Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 03-08-18 Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall March 8,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant,Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter, Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Michelle Rasmussen Jenny Nickerson, Assistant Building Official Mike Phillips Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission Tim Kelley,was absent,was excused and entered Mary Moore, Office Assistant meeting at 6:43 pm. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the March 8,2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. III. MINUTES:Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the February 8,2018 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Lori Barlow, Senior. Planner, shared the appeal to of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA-2018-0003, is scheduled for March 15,2018 at 9:00 a.m. The staff report has been forwarded to hearing examiner if there was an interest in reviewing it. The city of Spokane Hearing Examiner will review this case in order to avoid a conflict of interest. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session—Open Space Requirements for Residential Projects in Mixed Use Zones: Sr. Planner, Lori Barlow gave the Commission a presentation regarding the open space requirements for residential projects in mixed use zones. She explained the council requested the Planning Commission review this requirement and provide a recommendation to Council. Ms. Barlow explained the code requirements. In mixed use zones there is an open space requirement for mixed use and multifamily residential projects,with certain exceptions. This requirement has been in the code since 2007. The regulation,Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.70.050(G),is any development in a mixed used zoning district with 10 or more residential units is to provide 210 square feet per unit with specific exceptions: • If the project is less than 10 dwelling units. • If project location is within 1,300 feet from public parks or public trails. A developer may request a fee in lieu of land designation to be accessed rather than having open space. Council has the authority to determine what this assessment is and review it on an annual basis. Ms. Barlow continued with background which included: • Multifamily is only allowed in Multifamily Residential zones and mixed use zones. • The locations of Mixed use zones. • Any development of 10 or more residential units being proposed in these mixed zones would require open space to be provided. 2018-03-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 • Single Family Residential does not trigger this requirement. • If a proposal is located within 1,300 feet from public parks or trails then it is not required to provide open space since access to alternative open space is close by. • Ninety percent of the City's mixed use zoned lands lie within 1,300 feet of a public park or trail primarily because of the proximity to the Centennial Trail. It is estimated over half of the Corridor Mixed Use zones lands properties lie within 1,300 feet of public parks or trails. This is primarily because the Appleway Trail runs east from University Road and once constructed will extend to Liberty Lake. Commissioner Johnson confirmed projects along Flora Road between Broadway and Mission would qualify for the exemption because part of the project was within the 1,300 foot distance of a public park,then those projects are not required to provide open space. Ms.Barlow discussed when a developer could request a fee in lieu of providing open space.The SVMC infers the City Council could determine a public project in a mixed use zone could request a contribution instead of providing open space. This caused concern to this council. This regulation has never been used, it is unclear what the City would do if the exception were requested. A comparison in the neighboring jurisdictions found that Spokane and Spokane County do not require any open space for residential projects within their mixed use zones. However, Spokane County incentivizes the development to provide different amenities by offering a density increase if various amenities are provided.Liberty Lake does require open space for every project in their mixed use zones that has four or more residential units. Their minimum open space requirement is 20% of the site. They also have private open space requirements for ground level balconies or patios. Planning Commission has been directed to discuss the regulation and send a recommendation to the City Council either to leaving it as is,modify it or deleted it. Commissioner Phillips confirmed the definition of`unit' meant dwelling unit as it is in the Appendix A of the SVMC and the regulation does not apply to single family residential projects. Commissioner Phillips stated he was concerned about what happens to the 210 square feet per unit,what is considered open space and who maintains it? Ms. Barlow responded that the open space requirement is the same as that of an apartment complex. Open space that is required to be on site is not public open space. It is open space that is private for that building. Commissioner Phillips asked does this open space have to be green or can it be asphalt? Can it be a secondary parking lot for the apartment complex or grass or a