Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 10-20-16 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall October 20,2016 I. Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 John Hohman, Community&Economic Development Director Heather Graham Cary Driskell, City Attorney James Johnson Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator Tim Kelley Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission IL Agenda: Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the October 20, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed III. Minutes: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the October 6, 2016 minutes. The vote on this motion was seven in favor, zero against, motion passes. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the October 13, 2016 minutes, Commissioner Rasmussen noted on page six the last line in the last paragraph "Commissioners Kelley, Phillips, Rasmussen and Graham were in favor of leaving it zone to zone, Commissioners Anderson,Johnson and Stathos were in favor of adding changing it to zone to zone." the last'zone to zone' should actually read'use to use.' The minutes will be amended as stated. The vote on this? otion was seven in favor, zero against, motion passes. IV. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a) Planning Commission Findings of Fact: Comprehensive PIan Update, Spokane Valley Municipal Code Titles 17 and 19,Chapters 21.20,21.40,22.50,22.70 and 22.130,Appendix A and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Economic Development Coordinator Mike Basinger began the meeting by explaining the findings of fact. This is a document which Iays out the Planning Commission's process and the recommendation based on the discussions, public hearing and deliberations the Commission has had regarding any subject, but this document will be in regard to the Comprehensive Plan and associated documents. Mr. Basinger stated in section (H) of the findings states the Commission's recommendations and supportive text as to why those decisions were made. He said staff felt it was important for Council to understand why the recommendations were made. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb provided the findings are a review and a factual basis to approve the recommendation for the Council to approve the Comprehensive Plan Update and the associated documents. He said there are numerous requirements throughout the Growth Management Act and through SEPA, certain things the Comprehensive Plan must have, such as the required elements. There are certain procedural requirements such as the Public Participation Plan. All of these things have been discussed through study sessions, the public hearings and the deliberations. This document puts into words and paper the factual background which provides the basis for the Planning Commission's approval and recommendation. Community and Economic Development Director John Hohman stated on Tuesday October 25, 2016 the City Council would be having administrative report to highlight the Commission's recommendations, including the discussion points which were brought up. Mr. Hohman stated staff wants to make sure they bring forward the topics and discussion and represent the Commission faithfully to make sure it will be as detailed as possible. Mr. Hohman said there had been excellent discussion regarding the topics on which the Commission had made recommendations,he believes the recommendations are solid and staff wants to support these recommendations and move them forward to the City Council. 10-20-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Stathos clarified the public hearing for the City Council, regarding the Comprehensive Plan and associated documents, is scheduled for November 8, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Hohman stated there will be a special meeting at 5:00 p.m. that evening to handle the regular meeting items, and then there will be two public hearings on that evening beginning as soon as possible after 6:00. Commissioner Johnson said lie felt the Commissioners might have overlooked the possibility of impact fees during their deliberations. Commissioner Stathos said she was told there was nothing they could do. Mr. Hohman responded impact fees are a very detailed and complicated subject. He shared the City of Spokane has impact fees for traffic. When a project comes in a trip generation letter or study is done so you know how many extra trips the project is going to create, and they have a per trip cost based on the area in the city. The developer writes a check, walks away and there is no further analysis done. The City of Spokane Valley has not implemented this. It is a very controversial subject from the developer standpoint. What the City has done in the past is perform concentrated studies for certain areas and developed per trip costs, similar to an impact fee. However,this is all voluntary. One area which this was successful was the Hanson properties on Indiana. They had development agreements with Spokane County and the City carried those over. They also entered into another agreement in 2011 which allows them to move forward on projects with contributions based over time. There was a specific traffic study done, allocated the trips to different properties they have,and creating a type of bank account of trips,which is reduced with each project. The City is working on similar type of project for properties in the Mirabeau area for Pinecroft and Centennial Properties. But again, this process is entirely voluntary. The City would not be in a position to force developers into this type of situation, because we have not performed the detailed studies, similar to what the City of Spokane had done. Commissioner Johnson said he understood this type of agreement, but when developer put up a project in the middle of a block and it affected existing intersections how does this get addressed. Mr. Hohman said then a site specific analysis is required as part of the project. The study looks at the trips generated, the direction of travel and intersections which will be impacted within a certain radius of the project, depending on its size. They look at safety features, such as left turns which could cause problems. This requirement is covered in the existing code, which also allows for the expansion of the area reviewed. Doing it pre-project would allow for a larger developer to pre- study it and set the trips aside. On a single parcel development would be a stand-alone traffic study. This would be detailed, reviewed and approved by the senior traffic engineer. No one gets away without addressing traffic issues, it is a GMA requirement to look at traffic concurrency. If there is a site specific impact on the