Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 01-24-19 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers--City Hall January 24, 2019 I. Chair Walton called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson, absent-excused Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Timothy Kelley Robert McKinley Michael Phillips, absent - excused Michelle Rasmussen Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Hearing no objections,Commissioners Johnson and Phillips were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the January 24, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the meeting minutes from January 10,'2019 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed. VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had nothing to report. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. Bob West, 1917 E Indiana Avenue: Mr.West spoke on the topic of building and development in the City and how extensive it has become. He feels as though the City's neighborhoods are losing their integrity. Mr. West went on to explain that he understands building is important and is good for the vitality of the City, however he expressed that the citizens of the valley have a lot of questions. Mr. West suggested implementing a dialog forum with members of the community to include members of the Planning Commission, Home Owners Association or a City Council member to answer specifics questions the community might have. Mr. West also suggested employing an ombudsman for the City to help answer and direct the citizens with any questions they might have. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS i. Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0005, a privately initiated amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.050, 19.40.060 and 19.60.050, proposing changes to duplex and townhome development standards. Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained to the Planning Commission the proposed privately initiated amendment would modify SVMC 19.40.050, Development Standards — Cottage 2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8 Development, 19.40.060, Development Standards — Duplexes and 19.60.050, Permitted Use Matrix. Ms. Barlow gave a presentation detailing the proposed amendment process and explained that staff has reviewed the application for environmental impact. A determination of non-significance was issued on December 28, 2018 and notice of public hearing was mailed on January 4, 2019. Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is not site specific and has broad implications to every property that would fall within the R-3 zoning district, therefore site-specific notification requirements did not apply. In this case, notifications were published in the newspaper and posted on the City's website and at various locations throughout the City. This was to give a reasonable opportunity of awareness that the amendment was being considered. Ms. Barlow continued that the Commission conducted a study session of this proposal January 10, 2019. Ms. Barlow added that the purpose of the public hearing is to consider public comment,ultimately resulting in a recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council for consideration through their review process, which would include public comment. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it would be formalized in the Findings of Fact and that date is yet to be determined. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposal's intent is to modify the regulations applicable to duplexes, cottage developments and townhomes in the R-3 zoning district only, and will affect three sections of the City's municipal code. Ms. Barlow described that this amendment will add additional supplemental use language for both duplexes and cottage developments and will remove townhomes as a permitted use in the R-3 zone. Ms. Barlow continued that this proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19.60.050 by changing Duplex in R-3 from a P (permitted) to an S indicating"additional" supplemental use regulations. This proposal would also change the Townhome matrix by deleting the S, subject to supplemental use regulations, indicating the use would be prohibited entirely in the R-3 zone. Ms. Barlow summarized that the current language for duplexes SVMC 19.40.060 defines that duplexes meet minimum lot sizes per unit, setback standards, maximum lot coverage and building height standards per Table 19.70-1. Ms. Barlow added that this proposal contained three significant components. The first component is in SVMC 19.40.060 is `Duplexes should be limited to one duplex per acre.' Ms. Barlow noted that this language is not suggesting that each duplex have a one-acre lot but rather suggests that duplexes only be allowed at a density of one duplex per acre. The second component is in SVMC 19.40.050 is, 'Duplexes shall have separate parcel numbers per each dwelling unit.' Staff believes the intent is to allow each unit to be sold separately. The third component is to SVMC 19.40.060 is `Duplexes have to be non-adjacent, have to be across the street from or on opposite corners. ' Ms.Barlow explained that this would ultimately prevent duplexes from being located near each other in a development