Loading...
Agenda 07/14/2016 SCITI POKane Valle y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. July 14, 2016 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 23, 2016 minutes VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: X. Study Session: Comprehensive Plan Update — Residential Standards Discussion XI. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XII. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall, June 23,2016 Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: Kevin Anderson Cary Driskell,City Attorney Heather Graham Mike Basinger,Economic Development Coordinator James Johnson Deanna Horton Secretary of the Commission, Tim Kelley, absent-excused Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos, absent-excused Joe Stoy Hearing no objection, Commissioners Kelley and Stathos were excused. Commissioner Stoy moved to accept the June 23, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the June 09, 2016 minutes as presented. The vote was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had nothing to report. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Coordinator Mike Basinger reviewed the schedule for upcoming meetings, reminding the Commissioners the schedule is subject to change. Proposing July 14,Draft Residential Standards,July 28 Draft Land Use Map,August 11 Conceptual Goals and Policies, August 25 Conceptual Regulations. Mr. Basinger stated Community & Economic Development Director John Hohman had told the City Council he was hoping to have a draft of the Comprehensive Plan by the end of August. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session: Comprehensive Plan—May 3,2016 Workshop Results Mr. Basinger explained staff wanted to share the results from the joint workshop held with the City Council and get feedback to ensure things are moving in the correct direction. The feedback will assist staff in developing the goals and policies and land use map which will drive the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan)chapters development and supporting regulations. District Summary—The Districts' concepts received moderate support,significant differences of opinion existed,a City Hall and medical district received the highest levels of support,participants noted district concepts should remove barriers not increase regulations, suggesting the use of overlays. Commissioner Anderson asked if designating a district would add value, add tax base,why would we want to do this if we don't know what the benefits would be. Mr. Basinger commented that it is a way to market certain areas of the City. Commissioner Anderson stated he didn't like the idea of having defined borders. Corridors Summary—The Corridors concept received the highest level of support,there was support to change the mixed use designations along Trent,consolidating the Office and Garden Office designations and changing the Office designations to mixed-use was less favorable. Commissioner Anderson asked what the Office-Garden Office designations would be converted to. Mr. Basinger stated the uses would be allowed in a mixed use zone. Commissioner Stoy asked what kind of a buffer to the residential designations would there be if designations like Garden Office were eliminated. Mr. Basinger stated transitional provisions will be implemented between zones of higher and lowers uses. Commissioner Anderson asked if the Permitted Use Matrix would be updated. Mr. Basinger said the work which had been done before,to streamline the Permitted Use Matrix,would be continued and be transitioned into a more broad use categories,which should allow for more flexibility. 06-23-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Neighborhood Summary — There were significant differences regarding neighborhoods, especially on issues of residential density, expanding Neighborhood Commercial received substantial support and many wrote in about the inclusion of tiny homes or cottages in appropriate neighborhoods. The Commissioners voiced their skepticism regarding cottages being a workable development in this area. Commissioner Johnson stated there were options to convert Medium Density Residential(MDR)to Low Density Residential (LDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) or to keep it. He said he hoped staff would look at density bonus for MDR in order to maintain the identity for the neighborhoods. When asked,he did not know what kind of bonus,but said he would like to see options. Something like adding transitional provisions then maybe reduce the parking requirements, or open space. Commissioner Anderson said he did research and changing it from 12 to 15 units could make it more palatable to a developer. Commissioner Johnson said he was concerned about the MDR being absorbed into HDR and