infrastructure,then the developer must mitigate those impacts. Mr. Basinger confirmed Figure 29: Average Daily Traffic has been replaced in the finished Comp Plan with a corrected figure. This map was generated by accidently pulling from an incorrect field in the GIS program used to create the map. All modeling generated was done on accurate data and all the information generated from this data is accurate. These are two separate programs. This has been corrected and City Council will have the corrected map in their version of the Plan. Mr. Basinger covered each of the items in Section H of the findings to review the decisions: 1. Add a policy in Chapter 2 -Parks and Open Space Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan Update to support xeriscaping, water conservation, and sustainable park management methods. This change allows the City to set an example for its citizens through water conservation and usage on publicly owned parks property. Commissioner Johnson said he believed the intent was this policy would only apply to new parks and not apply to established parks. Mr. Basinger suggested adding "for upgrades and new parks." to the end of the first sentence. This changed was incorporated and the Commission determined it reflected their deliberations 2. Designate parcels 55173.1018, 55173.1019, 55173.1020, and 55173.1005 as Single Family Residential(SFR) and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3). Out of 86 total public comments received to October 6, 2016, 68 were with regard to these four parcels. The Comprehensive Plan Update would designate these four parcels Multifamily Residential and the Development Regulation Amendments would apply a corresponding 10-20-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Multifamily zoning. Of the 68 comments, 64 comments were against the Multifamily designation. The comments reflected a desire to maintain the four parcels as SFR and R-3 to maintain the current character of the neighborhood. Further, the comments highlighted concern that the traffic infrastructure currently is not sufficient to meet impacts from multifamily within the area. Planning Commission agreed that a change to SFR and R-3 will maintain the character of the neighborhood and that the traffic infrastructure rastructure is currently not sufficient to meet the impacts from multifamily. The Commissioners confirmed the parcel numbers in this list were the correct and reflected their deliberations. 3. Designate the parcels located in the area south of Bow Avenue, west of Barker Road, north!of Sprague Avenue, and east of Greenacres Road as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3). These parcels are adjacent to the parcels described in (H)(3) above, and Planning Commission believed that until the traffic infrastructure•astructure is improved, an SFR designation and R-3 zoning is appropriate in this area. Further, the current uses are primarily single family homes and so this change will maintain the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Rasmussen pointed out this needed to reflect (H)(2) above. This correction was made and the Commission determined it reflected their discussions. 4. Amend proposed SVMC 19.40.050 to require that industrial accessory dwelling units be inhabited by the employer, operator, or employee of the company at which the industrial accessory dwelling is located. Planning Commission acknowledges the benefit of an industrial accessory dwelling unit to the owner/operator and its employees for those instances where it is beneficial for them to live in the sante facility in which they are manufacturing goods, but had concerns that without a limitation on who could use such industrial accessory dwelling unit, there was potential for projects to become multifamily dwelling uses instead of industrial uses. The Commission agreed this was accurate and reflected their deliberations. 5. Remove SVMC 19.40.100 (small residential dwellings and small residential dwellings — supportive housing) and other small residential dwelling and small residential dwelling — supportive housing provisions in Title 19 SVMC for consideration through a separate futare code text amendment process. Planning Commission acknowledges this is a new type of residential use for the City to consider. Accordingly, it believes that it is appropriate to consider this issue and type of use separately from the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments to give more detailed attention to the potential impacts, benefits, and appropriate regulations for such use. The Commission agreed this was correct and reflected their discussions. 6. Amend proposed SVMC 19.70.020 and Table 19.70-1, Residential Standards, to provide for a maximum density of 22 units per acre and a maximuum building height of 50 feet in the Multifamily Residential (MFR) zone. This change will provide further bluffer between single family residential and commercial zones and uses by limiting the multifamily density and multifamily building height to the current density and height standards. The Commission agreed this was accurate and reflected their deliberations. 7. Amend proposed SVMC 22.70.070(D)(1) to provide that full screening is required when a multfcrmily or nonresidential project abuts a single family residential zoning district or single family residential use. This change will further protect single family residential uses from impacts of multifamily, regardless of which zone the single family use is in. There are numerous single family uses in multifamily zones. The Commission agreed this was accurate and reflected their deliberations. It was noted in Section J that in (1) the new language "for upgrades and new parks" would need to be added as well. These changes were incorporated into the findings document while it was on the screen and the Commission was reviewing them. Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the findings and recommendations with the changes requested by the Planning Commission. The vote on this motion was six in favor, one against with 10-20-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 Commissioner Anderson dissenting. The findings were updated and a copy was printed for the Chair's signature. V. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Planning Commission had consensus to cancel the October 27,2016 regular meeting. Commissioner Phillips clarified an issue regarding Roberts Rules of Order. A person who makes a motion is allowed to vote against that motion, but may not argue against the same motion. VI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:39 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, motion passed. 1-6 I 2-0 1(a Heather Graham, Chair Date signed 040 Deanna Horton, Secretary