if more than one is permitted. Ms. Barlow illustrated that Table 19.70-1 indicates the density and dimensional standards in the R-3 zones, which include front, side and rear yard setbacks with the maximum density of six dwelling units per acre and a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Pursuant to the code duplexes, which have two dwelling units, are required to have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Ms. Barlow stated the existing regulations for cottage developments in SVMC 19.40.050 requires a variety of conditions that include design features and architectural standards, open space requirements, etc. Ms. Barlow advised this amendment proposes to add a one- line statement to SVMC 19.40.050 (C) Other: In-whole purchase of any development by one entity in the R-3 zone is prohibited.' Ms. Barlow stated staff's interpretation of the proposal is to prevent the development of 100% rental communities. In order to meet the 2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8 requirements of this proposal, there would have to be more than one developer at any one point in time, either during development or once developed. In conclusion, Ms. Barlow stated staff has concerns regarding the proposal. Staff reviewed the proposal in considerable detail. If adopted the proposal would reduce the number of duplexes that could be constructed, in turn reducing available affordable housing units and alternative housing types. Ms. Barlow added it was unclear how this could affect development rights. She said it is uncertain how difficult this could be to implement, as there are a variety of legal considerations. She stated that ultimately through review and analysis it staff concluded that the proposal was not consistent with the Goals and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Barlow highlighted procedural recommendations and urged the Commission to consider the public comments provided. Ms. Barlow added that if a recommendation of approval is desired, staff requests the Planning Commissioners provide specific direction as to how to rewrite the proposal making it implementable to alleviate staff's concerns. Chair Walton asked the Commission if they had any questions, hearing none the public hearing was opened at 6:27 PM. Commissioner Walton asked Ms. Horton to read the rules of the public hearing. Peter Miller, 18214 E Mission Avenue: Ms. Miller provided the Commissioners with a packet for review. Ms. Miller explained that she had given her testimony on January 10' 2019, and this testimony was for clarification on the matter. Ms. Miller went on to explain that the Valley Herald had an article regarding lessening the density per acre and this proposal is to lessen the density of complete duplex developments in the R-3 zone. Ms. Miller added that this proposal does not change the density or effect the Growth Management Act at all. Ms. Miller stated that there were some items in the presentation that she would like to correct. Ms.Miller advised that: NO, the applicants do not want duplexes across the street from each other. NO, they do not want duplexes on opposite corners or adjacent to one another. YES,their proposal does prohibit 100%duplex development in the R-3 zone. Ms. Miller continued that YES,the intent was that each side of the duplex have separate parcel numbers. She explained the intent was to allow a responsible homeowner to protect their property from excess rentals. Ms. Miller stated they would like to see duplexes spread-out throughout the developments or moved to multifamily zones where they belong. Ms. Miller stated she felt public notices should state a property is being developed into duplexes, not as single family homes. She stated this is why neighbors don't know what's being built, and why they are angry about it., The notice will state how many residential lots. She continued her argument by asking, is a residential home single family or is it a duplex? Ms. Miller continued that the notices in the Valley Herald state lots larger than 10,000 square feet will allow single family homes. The citizens are tasked with researching to find out if the developments are duplexes or not. Ms. Miller argued that is not neighborhood character. Ms. Miller stated that two of duplex developments she in her area have been purchased by out of state investors, which is disheartening and makes everyone angry. Ms. Miller hopes that the Planning Commission sees fit to recommend the changes or some version thereof. Ms. Miller concluded she felt the recommendation should include a moratorium until these issues can be mitigated and the City Council can make a responsible decision. William McDonald, 17412 E Mission Avenue: Mr. McDonald stated that three or four year ago there were a dozen duplexes built near his property. They are tightly packed.Each has four vehicles per duplex and 12 duplexes means 48 cars in a two-block space. Mr. 2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8 McDonald added that in his neighborhood there are apartment complexes and thousands rental units west of Flora on Indiana. With these apartments and duplexes, traffic has increased exponentially and has created an unreasonable population to square mile density in the area. Mr. McDonald stated that adding