , Y 43. t �.. rw r , , I Or_..:!...,rt-41-: - - AT-4, 24 .:,,,.-74:7kf,l,'! ,; 4..,-; ,-•:,-;-.J, 3 —, r ,r•i .fly+ �.i�1 I �i���!1 r • 1 . ) *1..,,-4, . ••• Am rriN .4paiks:$3, ,, : A...., Xill, • Stephen Hormel PUD- affected Property Owner 516 S Barker Rd. submitted 19/13/05 El . • Ax • e . , 1� r. • • .; r • t, �^ h t • • ♦ t t f•. • • • 1 err - .----`07`,...r. '� '! '1 r . ! r' ,,: •� -rj ` �`�.�i' r -11 , ,.: :' • . ��• } It`d • • V ,. ,. %. +r • y f .xri • • -.x r ' -1...,--1:--- • r r { ' t RV 9 ' o 6 /r��'R J� sxi•- 4ysl'*:fin n �_'4 F .- - - .- r`` / r r - • �.r' 1 `r ., •r• i kl� • �F � , gip'" ' ,l tf,� Rs - ' r' ' r � l�� �: � I M ' r 7 1 Y 1 P( f ,. YI ! rye ',, $ i-f'• *4 f / , tyR. i a/r i��', li.' i, it • �1r' j I' .' '' 191' .: ' •'S ' '' I Ifs ,f „M'+' 4,i.lyr• ' ! ur Ocii, 1 i r.l 1 �r t " i) , /r it 4* i' r i t ., �h I, 1. +i� R t t° I f r t� iisraokii ivoi.....„_1 • I isfigisbt..c I - , , . :t ......,_ 4 4 . 4 .. - ' IJ ' �l Abi tt St' I 0-- At i •, , % . AIONPr r 4"011110."1"10%. r1l �. ( f ..,,,fit j arrr<.•iew+M�+r.r:o..s�werw�aw.... _. .......w✓.tlT�-v. ..::a - i.A� r _. • • ;y y 09 /06 /2005