Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 04-25-19 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall April 25,2019 I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins called roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Jenny Nickerson,Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow,Senior Planner Timothy Kelley, absent-excused Karen Kendall,Planner Robert McKinley Michael Phillips,absent-excused Michelle Rasmussen, absent-excused Matt Walton Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Hearing no objections, Commissioners Kelly,Rasmussen and Phillips were excused from the meeting. IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 25, 2019 agenda as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. V. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the April 11, 2019 minutes as written. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the last few City Council meetings. Commissioner Johnson also attended the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force executive committee where they discussed considering a region wide leadership meeting. He is pleased to be a part of this team that is looking out for human rights in the area and is excited to be a part of the coming changes. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. There was no public comment. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2019-0001, a proposed text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22 and Appendix A, regarding addressing standards. Planner Karen Kendall provided a brief overview of the amendment and discussed the procedural guidelines for the proposed text amendment to SVMC Title 22 and Appendix A. Ms. Kendall explained that this meeting is to finalize the recommendation from the Commission. Following public comment at the public hearing held April 11, 2019 the Commission deliberated and voted six in favor and zero opposed to approve CTA-2019- 0001 as presented and forward a recommendation to the City Council. 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 There was no further discussion. Commissioner Walton moved to approve CTA-2019-0001 Planning Commission Findings of Fact recommendation as presented to the City Council. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed ii. Study Session: STV-2019-0001, a proposed street vacation of a portion of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Rich Avenue, and Greenacres Road in the Northeast Industrial Area. Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation to the Commission outlining the Northeast Industrial Area City Initiated Street Vacation.Ms.Barlow explained that this area is located between Flora Road and Barker Road and is South of Trent Avenue. The proposed vacations are the unimproved Right of Ways (ROW) of Tschirley Road, Long Road, Greenacres Road and Rich Avenue that connects Long Road with Greenacres Road. Ms. Barlow noted that this property is predominantly owned by one property owner. However, there is one parcel located off of Rich Avenue with a separate property owner. Mr. Barlow highlighted this being a City Initiated Street Vacation the City is working to ensure there is easement access for the property that would be affected by the vacation. Staff stated that these ROW's are not necessary as all parcels will have access off of Garland Avenue once construction is completed. Ms. Barlow provided brief background information on the Garland Avenue project that was also a City initiated proposal. The proposal is currently undergoing environmental review and is expected to begin construction soon. It should be completed by the end of 2019. Ms.Barlow continued,that there is not an application on file at this point,and it is uncertain how the properties will be reconfigured. It is anticipated that once development is considered the property owner will come forward with a Binding Site Plan (BSP) to r identify access points to the properties in the development. Commissioner Walton asked if there will be a stipulation on the property owner to continue providing access for emergency services off of Garland Avenue. Ms. Barlow spoke to the BSP review process at which time parcels would be divided up and access points would be determined prior to development occurring. Ms. Barlow added this proposal has been routed to all agencies,and the Spokane Valley Fire Department advised they would manage situations as development occurs. Commissioner Johnson asked if the access will be maintained by the City. Ms. Barlow explained that if done through the BSP it would be a private street maintained by the property owners. Garland Avenue is a public road and would be maintain by the City. Commissioner Johnson spoke about the amount of property involved and asked if there would be any monetary compensation to.the City. Ms. Barlow explained that is not being forwarded as a recommendation as this is a City initiated proposal with no expectations of reimbursement from the property owner. Ms. Barlow concluded that the current ROW may be an impediment to the future development. The City is trying to make this area more adaptable for future developments. iii. Study Session: CTA-2018-0006, a proposed code text amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapters 19.60.050, 19.65.130, 19.40.035 and Appendix A, regarding affordable housing. 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Ms. Barlow provided background information into the privately initiated Code Text Amendment (CTA) Ms. Barlow corrected the numbering error to be CTA-2018-0006 not CTA-2019-0006. Ms. Barlow advised this proposal was originally submitted in 2018, , then revised and resubmitted earlier in 2019. Ms. Barlow advised that staff had reviewed the application for environmental impact and a determination of non-significance was issued March 29, 2019. The notice of public hearing was posted in the newspaper as well as on the City's website. Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is a CTA which is not site-specific, therefore on site posting requirements do not apply. Ms. Barlow clarified procedural requirements. The Commission is conducting the study session, and the public hearing is scheduled for May 9, 2019. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission, it will be formalized in the Findings of Fact scheduled for May 23, 2019. Ms. Barlow highlighted a recent change the City Council has made to the Governance Manual. The Council will no longer take public comment on items that have had a public hearing by the Planning Commission during their review process. Ms. Barlow stressed that the opportunity for public comment will only be during the Planning Commissions public hearing. Once that hearing is closed, there will be no further opportunity for public comment. Ms. Barlow continued, the proposals intent is to allow multifamily in the residential (R-3) zone as long as it meets supplemental regulations. Ms. Barlow explained that currently multifamily is not allowed in the R-3 zone. Multifamily is only allowed in multifamily residential and both mixed use zones. Ms. Barlow continued that this proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC 19.60.050 by adding an "S" indicating multifamily could be allowed but subject to supplemental use regulations. Ms. Barlow described that this proposal would add supplemental language to SVMC 19.65.130 stating that multifamily could be allowed if it complies with Chapter 19.40 of SVMC Alternative Residential Development Options. Newly added section 19.40.035 identifies that multifamily in the R-3 zone would be allowed if specific criteria are met for applicability, site and building standards and other related agreements. Ms. Barlow continued that in order for a development to utilize this section of the code at least 51% of the units proposed must be used for affordable housing. Commissioner Johnson asked how the City would monitor that the 51% is being maintained? Ms. Barlow explained that this would be part of the agreement section. An agreement would be signed and recorded with the County, that during the lifetime of the project they would maintain 51% of the units as affordable housing units. Ms. Barlow continued that similarly during multifamily application review with affordable housing units the applicant provides evidence that the units meet an affordable housing standard. Commissioner Johnson asked what is included in affordable housing costs? Ms. Barlow stated it refers to the Federal definition that annual housing costs shall not exceed 1/3 of a families' annual income and is calculated by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Commissioner. Johnson asked if the percentage included utilities, etc., or just the direct housing cost. Ms. Barlow said she was uncertain and that she will provide that information at the next meeting. Ms. Barlow explained some of the criteria. Key criteria would require the property to be a single parcel, under single ownership. The parcel uses must include a church, school and the multifamily units all located on one parcel at least 10-20 acres in size. Ms. Barlow continued that the entire site can be used to calculate the six dwelling units per acre as the maximum density allowed in the R-3 zoning district. Currently the R-3 zone does not allow multifamily development but does allow single family development at a density of six dwelling units per acre. Ms. Barlow explained this amendment proposes to utilize the 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 entire site to calculate what could have been allowed for single family development, but then allows the units to be clustered in the form of a multifamily development.The proposal intends to maintain the density. For example, if you have a 10-acre parcel allowing six dwelling units per acre it would allow for 60 single family residential dwelling units. The proposal would allow you to develop a site that has a school and church with 60 single family dwelling units in a multifamily complex which would still maintain the density that is established within the R-3 Zone. Commissioner Walton asked how many 10-20 acre parcels are in the valley that would qualify. Ms. Barlow advised she did provide analysis in the staff report and used a query that identified a church on the property and any adjacent properties owned by same owner. Staff did find through this query that there are 75 church sites in the city and of those 75, 25 of them fit within the 10-20 acres. Only one site had a church,school,and fit the criteria. However, a site could be developed. Commissioner Walton asked how many vacant parcels meet the criteria that do not currently have a school/church combination? Ms. Barlow concluded it would be difficult to compile that information as properties could be aggregated. Ms. Barlow continued that on site the school, church and multifamily may share parking and open space to help prevent overbuilding. Commissioner Kaschmitter asked for clarification if parking can be used for open space. Ms. Barlow advised that would not be the case and explained how the City would calculate need during the review process for uses to share without building additional parking spaces. There was some additional discussion related to the intent, and that the hours of operation vary for each use with some concern of overflow street parking. Ms. Barlow mentioned the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)process would allow the opportunity to determine adequate parking and what"share "specifically means. Commission Johnson asked if staff knows of any advantage to limiting the size of this development to 20 acres, and why require both a church and a school? Ms. Barlow reminded the Commission that this is a privately initiated CTA and that during the public hearing the applicant can address questions as to what their intent may be. Ms. Barlow continued with other criteria that applies when specific circumstances exist, such as natural amenities shall be incorporated into the site, buildings, including parking structures, shall have design continuity to look as if they are part of a campus, pedestrian areas shall be delineated and protected to provide clear areas for pedestrian activity. - Ms. Barlow continued with development standards and noted that the proposal identified that it must meet residential standards in the dimensional and standards table 19.70-01, which includes building height of 35 feet, and setbacks, to maintain the surrounding character already in place. Ms.Barlow continued that the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet is not applicable. Ms. Barlow continued that the density is still applicable 6 dwelling units per acre and lot coverage of 50% or greater. However, that should not be an issue with lot sizes of 10-20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained other requirements would be agreements to ensure compliance and that the conditions will run with the land and will not transfer with the owner. The agreement would be specific to the land, and that the affordable housing component will remain for the life of the project, Lastly, Ms. Barlow concluded this would be processed as a type three permit that requires a CUP. Ms. Barlow gave an overview of the CUP process and advised the permit would be considered by the hearing examiner,requires public notice, a public hearing, and can be denied or conditioned. Ms. Barlow explained that through the Hearing Examiner process 04-25-2419 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 uses that may have unanticipated impacts