new rental duplexes to owner occupied properties will continue to decrease property value and increase population density and will further exacerbate the traffic flow. Mr. McDonald related some incidents that have occurred on his property since the duplexes were built such as, children shooting at his horses with pellet guns and bikes thrown into his pasture. Mr. McDonald stated in addition to the duplexes reducing property values this is in direct conflict with the City's increase property taxes. Mr, McDonald continued that every year the City increases his property value and his taxes even though the real story is his property value is going down due to the abundance of duplexes around him. Mr. McDonald added that these duplexes may be kept up for a few years but will eventually deteriorate due to lack of care and maintenance and occupant indifference as people that own the land care about the Iand. Barb Howard, City of Spokane Valley: Ms. Howard asked what happened to the integrity of the valley. Ms. Howard asked that the Commissioners take a drive around in her neighborhood or on East Ridge. She went on to say that all of the homes on East Ridge are duplexes where the land was once agricultural. Ms. Howard argued that duplexes are not single family and that a single family home is a standalone home build for one family. She said the definition of multifamily is multiple units owned by one or more parties. Ms. Howard stated that no one is notified of short plats and people have to find out in the paper, complaining that staff has explained to her that there are noticing requirements for short plats, She explained that she understands the Commissioners are volunteers and asked them again to drive around. She added that there are traffic problems if there are train accidents due to the congestion. Ms. Howard ended by asking for an explanation how Son Rise Mobile Home Estates can be one part industrial and in the middle be multifamily? Bob West, 1917 E Indiana Avenue: Mr. West thanked the Commissioners for the work they do adding that they have a thankless job as it's tough deciphering codes and educating the public and that he greatly appreciates their work. Mr. West thanked Senior Planner Lori Barlow and Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb for the information put together as the brief presentation given was educational. Mr. West stated for the sake of transparency to expand communication as part of recommendations and again suggested an open forum to explain the implications of this amendment and to answer questions from the community. Mr. West felt it would ease tension by giving the community a chance to interface with the Commission and would be appreciated. Barb Howard, City of Spokane Valley: Ms. Howard expressed that she keeps hearing about affordable housing and it infuriates her. Ms. Howard stated her mortgage payment is $318.00 a month. She continued that she sees rentals advertised for $1,700.00 a month to include first and last month's rent, cleaning and pet deposits. Ms. Howard argued that is a down payment on a house. John Patrouch, 18009 E Riverway Avenue: Mr. Patrouch commented on how well done the staff report was and thanked Senior Planner Lori Barlow for her work. Mr. Patrouch addressed the number of duplexes frequently noted at public meetings adding that common statements are decreased property value, damage to existing neighborhood character, and general impact of the increasing number of rentals. Mr.Patrouch stated he has experienced some issues himself on his property with a motorcyclist, and homeless groups that had to be evacuated, clarifying that before the apartments were build he didn't have any of these issues. Mr. Patrouch continued that the City has eliminated open space and has increased 2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8 density of developments making no room for people to play and he is seeing an impact in his area. The neighborhood feels strongly that single-family homeownership is important and City policies on housing and open space requirements do not maintain the character of our neighborhoods. Mr. Patrouch articulated his view of the proposed amendment by North Greenacres as eliminating the rental areas in a single-family housing zone. Mr. Patrouch stated he works with a number of young individuals that are having a hard time affording housing. He expressed there has to be a way to reduce the entry-level costs into the market but does not feel adding rental duplexes as the solution. Mr. Patrouch stated he is in support of regulations that limit rentals in single-family residential zones and suggested that implementing another zoning category would be more appropriate or splitting up the R-3 zones to help protect single-family homes. Mr. Patrouch discussed the Comprehensive Plan and its language regarding maintaining a strong quality of life, enhancing local identity, developing unique neighborhood character, encourage small business to include mixed used and greater density of housing in certain areas and that the quality must be preserved. Mr. Patrouch agrees this to be true and feels that this is a community problem that needs to be resolved. Pete Miller, 18124 E Mission Avenue: Ms. Miller advised she missed information regarding