Loading...
Agenda 03/08/2018 S11 'ane Valle K Y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. March 8, 2018 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Feb. 08, 2018, VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Study Session: Review of Open Space requirements in Mixed Use zones. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall February 8,2018 I. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:07 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: James Johnson Cary Driskell, City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Tim Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Mike Phillips Karen Kendall,Planner Michelle Rasmussen,absent—excused Micki Harnois,Planner Suzanne Stathos Marty Palaniuk,Planner Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Commissioner Walton moved to excuse Commissioner Rasmussen from the meeting. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to accept the February 08, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the January 11,2018 minutes as presented. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Commission Walton moved to approve the January 25, 2018 minutes as presented. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against and this motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINIS I'RATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Continued Public Hearing, CTA-2017-2005, A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22, SVMC 19.60.050, SVMC 17.80.030 and Appendix A to update wireless facility regulations to address siting of small cell wireless facilities within the public rights-of-way. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated the Commission continued the hearing from January 25,2018. Mr.Lamb answered some of the questions raised at that meeting: • Can the City require a specific distance between new poles? Mr. Lamb said this was feasible.The industry suggested this could prove problematic the more people who entered the market. The industry said the distance requirement could make it difficult to find a location which worked with the technology. • Can the City require the providers to co-locate? Mr. Lamb said legally the City could require co-location however some of the utility companies do not allow it. He noted some of the technology doesn't work if there is more than one provider on the same pole • Can the City require a minimum height for equipment location? Mr. Lamb said to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the technology.A minimum height of 20 feet would not pose a problem, but a higher level, above 60-80 feet,may cause issues from a technology standpoint. • Can the City require the ground base facilities to be buried? Mr. Lamb stated legally the City could require it, although there a practical considerations. The industry provided a significant number of comments regarding how detrimental to the equipment ungrounding can be. 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 • Can the City require providers to transmit from the small cell to the macro cell via fiber? Mr. Lamb said the City cannot regulate the technology. By requiring the method of transmission,we would be regulating their technology. • There were questions regarding radiation levels, type of bandwidth, possible impacts on people.Mr.Lamb said under federal law we cannot regulate based on type of signal,which would be regulating the technology. He said these items are regulated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and as long as the equipment meets FCC criteria the City cannot regulate them. • The Commission requested crime statistics on ground based facilities. Mr. Lamb said according to the industry comments these structures do not have an impact on crime. • Could the City tax wireless facilities? Mr. Lamb said the City already has a tax on telephone/wireless. He said cities can do this under federal law, however we cannot tax the data. • Could the City require the provider to submit an engineering certification of the pole structures? Mr. Lamb said the City could require this. He said this relates to the public safety of facilities placed in the right-of-way. While the City does not have any pole standards, the utility companies do. The providers would already be supplying this information to the utility providers so it would not hurt to ask for a copy of it with the application. • Who is responsible for the cost of relocation of poles with small cell facilities on them? Mr.Lamb stated the cost of relocation is the responsibility of the party making the request. Relocation costs are the responsibility of the utility company if it a capital project. Relocations cost are the responsibility of the developer when it is a private development, • Is line of site a problem? Mr. Lamb said according to testimony at the last meeting, line of site was not an issue. He said in Spokane Valley the topography does not pose a problem because of the nature of the valley. The City does not have issues similar to downtown Seattle with all the hillsides and buildings. Industry has representatives who can provide more clarification. Mr. Lamb said staff and the Commission received comments at the last meeting from the industry providers. He has reviewed them and offered comments on some of the topics which were brought up. • The industry requested to have the undergrounding facilities requirement removed. Mr. Lamb said legally the City can require it. However,there are considerations due to the size of the vaults,vault safety and location,as pictures supplied by the vendors showed. • The industry requested removing the requirement for co-location or a minimum distance between new poles. Mr. Lamb said staff does not see an issue with those requirements. The industry commented