it being adjacent to LDR without a buffer. He said adding 30% more to MDR should push it into a profitable situation. Commissioner Stoy asked what kind of incentives Commissioner Johnson was considering and he confirmed it was buffers for the LDR families, but he was open to options. Mr. Basinger stated in trying to draft the new land use map,most of the MDR was converted to HDR where it was appropriate,around transit centers,and hoping the transitional provisions are much better than they have been in the past. The community has said there is a height limit to building HDR,because it becomes more expensive the higher you build. Mr. Basinger said they converted MDR to LDR where it made sense and would blend into the neighborhoods and HDR where it would be supported.He said he wanted the Commission to look at the draft map when it was ready,it would make more sense then. Mr. Basinger stated he had done some research regarding the history of rezones since incorporation. There have been 67 rezones approved,with 57 of them happening before 2006 when the City adopted its own development code. Ten of them since the new development code was adopted and all (67)of them to reduce the lot size down to 6,000 square feet. Mr. Basinger said the Comp Plan states residential development cannot exceed six units per acre, which is not going to change. In an effort to streamline the City's processes, staff will be proposing to consolidate R-3 and R-4 into one zoning classification with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. This proposal would reduce costly rezones and put the City in a more competitive environment with County standards which are being developed in the Urban Growth Areas. Mr.Basinger said he has not seen a subdivision which has been submitted which was not for six units per acre. There are lots which need infill development which cannot make development work with 6,000 square foot lots, but could make 5,000 square foot lots work in some of the longer narrower lots. Commissioner Graham disputed this thought process would not ruin the character of the Valley neighborhoods. She said she knows the County is developing 5,000 square foot lots out toward Liberty Lake, but she said she is grateful she lives on the `other' side of Barker where her lot size is bigger. She feels it is more important to maintain the character of the Valley and the larger lots than for a developer to be able to have it"pencil out,"it is why people want to live in the Valley. Commissioner Anderson stated the lots in the R-2 zone are large but have a home which for many takes up the width of the property and has no access to the backyard, so people still end up parking peripheral vehicles (RVs, boats, ATV trailers) on the streets. Newer developments where it is more upscale and smaller lots still have the same problem,because there is no place to park those `toys.' Mr.Basinger said he has had staff take 1-2 submittals which would not work with 6,000 square foot lots and had staff try and rework it with 5,000 square foot lots and the end result was being able to get one or more lots which in turn would make it developable by the proponent. Commissioner Phillips stated he would support what Mr.Basinger was saying because there needs to be an option for some of the infill properties. He said his home takes up most of the width of his parcel,he has a garage door on the front and back of his garage so he can access his back yard because there is no other way, and he only maintains half of it in grass because it is too much to keep up. He is happy with his large lot,but he understands that someone else might not want that. Commissioner Anderson said in the City of Spokane they have smaller lots but longer driveways. Commissioner Graham said she was trying to define her role as a Planning Commissioner. Does she work for the good of the Community or because she is an appointed person does she not worry about that and focus on the biggest bang for the buck for the developers? For her the Community will win and this is her focus as she moves forward and she believes the community members chose the Valley because of the lot sizes and the feeling of neighborhoods here. 06-23-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Mr.Basinger moved to the Elements of the Comp Plan. The Land Use element received moderate support, with little disagreement for the goals and policies. Highest support for maintaining the character and quality of life,provide a mix of land uses,ensure concise and understandable regulations and promote a variety of housing types. Low support for providing incentives for building for energy performance and/or renewable energy and supporting water-saving techniques in new development. Commissioner Johnson said there may have been some