cottage developments SVMC 19.40.50. Ms. Miller added that this amendment was not intended to prohibit a single developer from purchasing the property. Ms. Miller stated the purpose was to prevent a single purchaser as in Spokane Plex from buying the whole property for rental purposes. Ms. Miller added that there are options like moving the duplexes to multifamily. Ms. Miller added that if someone purchases property in the R-3 zone for development,they need to give site-specific notice so everyone knows exactly what is going on. Vadim Smelik, 15011 E Mission Avenue: Mr. Smelik advised he would like to provide perspective from a different generation. Mr. Smelik asked the Commission to look at the adverse effect the changes would have on lower or median income homebuyers, or individuals looking for a place to live as this change reduced availability. Mr. Smelik stated reducing the number of units would effect developers, purchasers and those trying to move to Spokane from California or out of state who need a place to live but cannot afford a home right away. Mr. Smelik stated reducing the number of unit's available increases the prices. He also argued that housing prices are not falling. He works in real estate and he has only seen prices rise in the last five years. Mr. Smelik added that these zoning changes feel like isolationists or individuals that do not want infill, or certain type of income or individuals moving in near them. Mr. Smelik stated Spokane Valley is growing and his generation wants affordable housing and different housing types from which to choose. Mr. Smelik advised there are multitudes of individuals that do not want to own a home because they see no financial benefit, property taxes, interest paid or unforeseen maintenance issues. Spokane Home Builders Association: Commission Secretary Deanna Horton stated for the record, that each commission member received a copy of a letter from the Spokane Home Builders Association. Ms.Horton explained this letter describes their opinion of the proposal and includes all backup documentation for consideration. Chair Walton asked for any objections from the commission, hearing none it was approved. Bill McDonald, City of Spokane Valley: Mr. McDonald added that individuals coming from California are not going to have difficulty affording housing here. Mr. McDonald spoke about an article in the Spokesmen regarding the over building in Seattle with an 2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8 overabundance of rental properties that is driving the rental prices. Mr. McDonald continued if the City keeps building the way it is, we will have the same problem. Commissioner Walton asked for any further public comment and heard none. Commissioner Walton closed public testimony at 6:59 p.m. Commissioner Kelly asked Ms. Barlow if there are numbers of expected new residents moving into the City, he was aware the City of Spokane is expecting 2,000 new residents. Ms. Barlow advised the City does not have those totals. Ms. Barlow explained that staff relies on the Comprehensive Plan population forecast which is based on formulas stemmed from population allocations from the Spokane County. Ms. Barlow believed the City's forecasted population increase is around 14, 000 people for the 20-year planning period. Ms. Barlow continued that staff uses this number when they forecast how much land needs to be preserved for residential development and further utilizes the census population per household to determine capacity. Commissioner Kelley asked if the City has employment numbers for any of the new industrial complexes coming to the City to help determine the growth and the answer was no. Ms. Barlow advised that the Economic Development division routinely keeps a record of anticipated projects. Commissioner Kelley asked if staff could fmd the number of expected employees from those anticipated employers. Ms. Barlow advised she would consult with Economic Development to determine what they might have. Commissioner Rasmussen advised she would like additional information regarding the projections for housing due to density issues and Growth Management Act implications. Commissioner Rasmussen asked Ms. Barlow if there is a way of determining what impact there would be to the Comprehensive Plan necessitating housing diversity if changing the R-3 zone and reducing the number of lots were implemented. Ms. Barlow answered, in short, that there would be no impact. Ms. Barlow continued with an explanation that the City's minimum lot size for single-family residences is the same for the individual units within a duplex. Ms. Barlow gave an example that if an individual met the minimum standards allowed and built two single-family homes they could do so on two 5,000 square foot lots, which would equal 10,000 square feet. Likewise, if they wanted to build one duplex the minimum lot size would be 10,000 square feet and this would have no impact on the land capacity analysis. Ms. Barlow continued with, the assumption is that the development community would not absorb any extra land,instead of having three duplexes they would have one duplex equaling two units and would in turn be building four single family homes, the density would be maxed out. Ms. Barlow gave examples on