playground? Ms. Barlow explained SVMC 19.070.050 identifies what can and can't be used as open space,but generally it shall be accessible to all residential units and suitable for active and passive recreational purposes. Commissioner Walton confirmed the regulation allows for an extra 25% reduction if providing extra amenities. For example two swimming pools, a gazebo and a clubhouse. Commissioner Walton asked how the 210 square feet of open space of per dwelling was arrived at. Ms. Barlow responded it has been in the code since 2006 but she would try and research an answer. Commissioner Walton asked do we know how many of these are mixed use or commercial mixed use areas that are within that 1,300 square feet of public parks that have accessible sidewalks. Ms. Barlow responded when a proposal is brought in front of us for a multi-family project there would be improvements that would be required. Commissioner Walton asked if we are giving an exemption for developments within 1,300 square feet of a public park or trail and they put a sidewalk in and the sidewalk goes nowhere and doesn't link up within that 1,300 square feet to the park does it serve a purpose in getting people that '/a of a mile to that destination?Ms.Barlow responded this code only speaks to providing the requirement to provide open space on the site for the projects that are being proposed.This doesn't exempt them from providing frontage improvements that are related to their project. Those are two separate issues. Commissioner Johnson asked if rooftop improvements considered open space. Ms. Barlow responded if they designed the rooftop to satisfy the intent, it would apply on a case by case basis. Further discussion regarding the intent for not requiring open space in mixed use zones continued. The intent behind mixed use zones is having a more livable environment with pedestrian oriented environment. Commissioner Johnson, asked how would the City come up with for an appropriate fee? Ms Barlow responded parks would identify future parks projects,develop costs and define a service area. It would 2018-03-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 not be started with us. Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb stated RCW 82.02.020 also proscribes how this is handled. The city went through a citywide park planning process to establish park needs and developed a fee per dwelling basis. Commissioner Phillips confirmed if this regulation were eliminated an apartment complex proposed in a mixed use zone would not be required to provide open space. Commissioner Phillips asked what the open space requirement is in the Multifamily zone versus the mixed use zones,Ms.Barlow responded a multifamily project in the Multifamily Residential zone must provide open space equal to 10% of gross project area. The open space must be suitable for active or passive recreation and cannot be used for parking, setbacks or stormwater, etc. If the project was 10 acres,then 1 acre would be required to be open space.However,if a pool and a gazebo were constructed as part of the project this requirement could be reduced to 75% of an acre. Commissioner Phillips calculated that the 10% of total area based on the density results in approximately 210 square feet per unit that is applied in the mixed use zones. Ms. Barlow stated that intent appears to be to equalize the requirement in the mixed use and multifamily zone. Ms. Barlow suggested that the Planning Commission look at whether or not the requirement is appropriate in a zone where it is not predominantly focused on providing land for residential uses. Is it appropriate to require a project to provide the same amount of open space as for a multifamily residential project in lands that are designated for residential use? The residential uses in the mixed use zones are intended to be higher density uses. Commissioner Walton wanted to know the number of applications or units that would meet the 210 square foot/10 new dwelling units or more in the mixed use areas. Ms.Barlow replied she could bring back some information regarding how many projects have used regulation. She said even though a project might be proposed in a mixed use zone,they might fall into a criteria where they don't have to provide open space,there is nothing that prevents them from providing it. If the project is large enough they would have to have some amenities in order to make it marketable. Chair Rasmussen asked if we don't have a process in place to assign a fee, then why we have the regulation. Mr. Lamb replied there was a significant amount of case law regarding fees in lieu of dedication in early 2000's,and he offered to provide more information. Ms.Rasmussen clarified if this requirement was removed it could also be brought back at a later date. . Mr. Lamb suggested the Planning Commission could open the subject up for public comment if they so desired to gather responses from industry partners and the public at the next meeting. He noted if the Commission then considered a code text amendment, there would be a formal public hearing involved in the process. There was consensus among the Commissioners to have public input. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:54 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. 11111111111he' 61,/ W.C7t,4(5 Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed 4?-10)k-) Deanna Horton, Secretary