it would hinder the last company into the market. The Commissioners expressed concern someone's house may have 3, 4 or 5 poles placed in front of it. Mr. Lamb offered that in front of city hall there is a pole on the edge of City Hall property and another existing pole 20-30 feet away. • The industry requested shortening the permit processing time from 60 to 30 days. Mr. Lamb said 60 days is required under state and federal law. The City's permit processing time is much shorter than that,however he recommends keeping 60 days. • T-Mobile requested the City allow a unified camouflage design. Mr.Lamb said this would be facility that houses both the antenna and control equipment in one enclosure. T-Mobile has suggested a unit which would not be bigger than six cubic feet. This is smaller in size than the size of the antenna and control box together. Mr.Lamb said this was a reasonable request and the Commission could consider this, however staff suggested a name change to limit confusion. • The industry requested allowing small cell facilities within city parks. Mr.Lamb said given the size of our parks and their proximity the right-of-way there is no need for a facility in the park. The City has been working to clean up the overhead in its parks. It would be inappropriate to allow small cell facilities within the boundaries of the park. 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 • The industry requested increasing the height of the electric transmissions structure from 50 to 60 feet. Mr. Lamb stated this related to the large macro-poles and he recommended not making this change. • The industry requested increasing the allowable deviation before an action is viewed as a substantial change. Mr. Lamb said this is the amount of deviation allowed before a Conditional Use Permit is required. He said the City regulations are relatively flexible and open,he would not recommend this change. Commissioner Johnson and Phillips expressed concerns regarding the requirement for private developer paying to move of the utility pole when there is a private development. Commissioner Johnson shared his fear that line of site could pose a problem when a new building is erected. Mr. Lamb said it is the responsibility the carriers to determine if their equipment was able to communicate. Vice-chair Johnson asked for public comment Joel Aro,Links Consulting for Verizon: Mr. Aro said he was addressing a couple of questions which arose. He stated there are naturally occurring gases in an underground vault. The equipment contained in the vault does not emit any kind of gas. He commented how damaged the equipment becomes if it is required to be buried. He requests the City eliminate this requirement. Commissioner Walton asked for the size of the ground cabinet Verizon uses. Mr. Aro said he did not have the specifications with him. Mr. Aro said it would be the responsibility of the carrier for making sure that they have communication with their own facilities. Commissioner Johnson confirmed Verizon prefers fiber and that extensive damage, as shown in Verizon's comment is caused by putting the equipment underground. Steven Burke, Mobilitie, Coeur d'Alene ID: Mr. Burke said he felt the legal depaitnient had done a good job with the regulations and he wanted to encourage the Planning Commission to forward them to the City Council. He stated Mobilitie has a contained antenna and control equipment in one unit. He said crime will be difficult stating that Avista and CenturyLink require equipment to be ten feet off the ground. Mr. Burke said with enough notice his company would move their own equipment. City Attorney Cary Driskell clarified how Washington state statutes regulates who pays to move a utility pole located in the right-of-way. He said under the statute if the City is doing a capital project and utility pole needs to be moved,the cost is on the utility company. It is being moved for the public benefit. The Utility Trade Commission (UTC)has imposed tariff on utility rates which pays for these moves. The UTC determined that the person making the request pays for the movement. If it is a private development,then the developer pays. Commissioner Walton asked how many sites each of the carriers present were looking to deploy, Steven Burke for Mobilitie stated they had six,Mr.Aro stated Verizon was looking at three at this time. Commissioner Stathos confirmed the equipment would be labeled for safety as required Dennis Crapo, Spokane Valley: Mr. Crapo stated he wanted the Commission to be aware of the unintended consequences of allowing more poles in the right-of-way. He said it would set a precedence,and could keep someone from being able to develop a property. Seeing no one else who wished to test, Vice-Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. Mr. Lamb suggested the Commission begin with the proposed amendments which were presented at the January 25 meeting. Then move to the proposed changes to that proposal: • the 20 foot minimum height requirement, • the facilities must be buried in the ground unless technically infeasible, 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 • not located within a certain number of feet (currently bracketed with 250 in this holding spot) of other small cell facilities unless the applicant demonstrates that no other location can accommodate or is sufficient to meet the wireless service needs, • if the provider cannot meet the 250-foot distance, then they must make an attempt to co- locate unless they demonstrate a reason why it is not possible. Mr.Lamb addressed the public comment which said that this could set a precedence. He said cities, under state and federal law, are required to allow facilities to locate within the right-of-way. The City cannot preclude them, which was the reason for