Loading...
2007, 08-13 Special Meeting MinutesAttendance. Councilmembers: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Uniform Development Code Discussion Monday, August 13, 2007 Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and announced this is a discussion of the Uniform Development Code (UDC), and said there will be no public comment. She added there is a public hearing scheduled for August 28, 2007 at CenterPlace, and that any subject within the UDC can be addressed at the public hearing. OUTSIDE AGENCY FUNDING Mayor Wilhite asked to amend the agenda to discuss the City's policy regarding deadlines for submissions of outside agency funding requests and asked Councilmember Munson to speak to that issue. Mr. Munson explained that one application was late getting in and expressed he would like the City to be more flexible with deadlines and suggested the City establish a grace period for extenuating circumstances and allow exceptions to the rule, and said this would allow the City to meet the intent of what it is trying to do with this money: help worthy causes. Mayor Wilhite explained the presentations for funding requests will be given by outside agencies at the August 14 regular Council meeting. Mr. Taylor asked if it would be in order to continue with the presentations as scheduled and then extend the deadline period for a week or two, allowing for proper notice to be given to the public, and said that by opening it back up to everyone it would make it fair for everyone that may not have had a chance to make the original deadline. He explained his rationale is that we are on a different schedule this year from last year. Councilmember Gothmann explained the problem with extending deadlines or building in grace periods is that the end of the grace period becomes the new deadline. He believes it is most fair to everyone to have deadlines and to adhere to them. Councilmember DeVleming asked for clarification as to why Council is discussing this issue tonight if they are hearing the presentations tomorrow. Mayor Wilhite explained there was a request made to Council to discuss whether or not they would like to extend the deadline due to the late submission on one of the agencies requesting funding, and said this would allow that particular agency to also present tomorrow and would then be opened back up for other agencies to submit their requests for funding. From there, she explained, new presentations would be added to a future agenda for council to consider in their determinations for how they allocate the money. Mr. Mercier informed Council currently the allocation of funds is scheduled for the September 11, 2007 meeting. Councilmember DeVleming said he agrees that as unfortunate as it is that an agency missed the deadline, a deadline is still a deadline, and when everyone else has gone through the effort to meet a deadline, and then it is not adhered to, he does not believe that sends a good message to those who have met the deadline. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, and seconded, to extend the deadline an additional week from today and allow the applications that have come in after the original deadline be presented to Council at tomorrow's meeting and schedule additional presentations be given prior to making a final decision on the budget. Council Minutes: 8 -13 -07 Page 1 of 9 Approved by Council: 08 -28 -07 Vote by roll call: In favor: Deputy Mayor Taylor and Councilmember Munson; Opposed: Mayor Wilhite and Councilmembers DeVleming, Denenny, Gothmann and Schimmel. Motion failed. 1. Uniform Development Code Titles Councilmember Taylor inquired as to why Council does not start off their discussion from where they left off the last time. Mayor Wilhite explained that it is the pleasure of the Council. Previously they left off at section 19.50 which is Planned Residential Developments. She asked if Council wants to continue through section 19 from there, then return to any portions they wished to address again. Deputy Mayor Taylor stated he'd feel like they'd accomplish more by taking care of some of the more controversial issues that dictate the rest of the chapter. If they are going to discuss Planned Residential Developments, he would like to first discuss lot sizes and transitional zoning. Councilmember Munson agreed. Councilmember DeVleming asked Planning Manager McCormick whether the definitions given in the handout were in the specific section of UDC; for example just before 19.40.140 regarding parking, he inquired as to why elderly care, foster care and daycares, are not addressed in this section. Mr. McCormick explained if they are addressed in the use matrix, then that is a distinction of home occupations as long as those occupations meet the nine criteria. If we find and identify uses permitted outright, as done in the use matrix, then they are not subject to the home occupation provisions. Councilmember DeVleming asked as an example what governs a teenage foster home. Mr. McCormick explained there are specific uses governed by federal and state law. City Attorney Connelly explained that several years ago courts determined that folks cannot discriminate in housing based on disability and the City cannot define with any specificity what a "family" is. Group homes that deal with the treatment of the mentally or physically disabled fall into that category and local jurisdictions are prevented from treating them differently from groups of people that are not disabled and want to share a house. Mr. Connelly said he will provide a list of those types of homes that would be allowed in a residential zone as long as they meet the rest of the criteria. 