could be conditioned to mitigate those impacts, or the permit could be denied completely. Mr. Walton asked for clarification how this would run with the land? Would the City put a covenant on the property moving forward? Should the 10-20-acre property have affordable housing built on one portion and later wanted to sell off the undeveloped portions of the property would they be able to do so as they utilized the 10-20 acre and max number of units. Ms. Barlow said agreements would be recorded and the site would be bound to the agreement; in theory property could be sold off it wasn't needed to meet the minimum requirements of the criteria. Commissioner Walton asked if they have 20 acres and they only use the minimum 10 acres and build 60 dwelling units could they create a secondary project within the 20 acres and use the additional 60 dwelling units available to them? Ms. Barlow explained that yes, the CUP process would allow for that. Ms. Barlow gave an example that if someone came in with a proposal of 20 acres and only proposed to build to a density that is less than max,they could come back and ask for modification to CUP. Commissioner Walton asked if they chose to use a portion of property and the dwelling units available to them which would only utilize half of the property, and sell 10 acres of the overall portion, is that locked in since they applied under the 20 acres. Ms. Barlow explained the City would have to review what the original capacity to determine if they had extra land to eliminate from the site and still meet the conditions. Ms. Barlow highlighted that if a CUP is granted that is identifying all criteria are met it is the baseline to determine what they could do moving forward. The process may require the Hearing Examiner revisit the CUP Commissioner Johnson asked how would the City know if someone decides to sell five acres. Ms. Barlow advised the criteria defines this would have to be one parcel under single ownership. The owner would have to go through segregation process in order to divide off a piece of land. The City would be involved in that process and would be aware of the underlying CUP, and the encumbrances recorded with County Auditor. Commissioner Johnson spoke to the topic of a comment made by Ann Fritzel with the Commerce Department and read a statement from her comment: "affordable housing gross density of 6 units per acre on the five-acre parcel". Commissioner Johnson provided a Birdseye view and zoning map of the only viable location that fits all of the criteria. He explained that there are five parcels that would be owned by the entity. Commissioner Johnson stated he has dealt with Catholic Charities and their hearts are always in the right place. He continued explaining that if the five parcels depicted on the map are converted to one single parcel there would not be much room left for development. He continued the three parcels on Walnut Road, the parcel facing Far Road, and on Valleyway Avenue are all somewhat developed. The only parcel remaining without development must be the five acres referenced by Ms. Fritzel. Commissioner Johnson continued that the 17 acres combined could develop 103 dwelling units on that five-acre parcel and asked if that would make this a high density development in an R-3 zone with no transitional requirements? Ms. Barlow explained that transitional regulations are not required, however a CUP would be required. Ms. Barlow continued that if it were to show impacts such as a three story building backed up to single family residence with obvious conflict some transitional regulations could be required by the Hearing Examiner. Ms. Barlow explained the development in question does have 5 pieces of property however they could aggregate and reduce the size or increase the size. She added that it is difficult not to focus on the one existing opportunity, but it is not our only focus as there is no proposal at this time. Commissioner Johnson wanted to make sure the commission is considering the worst case scenario. Should this move forward and be approved by the City Council, it does become 04-25-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 less probable that public testimony will be taken due to it already been approved. Commissioner Johnson's concern also lends to public notification and hopes the applicant contacts the neighboring properties.. Commissioner Walton asked if there is anything that would prevent the applicant from applying for a rezone to multifamily residential to meet R-3 zone criteria? Ms. Barlow explained they couldn't apply for a rezone due to land use designation. A rezone could be considered through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, however that process is only allowed on an annual basis Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on approved land use regarding cottage developments being allowed in the R-3, multifamily and both mixed use zones? Ms. Barlow explained cottage developments are allowed in those zones and at twice the underlying density of the R-3 zone. A cottage development could be proposed in the R-3 zone with up to 12 dwelling units per acre and it is required to be aggregated around the site to speak to open space requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked if that is calculated on the aggregate land and the entire parcel. Ms. Barlow stated it is assumed that it is on the entire site and only being used for cottage development. There was discussion regarding affordable housing and it was noted that there is no affordable housing component in cottage development. Commissioner McKinley asked if this proposal conflicts with the previous density related Duplex CTA proposed in the R-3 zone that the Commission voted against? Ms. Barlow explained the Duplex CTA was attempting to limit the number of duplexes that could be allowed on a per acre basis. Currently attached and detached single family development is allowed in the R-3 zone as long as you meet the minimum lot size. The previous Duplex CTA was limiting the number of duplexes developed even if the minimum lot size was met. The CTA being reviewed tonight is proposing to add a use that is not currently allowed in the R-3 zone. The only commonality is the R-3 zone component. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Johnson encouraged the Commission to bring items to share for the Good of the Order as he feels it is important. Commissioner Johnson read aloud a heartfelt statement he wrote illustrating his sentiments of pride and concerns for his hometown the City of Spokane Valley. XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. The vote on the motion was four in favor, zero opposed, and the motion passed. 111Pis ..._9-4/ 1 7 James Johnson, Chairman Date signed Ti26(di Robin Hutchins, Secretary