confusion about the water saving techniques, and them costing new development extra money. It was not that the participants were indifferent about saving water,however there was some confusion about the water saving goals. There was concern, especially after the water rights discussion, about the possibility of charging based on the amount used. Our aquifer is an amazing asset to our community. Commissioner Anderson said there are people who claim the aquifer is a`river' which is flowing and if it isn't used it will be `going downstream' regardless,so why should I care about conservation. He said he was worried about regulated programs and water saving techniques, and then you see no grass,rock gardens and those type of things. He said the only incentive which would be needed here would be the cost of the water,what it cost to use it based on the demand and supply. He would not be taking his yard out unless he can't afford to water it or he can't get the water. Commissioner Johnson said one tree was better for the environment than a whole yard of grass. Staff is working on policies for some of the water districts which have used all of their municipal water rights,to help them find solutions until there is a change in the legislature. Commissioner Anderson asked if staff had returned to a conversation with the water districts to ask them for 'more real' numbers, than the numbers which staff presented, saying he has heard there is no such thing and we have plenty of water and the districts can pump as much as they want to. He said he thought the water districts have said those are only legal prescribed numbers,but have nothing to do with reality. Mr. Basinger said the information which was gleaned from the water district study was important for better understanding where the water districts are in regard to ability to develop moving forward. The Economic Development element received high support and the goals for improving economic vitality, supporting businesses and employment growth and ensuring the development review and permitting process is efficient and predictable earned the highest marks. The lowest support was for the policy which encouraged new development which enhances the City's image,neighborhoods and business districts. Mr. Basinger did talk with participants after and they expressed they did not want to have a City which did not have any standards. The Transportation element received moderate support with agreement with most of the policies and goals in the element. The higher support were for safe and efficient freight mobility and to have the transportation system designed to preserve and enhance community character. The lowest support was for providing current and easily accessible information about the bicycle and pedestrian networks,programs and facilities. Commissioner Anderson asked what freight mobility means. Commissioner Graham suggested oil transport, Bridging the Valley. Commissioner Johnson suggested not creating freight inhibitors. Commissioner Stoy was surprised with the low support for bike paths because he said he loves using them, there are more here, and he sees more and more people using them. Mr. Basinger stated the issue seemed to be providing information about the paths,however it is being provided more and more on-line platform. He also said the City gets federal funding to pave the roads by placing bike lanes on the roads, they look for this information in the Comp Plan. The Housing element received the lowest support for all the elements however wanting to provide a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. The lowest support was to pursue incentives and mechanisms to encourage affordable housing units and to evaluate surplus city land for use as affordable housing. Participants disagreed the most about the goals and policies for the Parks and Recreation element, while providing a moderate support for them. High support was given for implementing innovative strategies to reduce operating costs for the parks and parks should be designed for ease of access to everyone. But there was low support for incentives for the use of art in private development, and design guidelines to promote common open space,public art, and plazas in new development. Capital Facilities received a high level of support with goals and policies supporting efficient and cost effective public safety and emergency services and seeing a balance between the quality and the cost of providing public facilities and services. The lowest support came when encouraging the public and private 06-23-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 efforts to conserve water, providing public education for the safe and appropriate use of waste water treatment systems and encouraging the use of less water-intensive native vegetation. In the Utilities element, there was strong support for the element and promoting the undergrounding of utility distribution lines in new development but lower support for the incorporation of utilities in greenbelts and open spaces within common corridors. Mr.Basinger said he talked to participants after about this and some did not understand the greenbelts would be for example, if there is a sewer line under the Appleway Trail. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a provision for requiring new development to underground the utilities. Mr. Basinger stated he would research it and let the Commission know. Mr.Basinger stated this exercise would help to finalize the policy framework for the Comprehensive Plan, assist in finalizing the draft land use map,and help to model transportation impacts. Staff is hoping to have a draft Plan by sometime in August and the development regulations to support the Comp Plan will follow along shortly. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor,motion passed. Chair Heather Graham Date signed Secretary Deanna Horton CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: July 14, 2016 File Number: NA Item: Check all that apply: ❑X Study Session ❑old business ❑ new business ❑ Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Update DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Presentation comparing residential standards in the region. GOVERNING LEGISLATION:None BACKGROUND: Per RCW 36.70A.130(1),every county and city in the state is required to conduct an update of its comprehensive plan and development regulations every 8 years. The City of Spokane Valley's update is due no later than June 30,2017. Staff and the consultants are continuing to develop the Draft Comprehensive Plan. On June 23, 2016, staff presented the results from the joint workshop with the Council and Commission. Staff received feedback from Planning Commission on the workshop results providing further direction on the development of the land use alternatives and the goals and policies. To broaden the understanding of residential development in our region, staff will provide an overview of the residential development standards in Spokane County, the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Spokane and the City of Liberty Lake. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger,Economic Development Coordinator Attachments: Regional residential standards comparison Jurisdiction Zoning Designation Density Requirement Minimum Lot Size-SFD Minimum Lot Front Yard Side Yard Setback Flanking Street Rear Yard Acc. Unit size&height. Minimum Lot Lot Coverage Bldg. Density Bonus Size-Duplex Setback Setback Setback Dimensions Hgt. Spokane Valley R-1 1/40,000 sq.ft. N/A 35 ft. 35 ft. 10%of lot sq.ft./35 ft. 80'X 100' 30% 35 ft. R-2 1/10,000 sq.ft. N/A 15'-house 15 ft. 10%of lot sq.ft./35 ft. 80'X 90' 50% 35 ft. None 20'-garage 20 ft. R-3 1/7,500 sq.ft. 1/12,000 sq.ft. 15'-house 15 ft. 10%of lot sq.ft./35 ft. 65'X 90' 50% 35 ft. 20'-garage 5 ft. R-4 1/6,000 sq.ft. 1/10,000 sq.ft. 15'-house 15 ft. 10%of lot sq.ft./35 ft. 50'X 80' 50% 35 ft. 20'-garage MF-1 1/3,600 sq.ft. 1/3,600 sq.ft. 15'-house 15 ft. 10 ft. 10%of lot sq.ft./40 ft. 45'X 80' 60% 40 ft. 20'-garage MF-2 1/2,000 sq.ft. 1/2,000 sq.ft. 15'-house 15 ft. 10 ft. 10%of lot sq.ft./50 ft. 20'X 80' 65% 50 ft. 20'-garage Spokane County Low Density 1-6 units/acre 5,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 15'-house 5 ft. Lot size less than 30,000 50 55% 35 ft. Residential 20'-garage 5 ft+ 1 ft.for sq.ft. = 1,000 sq.ft.or ft./frontage Low Density 1 unit/acre 43,560 sq.ft. N/A 15'-house 5 ft. each add.ft.of 10%,whichever is 90 55% 35 ft. Residential Plus 20'-garage 15'-house structure greater ft./frontage Medium Density 6-15 units/acre 4,200 sq.ft. 8,400 sq.ft. 15'-house 5 ft+ 1 ft.for each add.ft. of 20'-garage height over 50 65% 40 ft. Residential 20'-garage structure height over 25ft.to 25ft.to a 30,000 sq.ft. -1 acre= ft./frontage None a maximum 15 ft. maximum 15 3,000 sq.ft. High Density 16+units/acre 1,600 sq.ft. 3,200 sq.ft. 15'-house 5 ft+1 ft.for each add.ft.of ft. 20 70% 50 ft. Residential 20'-garage structure height over 25ft.to 1 acre-2 acres= ft./frontage a maximum 15 ft. 4,000 sq.ft. Greater than 2 acres= 10%of lot size City of Spokane Residential Single- 10 units/acre-max. 4,350 sq.ft. N/A 15%of lot size/20 ft. 40'X 80' Lots 3,000 sq.ft.- 35 ft. When lot Family 4 units/acre-min. 4,999 sq.ft.= shares a side lot Lot width 40 ft.or wider= 1,500 sq.ft.+ line with a non- Residential Single- 10/units/acre-max. 3,000 sq.ft. N/A 15%of lot size/20 ft. 36'X 80' 35 ft. Family Compact 4 units/acre-min. 5 ft.setback 37.5%for portion residential 20 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. of lot over 3,000 zone, may build sq.ft. one additional Lot width less than 40 ft.