the amendment. Mr. Lamb confirmed facilities can locate on private property, but it requires an agreement with that private property owner allowing a recorded easement. The Commission began deliberations of the issues which had been presented for change to the proposed amendment. Commissioners agreed to add a 250-foot distance requirement between facilities. They felt if the industry could demonstrate the problem of locating at this distance,they can change it. The Commissioners agreed to add the requirement for co-location, if it was at all feasible. The Commissioners discussed requiring a 20-foot height minimum and agreed to this addition. Then the Commissioners moved to the requirement of undergrounding the control equipment. After their discussion the Commissioners agreed to adding this language as well. There was a consensus that requiring transmission by fiber would not be added,because the City cannot regulate the technology. Commissioners agreed to adding the requirement of engineering certification for the pole. Commissioner Johnson felt parcels with a 50-foot frontage should be exempt from new poles. Commissioner Phillips said he feels the carrier should have to pay to move any utilities. Mr.Lamb said from practical standpoint he was not sure how the City would be able to enforce it. Commissioner Walton confirmed there is no public comment or noticing regarding installation of a new utility pole. Mr. Lamb asked how the Commission felt about reducing the permit processing timeline from 60-days.The Commissioners agreed to leave the 60-day time line. The Commissioners agreed to allow for a combined enclosure which might be a bit bigger than the allowable size for the antenna alone. The Commissioners agreed they did not want to allow small cell facilities in City parks. The Commissioners agreed not to change the height limitations on electrical transmission towers. The Commissioners agreed to not change the deviation standards. Mr.Lamb said the Commission should make a motion to approve the changes presented on January 25 along with the changes which were discussed tonight which include: a 250-foot separation along with the co-location requirement, a minimum height of 20-feet,retain the existing language on the ground vaults, addition of a structural engineer certification with the application, and allowing unified camouflage facility with a different term as part of those changes. Commissioner Walton moved to recommend to the City Council the proposed amendment with the changes which had been had been recorded by the Deputy City Attorney. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. Senior Planner Lori Barlow suggested changing the agenda to move the Comprehensive Plan study session ahead of the Open Space discussion due to the number of people in attendance who were interested in the topics. Commission gave consensus to proceed. ii. Study Session— 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments: Ms. Barlow presented an overview of the Comprehensive Plan process. She explained there were originally four privately initiated requests and three City initiated amendments. She explained after the docket was approved, one of the privately initiated amendments was withdrawn. One City initiated amendments was also withdrawn. After conversations with the property owner they requested the City hold off making the proposed change while they develop their plan for the property. Planner Micki Harnois explained CPA-2018-0001. The property is located approximately 300 feet east of Pines Road on Valleyway Ave. The request is the change three parcels of approximately two acres from Single Family Residential and R-3 zoning to Multifamily Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning. The site is surrounded by multifamily designation to the north and south and Corridor Mixed Use to the west of the property. There have been no comments received for this amendment. 2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 Ms. Harnois reminded the Commissioners that CPA-2018-0002 had been withdrawn by the property owner. Planner Marty Palaniuk explained CPA-2018-0003 is located at Bowdish and Sands Roads. The request is to change the Single Family designation and R-2 zoning to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CMU designation located across the railroad tracks and Dishman Mica Road. He said the lot was created after a subdivision of the property in 2010,which divided the property for several single family lots on the south side of the original lot. This lot was created as a drainage easement which has been dedicated to the City. The property is surrounded on three sides by a single family residential and the railroad tracks to the north. The property borders Chester Creek, is located in a floodplain, has a Type F stream, a biologist has reported there are no wetlands on the site. Commissioner Walton asked if the property would have been allowed to be divided if the drainage easement had not been a part of it. Mr. Palaniuk stated he would have to defer to engineers an answer. Mr.Palaniuk stated the Commissioners already had any comment which was provided up to the time of mailing the packet. Any comments received since then had been provided to the Commissioners that evening. Mr. Palaniuk discussed CPA-2018-0004 is located at the corner of 7th Avenue and University Road. The request is to change the designation from Single Family Residential and R-3 zoning to Neighborhood Commercial. He explained the subject parcel abutted another property owned by the same property owner, which was changed to Neighborhood Commercial during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Palaniuk said the property was surrounded on other sides by single family. The site is bordered by University Road