19.40.020 Residential Lot Sizes. Mayor Wilhite said they had previously discussed the four zones as follows: R -1, 40,000 square feet; R -2, 10,000 square feet — which she said they had decided to delete; R -3, 7,500; and R -4, 6,000. Councilmember Munson pointed out that because there was no vote taken on the deletion of the R -2, he questioned whether that could be brought up again for discussion. Mr. Connelly informed Council they are acting in an informal fashion and can discuss any items up until they pass an ordinance or take a formal action. In regard to the decision to delete R -2 from the lot size zoning, Councilmember Munson explained that he would like to preserve the "flavor" of the valley as it is with the majority of the highest density residential areas at 10,000 square foot lots. It is his understanding that if Council decides to change that to 7,500 square foot lots, the flavor of the valley would be changed, and in his opinion would not be changed for the better. He proposed Council maintain the 10,000 square foot lots and keep the R -2 zoning. He said he has not found an example where smaller lots result in lower home values for new homes. He further stated homes will be priced at whatever they are going to be priced at whether the lot is 6,500 square feet or 10,000 square feet and said the data given supports this statement. Deputy Mayor Taylor said staff originally proposed the R -1 zone for one -acre lots be brought down to 20,000 square feet; R -2 zoned 7,500 feet, and R -3 zoned at 6,000 feet. The Planning Commission injected the R -2 zone at 10,000 square feet. Councilmember Munson said the key is not the lot size itself, but how it is applied to the map. It makes sense to him to keep the lot sizes as they currently stand and then make changes to the undeveloped areas of the city or those areas they may expand into. If it is the Council's position to have minimum lot sizes of 7500 square feet in the newly developed areas, he would support that. Councilmember Denenny asked if this were the case, how would they deal with the in -fill of already developed areas. Councilmember Munson said they already have rules for that and he doesn't believe lowering the lot size for newly developed areas to 7,500 square feet will lower the value of the 10,000 Council Minutes: 8 -13 -07 Page 2 of 9 Approved by Council: 08 -28 -07 square foot lots around it. He doesn't believe it is spot- zoning, but rather zoning undeveloped areas the way the City feels is the most sufficient use of the land. City Attorney Connelly explained the Comprehensive Plan describes the low- density residential as 7,500 to 10,000 square feet. Council can create two zones to implement that low density residential area if they choose but would then need to select which areas are zoned at the 7,500 square feet and which are zoned at 10,000 square feet. To do that the City's planners will need to establish objective criteria to designate those minimums and to determine when one zone can be re -zoned to the other. He stated he would need to hear from the planners if this is a viable option. Planning Manager McCormick explained under the Comprehensive Plan low density residential equates into one to six units per acre and its implementation through zoning is dependant on criteria. In the unplatted areas, it is not as clear in terms of policy how zoning should be applied. Mayor Wilhite suggested having three different zonings for the low- density residential that is a small, medium, and large zoning. She said it is incumbent upon Council to have some criteria for developers to be able to change the zoning from one to the other in undeveloped areas. Councilmember DeVleming agreed with Mayor Wilhite and said he believes if there is a balance between the high density and the low density, short of a change in the Comprehensive Plan or the zoning map he is trying to figure out a situation where they will allow a developer or property owner to petition for a zone change. Councilmember Munson agreed the current criteria are not specific enough. Mr. Connelly explained the only area this becomes an issue is in the low- density areas. Councilmember Gothmann said cities have traditions as they grow and as a result zoning changes have been created. He searched the criteria used by several cities and suggested implementing the re- zoning criteria used by Bellevue and Kent which include: 1.) Implements the Comprehensive Plan; 2.) Does not decrease public