= dwelling unit 3 ft.setback Lots less than beyond what is 3,000 sq.ft.= allowed by base 50% zone. Residential Two 20 units/acre-max. 1,800 sq.ft. 4,200 sq.ft. 15%of lot size/20 ft. 36'X 40' 35 ft. Family 10 units/acre-min. Residential 30 units/acre-max 1,800 sq.ft. 2,900 sq.ft. Accessory structure not 25'X 25' 35 ft. None Multifamily 15 units/acre-min to exceed 15%of lot sq. Residential High No maximum None None ft. and included in total 25'X 25' 35 ft. Density 15 units/acre-min lot coverage/20 ft. Liberty Lake Single Family 6 units/acre-max 1/5,000 sq.ft. 1/2,000 sq.ft.- Accessory structure size None 40% 35 ft. Residential 4 units/acre-min min included in total lot 1/7,500 sq.ft.- coverage/35 ft max 10'-house 5 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. Mixed Residential 12 units/acre-max 1/5,000 sq.ft.-min. 1/7,000 sq.ft- 20'-garage Accessory structure size None 50% 35 ft. 6 units/acre-min 1/10,000 sq.ft.-max min included in total lot 1/12,000 sq.ft.- coverage/35 ft None max Multi-Family No maximum 1/4,000 sq.ft.-min. 1/5,000 sq.ft.- Accessory structure size 40 ft. lot 60% 35 ft. Residential 12 units/acre-min 1/8,000 sq.ft.-max. min. included in total lot width 1/10,000 sq.ft.- coverage/35 ft max Residential Standard Comparison Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator j�l eY. Single- Family Residential ( SFR) City of Spokane Valley Spokane County R-1 Low Density Residential Plus R-2 Low Density Residential R-3 R-4 City of Spokane Liberty Lake Residential Single-Family Single Family Residential Residential Single-Family Compact Residential Two Family SP� 2 Minimum Lot Size SFR City of Spokane Valley Zone R- 1 R-2 R-3 R-4 Minimum Lot 40,000 sq . ft. 10,000 sq . ft. 7, 500 sq . ft. 6,000 sq . ft. Size Spokane County Zone Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Plus Minimum Lot Size 43, 560 sq . ft. 5,000 sq . ft. Spokane 3 Valley Minimum Lot Size SFR City of Spokane Zone Residential Single- Residential Single- Residential Two Family Family Compact Family Minimum Lot Size 4, 350 sq . ft. 3,000 sq . ft.- 1 ,800 sq . ft. minimum 10,000 sq . ft. - maximum Liberty Lake Zone Residential Single-Family Minimum Lot Size 5,000 sq . ft. Spokane 4 Valley Setbacks SFR City of Spokane Spokane County City of Spokane Liberty Lake Valley Front Yard 15 ft. -House 15 ft. -House 20 ft. 10 ft. — House 20 ft. -Garage 20 ft. -Garage 20 ft. — Garage 5 ft. 5 ft. Lot width greater 5 ft. Side Yard than 40 ft. = 5 ft. Lot width less than 40 ft. = 3 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. plus 1 ft. for 5 ft. 15 ft. Rear Yard each add. ft. of structure height over 25 ft. to a maximum 15. ft. Spokane 5 Valley Minimum Lot Dimensions SFR City of Spokane Valley Spokane County R-1 80' X 100' Low Density Residential Plus 90 ft. of frontage R-2 80' X 90' Low Density Residential 50 ft. of frontage R-3 65' X 90' R-4 50' X80' City of Spokane Liberty Lake Residential Single-Family 40' X 80' None Residential Single-Family Compact 36' X 80' Residential Two Family 36' X 40' Spokane 6 Valley Proposed Regulations SFR ■ Consolidate R- 3 & R-4 ■ Lot Size of 5 , 000 sq . ft . minimum ■ No width or depth restrictions ■ Rear yard setback of 10 ft . Multifamily Residential Standards Multifamily Residential ( MFR) City of Spokane Valley Spokane County MF-1 Medium Density Residential Plus MF-2 High Density Residential City of Spokane Liberty Lake Residential Multifamily Mixed Residential Residential High Density Multi-Family Residential SP� 9 Minimum Lot MFR City of Spokane Valley Zone MF- 1 MF-2 Minimum Lot Size 3,600 sq . ft. 2,000 sq . ft. Spokane County Zone Medium Density Residential Residential High Density Minimum Lot Size 4, 200 sq . ft. 1 ,600 sq . ft. Spokane 10 Valley Minimum Lot - MF City of Spokane Zone Residential Multifamily Residential High Density Minimum Lot Size 1 ,800 sq . ft. None Liberty Lake Zone Mixed Residential Multi-Family Residential Minimum Lot Size 5,000 sq . ft. 4,000 sq . ft. Spokane 11 Valley Units p er Acre MFR City of Spokane City of Liberty Spokane County Spokane Lake Valley 22 None Limited only None by building height, setbacks and parking requirements Spokane 12 Valley BuildingHeight MFR City of Spokane Spokane City of Spokane Liberty Lake Valley County Medium High Medium High Residential Residential Mixed Multi-Family Density Density Density Density Multifamily High Density Residential Residential 40 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 50 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. Spokane 13 Valley Proposed Regulations MFR • Consolidate MF- 1 and MF- 2 • Allow increased density • Provide transitional provisions to protect adjacent zones Spokane 14 eY. Questions *Wane 15 Ualley