which is a minor arterial. Mr. Palaniuk said the Commissioners had any comments staff have received. Planner Karen Kendall was beginning her discussion of CPA-2018-0005,when Commissioner Phillips recused himself regarding this amendment, and left the council chambers. The City initiated amendments are both correcting mapping errors. The property for CPA-2018-0005 is located at the corner of Progress and Forker Road. The parcels are split between Neighborhood Commercial and Single Family Residential. The amendment is to designate the north and east edge of one parcel as Neighborhood Commercial and another along the BPA easement. Commissioner Stathos commented the area could not handle any more traffic if it was developed. Ms. Kendall explained the change proposed for CPA-2018-0006. The property is located on Trent Avenue approximately one and one half mile east of Sullivan. The parcel is developed and there is a stonnwater swale along the 15 feet to be rezoned. The parcel is split zoned with the 15 feet on the east side of this parcel is zoned Single Family Residential while the rest is Industrial Mixed Use. The proposed change is to zone the easterly side Industrial Mixed Use. The next step is the public hearing which is scheduled for February 22,2018. iii. Study Session,Open Space requirements in Mixed Use zones. The Commission agreed to postpone the discussion of open space requirements to another meeting. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor, the motion passed. -100 Michelle Rasmussen,Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: March 8, 2018 Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business Fl new business n public hearing n information Fl admin. Report n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: N/A AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Admin Report - Open Space Requirement for Residential Projects in Mixed Use Zones DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: N/A GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.70.050(g) BACKGROUND: (Note: The item was deferred at the January 25th and February 8th meeting due to the unanticipated length of the meetings. No changes have been made to the information provided for discussion.) SVMC 19.70.050(g) stipulates that residential projects with more than 10 units located in mixed use zones must provide open space at a rate of 210 square feet per unit with specific exceptions noted in the SVMC. The requirement has been present in the City's development regulations since the adoption of the City's Development Regulations in 2007 by Ordinance#07-015. The text associated with the code remained essentially the same with the 2016 update of the Development Regulations. Councilman Wood had requested this code section be discussed, and the Council discussed the regulation on December 19, 2017. Council members expressed concerns regarding requiring open space and conversely not requiring open space. After discussion, the Council directed staff to review the regulation with the Planning Commission. At this time the Planning Commission should discuss the merits of the regulation and determine if a change is appropriate. Staff will present an overview of SVMC 19.70.050(g) for discussion. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. SVMC 19.70.050 2. Presentation RPCA SVMC 19.70.050(g)Discussion Page 1 of 1 19.70.050 Additional standards. A. Structure intrusions into setbacks are prohibited except: 1.The ordinary projections of window sills,belt courses,cornices,and other architectural features projecting not more than 12 inches and roof eaves projecting not more than 24 inches. 2.Minor features of a structure,such as chimneys,fire escapes,bay windows no more than 12 feet long and which cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure,uncovered stairways,wheelchair ramps,and uncovered decks or balconies,may extend into a required setback up to 20 percent of the depth of the setback. However,these features may not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback is required. 3.Attached mechanical equipment such as heat pumps,air conditioners,emergency generators,and water pumps are allowed to project not more than 24 inches into the side or rear setback only. 4.Fences that meet the requirements set forth in SVMC 22.70.020. 5.Walkways and driveways,including parking in the driveway,are allowed in the front yard setback of R-1,R- 2,and R-3 zones only. 6.Canopies,marquees,awnings,and similar features in mixed-use or nonresidential zones may fully extend into a front yard setback subject to the requirements of SVMC Title 24. B. Supporting member of any garage,carport,portable carport,or other automobile storage structure shall not be located within the required front yard. C.Accessory structures shall not be erected within five feet of any rear or side property line,or be located within the front yard or any public or private easement. D. Where applicable,structures shall not be erected to a height in excess of that permitted by SVMC 19.110.030, Airport hazard overlay. E.In R-1,R-2,and R-3 zones,cooling towers,roof gables,chimneys,and vent stacks may extend for an additional height,not to exceed 40 feet,above the average finished grade of the building.Water stand pipes and tanks,church steeples,domes and spires,and school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected to exceed maximum height requirements;provided,that one additional foot shall be added to the width and depth of front,side,and rear yards for each foot that such structures exceed the required height. F.Open space required pursuant to Table 19.70-1 shall be accessible to all residential units and shall be suitable for active and passive recreational purposes,subject to the following: 1.The required open space area