how other jurisdictions allow duplexes based on smaller minimum lot sizes. Ms. Barlow spoke about the effects on density, if this were to change it would not allow someone to develop all of the lots to the minimum standards. It forces the developer to develop some lots larger than the 5,000 square foot minimum in order to meet the density. Ms. Barlow stated that in conclusion, lots would be developed uniformly as single family and would not affect our land use capacity in terms of meeting our population projections during this planning period. Commissioner Walton asked what the implications would be to converting single family homes to duplexes. Secondly, he asked if the City tracks the number of privately owned homes verses rental properties as derived from public comment it appeared that one type of housing unit leans toward home ownership than it does rental properties. Ms. Barlow explained that the City does not have rental verses privately owned data available. Ms. Barlow applauded the applicants for banding together and writing the amendment in detail. Ms. Barlow suggested that if the Planning Commission finds merit 2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8 in the proposal there would be work to be done because at this point it is unclear how to implement the intent and/or a regulation regarding redeveloping or dividing a home. Commissioner Walton asked how would this regulation require transfer giving an example that if a developer purchased a plot of land intending to build cottages and wanted to retain ownership of the development and eventually want to rent it. How would the City enforce the sale or "taking of land"? Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb explained that City's code provides for enforcement of any violation of any development code. As in any case, there would have to be an administrative determination that there was a violation. This proposal does not spell out what needs to happen, other than one-half of a duplex would need to change ownership in order to come into compliance with the law. Mr. Lamb added that the proposed language concerns highlighted by Ms. Barlow, and acknowledged by the applicant during public testimony,would need to be modified to better align with the intent if there is a desire to move forward. Mr. Lamb cautioned the Commissioners that there have been cases throughout the United States identifying concerns with regulations based on personal status rather than land use impacts. He continued there could be potential issues due to a clause in both the Washington State and US Constitution that protect against arbitrary decisions or unreasonable regulations. Commissioner Walton stated there is enough uncertainty and interest due to interpretation and testimony to have a second look, he would appreciate additional time and input from staff. Commissioner McKinley asked for some guidance on how to clarify the language to make this more implementable and enforceable. Mr.Lamb suggested the Commission deliberate and arrive at a decision regarding ideas they agree or disagree with in order to reach a concept. Mr. Lamb advised the Commission consider the information from the applicant and from public testimony. If the Commission decided to move the proposal forward, once a concept were determined, staff would be better served assisting with recommendations with the direction of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Rasmussen moved to continue the public hearing to the next meeting for further input. Commissioner Rasmussen added it would be beneficial to have additional commissioners input. The Commission was reminded the motion needed to be date specific. Commissioner Rasmussen amended the motion to continue the public hearing to a date specific February 14, 2019, there no discussion. The vote on the amendment was five in favor zero opposed, the amendment passed. The vote on the amended motion was five in favor, zero against and the amended motion passed. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kaschmitter thanked the public for their comments. Commissioner McKinley thanked the public for their comments and thanked Pete Miller for her work on the proposal and comments. Commissioner Walton thanked the public for their input. He encouraged those in attendance to sign up for the email distribution lists for the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. He noted this is your voice; we are your deliberative body,which makes recommendations to the City Council.He added it is important to let their voice be heard, whether the Planning Commission makes a recommendation or the City Council takes an action, such as eliminating green space requirements in some of the zones for further development. Commissioner Walton described that was a close vote, four in favor and three opposed and let the council know if something doesn't agree with what you are looking for. That is how we communicate as a public. That is the only way we know that we are upholding your views and opinions. 2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8 XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:26 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. 4. I Cad- I' L(/ 20 Matt Walton,Vice-Chair Date signed Robin Hutchins, Secretary