Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 12-08-16 APPROVED Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall December 8,2016 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 Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Heather Graham Lori Barlow, Senior Barlow James Johnson Micki Harnois, Planner Tim Kelley Mike Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission II. Agenda: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to accept the December 8,2016 agenda as presented. The vote was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. Minutes: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the October 20, 2016 minutes. The vote on this motion was seven in favor, zero against, motion passes. The vote on this motion was seven in favor, zero against, motion passes. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had nothing to report. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow offered the only administrative report was a thank you to Commissioner Anderson for his years of service to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Anderson joined the Commission in 2013 and participated in the City's Shoreline Master Plan, the Comprehensive Plan update and many development regulation changes. VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS: a) Study Session: Supportive Housing Planner Micki Harnois began by giving a presentation regarding supportive housing, a review of a presentation given on June 9,2016 regarding tiny homes and a review of proposed draft regulations. Ms. Harnois stated tonight's discussion was about supportive housing in general, rather than location specific lot. Ms.Harnois said the Planning Commission recommended supportive housing section should be removed from the draft regulations accompanying the Comprehensive Plan update for further review. The City Council removed this section of the proposed development regulations in order for further study. Ms. Harnois reviewed the demographics and emerging trends of tiny homes. Commissioner Anderson asked if a park model home would be considered acceptable as a tiny home. Ms.Harnois said based on the way the way they are manufactured they are still considered a recreational vehicle (RV) and RVs arc only allowed on a property for 30 days, They would be allowed in a RV park and treated like an RV. Ms.Harnois showed an example of a tiny home village,of supportive housing call Quixote Village in Olympia. A village of tiny homes on 2.17 acres,homes are 144 square feet in size,and is owned by a non-profit. Ms.Harnois stated she visited the village,which has a transit stop across the street and a community garden. She also showed the a design for a village which has been proposed by the Fuller Center in Spokane Valley, and pictures of tiny home villages in Portland and Seattle. Ms, Harnois then explained the definition in the SVMC for a small residential dwelling is: Any structure built on a lot for dwelling purposes, with access to water, sewer, and electricity, is considered as a "small residential dwelling". Small residential dwellings on wheels are prohibited. Ms, Harnois stated to take note of the part which states it must have access to water, sewer and electricity. Commissioner Anderson clarified the building code would determine the suitable foundation for a tiny home. Commissioner Stathos clarified there would not be a requirement for 12-0$-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 each unit to hook up to water, sewer and electricity. Ms. Barlow pointed out the proposed requirements would have a community building where there would be access to water, such as showers,kitchens and laundry and sewer, such as bathrooms. The proposed supportive housing requirements are currently: • Maximum density is 15 dwellings per acre; • Structure size maximum: 200 sq. ft.excluding porches; • Building permit required; (Consistent with Title 24 SVMC) • 0.5 Off-street parking space provided per dwelling; • Located within a half mile of a bus stop or other transit service; • On-site community facilities i.e. kitchens, dining,shower, laundry; • Recreation. areas,garden areas, etc. designed as shared community facilities; • Buffered and screened from adjacent ROW and surrounding properties; • Must have a sponsoring agency and operations and security plan Commissioner Anderson asked where the density of 15 units came from. Ms. Harnois stated the consultants recommended this density based on what they have seen in other communities. Commissioner Anderson clarified the maximum of 200 square feet per unit was a consultant recommendation. Commissioners questioned the 0.50 per unit of off-street parking required, and how this would be figured out. Commissioner Anderson stated the transit requirement would hinder any development because of the limited transit service in our city. Commissioner Phillips clarified the operations and security plan should also have a decommissioning plan should something happen and the operation did not work out. Ms. Barlow stated all of these items would be taken care of in the operations manual. Commissioner Anderson suggested having a full-time manager should be required to be on site at all times. Commissioner Graham said the Fuller Center is proposing an option of rent to own. Would there be a rent only requirement for this type of housing, not rent to own so the homes could not be picked up and moved. Ms. Barlow said this was not addressed in the draft regulations. Commissioner Graham asked if there was a zone which would allow these homes on a regular lot. Ms. Barlow stated the current regulations have a minimum width requirement, but