shall not include required yards,parking areas,required landscaped areas, stormwater facilities,or required spacing between structures; 2.The amount of open space may be reduced by up to 25 percent where at least two of the following amenities are provided: a.Play or sports courts; b.Playgrounds with equipment; c.Trails or pedestrian walkways not required for access to residential units or parking areas; d. Swimming pools; e.Gazebos;or f.Clubhouses; 3.The required open space shall not be reduced by more than 50 percent. Attachment A—SVMC 19.70.050 Additional Standards G.In mixed-use zoning districts,projects with residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space per dwelling unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.70.050(F)and eligible for reduction for improvements on the same basis;provided,that: 1.The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units; 2.Additional open space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park; and 3.A fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed for the development of public parks and open spaces to meet the needs of the residents of the mixed-use zoning districts.Council will determine this assessment and review it on an annual basis. H.Residential development in nonresidential zones shall comply with the density and dimensional standards of the MFR zone in Table 19.70-1,except single-family development in the NC zone,which shall comply with the density and dimensional standards of the adjacent single-family residential zone.Where the NC zone abuts multiple single- family residential zones,the zone with the higher density shall apply.Where there are no single-family residential adjacencies to the NC zone,the density and dimensional standards of the R-2 zone shall apply. I.New development exceeding three stories in height shall be served by paved service lanes that are at least 16 feet in width. J.The following design standards apply to all outdoor lighting in residential zones: 1.All new development shall provide lighting within parking lots,along pedestrian walkways,and accessible routes of travel. 2.Lighting fixtures shall be limited to heights of no more than 24 feet for parking lots and no more than 16 feet for pedestrian walkways. 3.All lighting shall be shielded from producing off-site glare,either through exterior shields or through optical design inside the fixture,and shall not emit light above 90 degrees. 4. Street lighting installed by the City or other public utilities is exempt from SVMC 19.70.050(J). K.Principal or accessory structures shall not be located within the clearview triangle pursuant to Chapter 22.70 SVMC.(Ord. 16-018 §6(Att.B),2016). Attachment A—SVMC 19.70.050 Additional Standards 3/1/2018 Planning Commission Meeting March 8, 2018 Overview of SVMC 19.70.050(G)Open Space Requirement in Mixed Use Zone Administrative Report City Council Direction ❑ Council discussion (Study Session-Dec.19,2017) o Direction •Send to PC for review and recommendation o Concerns: •Open space unnecessary versus necessary •Disadvantages the property in Mixed Use Zones that are required to provide open space Open Space Requirement Background Info ❑ Open space requirement in 11110 Mixed Use Zone since 2007 D Essentially same language Wit`" ❑ A fee in lieu of land 3 dedication —never utilized -- •n 1 3/1/2018 Open Space Requirement (SVMC 19.70.050(G)-Current Regulation) In mixed-use zoning districts,projects with residential components shall provide 210 s.f.of open space per dwelling unit...conforming to ...SVMC 19.70.050(F)and eligible for reduction...provided,that: 1.The requirement does not apply to development of less than 10 new dwelling units; 2....does not apply to residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park;and 3.A fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed for the development of public parks and open spaces to meet the needs of the residents of the mixed-use zoning districts.Council will determine this assessment and review it on an annual basis. COSV — Permitted Use Chart Zones that Oven ave Permit "fid U.* C ,.alis Indwhb1 sem• Residential �0101��©0®U®0® Uses ��L000��„� 000000v ii0000i I fI Where does thew1, regulation r .,-e_.- Mjxed Use UIr UMWI and MIL — Corrjdor Mixed Use (CMU) Zones I 2 3/1/2018 What types of uses trigger the requirement? 0 Uses that trigger it: Uses that DO NOT trigger it. Multi-family residential ❑ Single family (> 10 units) development Mixed Use buildings ❑ Mixed use or Multi (Commercial and family projects with residential mix— > than <10 residential units 10 units) Exceptions to the open space : ,., i requirement • MU and CMU h=. big zoned sites IOW_ that lie within 1300' L-(1.,-n ' - - of public [��� parks and X w- trails Exceptions to the open space requirement • A fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed by Council for parks development in MU zones. • When could the fee in lieu be used? In settings where residential development with > 10 units is farther than 1 300 feet from a public park and the site is constrained 3 3/1/2018 Comparison to Other Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Standard Comment Spokane 210 sf per Applies to projects with 10 or Valley unit more units City of Not required Mixed Use Zones are near Spokane public open space Spokane Not required FAR increases allowed if County amenities are provided Liberty Applies to projects with 4 or Lake 20%of site more units;additional private space requirements apply Next Steps ❑ Discuss the merits of the regulation ❑ Determine if: Regulation should Regulation should Regulation should remain as is. be modified be deleted • Forward • Provide direction • Provide direction recommendation to staff to to staff to Council develop draft • Begin CTA • Begin CTA process process 4