the proposed regulations do not have minimum width requirements, so a small home could be built as long as it met the building code requirements. There was a discussion about requiring restroom facilities in each unit,and not in just a community building. Commissioner Kelley clarified the building code would dictate having the bathrooms in houses. Mr. Lamb stated the reason for the provision in the proposed regulations was as long as there was access to a comprehensive supportive unit, there would be access to those services. Commissioner Phillips stated lie is opposed to not having bathrooms in each facility, he said he thought this was a part of the discussion when the regulations were proposed earlier in the year. Commissioner Graham said there was some dignity in being able to have a bathroom in their own place,as opposed to having to share a facility with someone. Commissioner Johnson stated,he had not determined his support of the proposal however, the people which are considered to be served by what is being proposed would appreciate any kind of facility regardless of sharing and anything which the Commission mandates must be inside will increase the cost of those units. The supportive housing would be allowed in the R-3, Multifamily, Mixed Use, Corridor Mixed Use, Neighborhood Commercial, Regional Commercial, and Industrial zones. Commissioner Graham asked why they would not be allowed in Industrial Mixed Use zone. The supportive housing would require a conditional use permit which will allow neighbors to comment on the proposed use. Commissioner Johnson asked if the conditions could be different in each zone. Ms. Barlow stated the conditions would be the ones which Ms.Harnois had laid out earlier and would apply to each zone, Ms. Barlow also stated that through the Conditional Use Permit process, conditions unique to each development could be imposed on the different proposals, but not any less that what would be required. Commissioner Johnson said there could be an escalating number of conditions for each zone. Ms. Barlow stated it was possible but did not know how it would be implemented in the code. 12-08-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 Ms. Harnois explained the Conditional Use Permit(CUP)process and the steps involved. A CUP would require a notice of application,a notice of public hearing,and environmental review,it would have a hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner and would also have an appeal period. Commissioner Graham clarified the discussion as supportive housing which would be required on a foundation, people could not rent to own because they would not be able to move the structure. Ms. Barlow said in theory they could be moved, since they would be placed on a foundation,they could be picked up and moved, but did agree the homes could not be on wheels. Ms. Barlow also noted this could be a development for older people in a retirement mode, but this could also be a development of homeless people looking to try and improve their situation. These could be two different types of developments, but she did not know how different that would be. Commissioner Graham asked if a retirement facility could be allowed in an R-3 zone where all the facilities are required within the unit,but a homeless facility could require community facilities and only allowed in Industrial zones, for example. Ms. Barlow said staff could look at the possibility of reviewing the options of differing types of development, but it would implemented in different zones. Commissioner Stathos stated she has only heard of tiny homes in reference to homeless developments, she has not heard of any retirees wanting to be in a tiny home. Commissioner Stathos asked if this would be required to be on church property, Ms. Barlow stated this was not a requirement at this time. Commissioner Phillips asked about the noticing requirements for the CUP and hopes that the standard 400 feet noticing requirement should be expanded in this case. Mr. Lamb stated he wanted to review the proposed noticing language before making any determination on expanding the noticing requirements. Commissioner Rasmussen asked if staff had reviewed the homeless projects in Los Angeles or Salt Lake City as Commissioner Graham suggested. Ms. Barlow reviewed what the Commissioners requested additional information on; Foundation requirements, the rationale for 15 units per acre, information regarding supervision on site, requiring bathroom facilities in each unit, rationale for not allowing in Industrial Mixed Use zone, can different types of developments have different types of requirements (retirement facility/homeless shelters),why the 0.50 parking space per unit, expanding noticing requirements, looking at Los Angles and Salt Lake City's experiences, clarifying access to facilities, clarify the operating plan making sure there is a sponsoring agency and a decommissioning plan, Want to make sure the plan is being developed in a manner the City wants it developed. Commissioner Anderson was asking about the possibility of obtaining the information about Quixote Village,such as sewer, operations and such in order to get an idea as to how they run their facility. There was some discussion regarding the communal living of the homeless and what they would and would not do in regards to using a kitchen or community building. VII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Anderson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:24 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor,motion passed. c ) r4. a q aor-- Heather Graham, Chair Date signed /01/3-8,TO Deanna Horton, Secretary