health, safety, and welfare; 3.) Not detrimental to property within the immediate vicinity; 4.) Has merit and value for the community; and 5.) Conditions have changed. Deputy Mayor Taylor thanked Councilmember Gothmann for his work; however said he believes the language is highly subjective and esoteric. He doesn't believe it gives the hearing examiner much direction but rather wide latitude in approving the re- zones. Mr. Connelly interjected that these are not new or unique conditions for rezoning. He said case -law developed them and they are vague and ambiguous, but they have been used by hearing examiners, zoning bodies, and legislators for the last 40 years and they are very workable. Legally none of these criteria are a problem. Courts analyze on a case by case basis of specific facts that are in the record to make a qualitative decision based on those facts. The criteria are typical and legally workable, but they are vague. Within low- density residential zones, if we don't have criteria that is at least this general and probably more specific, then all of the 3.5 will eventually be 7. Mr. Kuhta pointed out that if he were to pull any decision by the hearing examiner, he believes these are the criteria referenced so we would still be operating under the status quo. Anybody could come in for a zone change and he could argue any of these criteria in support of the zone change. Mr. Connelly agreed the criteria should be more specific. Mr. Kuhta said an example of more specific criteria is proposed in Title 19.30.030 b): Property is adjacent and contiguous to property of the same zoning classification requested prior to the application. Councilmember DeVleming asked if the City can take the decision for a re -zone out of the hearing examiner's hands and have it go through the process of a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. McCormick stated the answer is no because the Comprehensive Plan states low- density residential designation is zoning between one to six units per acre and this is consistent with that designation. Councilmember DeVleming stated there is no point discussing what the zones are because unless they figure out a way to stop the re- zoning, it will all eventually convert to the density the developer requests. Deputy Mayor Taylor interjected that it will convert to the density the market wants. City Attorney Connelly said the criteria proposed by staff would solve the problem now faced by the hearing examiner. City Manager Mercier said it would give the hearing examiner criteria but he doesn't believe it will resolve the underlying angst because he perceives the concern is that by having these various low density residential designations, in any of those designations the properties can be developed with one to six units per acre. He thinks some folks would rather see a definite maximum zoning that is less than six units per acre in some of these R- zones. For example, in an R -2 the owner or developer could build one to two units, in an R -3 they could build one to four units, in an R -4 they could build one to five units, etc. Council Minutes: 8 -13 -07 Page 3 of 9 Approved by Council: 08 -28 -07 Councilmember DeVleming asked if we could change the name of the low- density designations to be called medium - density or high- density. Planning Manager McCormick said that would take making changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Deputy Mayor Taylor said when we are talking about established neighborhoods that are one - quarter acre lots, he does not believe by making the underlying zone 7,500 square feet will make the adjacent properties a non - conforming use. He doesn't think a developer will come in and knock down a neighborhood of four units per acre to put in a development of six units per acre. However, what will probably happen as there may be some in -fill development in areas and there should be flexibility in the code to put more than four units per acre to help spread out the cost and put more lots in one particular area, allowing redevelopment of certain communities that have old housing stock and put in new housing. He said it will not destroy communities, but if we make it too restrictive and the financial incentives aren't there for the development and in -fill to occur within the city, it will contribute to the sprawl and rising housing prices because of lack of supply. If we don't have the proper subdivision rules in place then more developers will go to PUD's. Councilmember Munson said he thinks the intent is probably as Deputy Mayor Taylor says but if we go around the country and look at what happens, it is not how he explains. The vision Mr. Munson has for Spokane Valley is to not look like West Seattle or the areas that are central to the City of Spokane, or even the west side of Spokane Valley. Councilmember Gothmann suggested Council adopt the zoning recommendations made by the Planning Commission. To clarify, Mayor Wilhite listed those recommendations as: R -1 is 40,000, R -2 is 10,000, R -3 is 7,500, R -4 is 6,000. Councilmember Munson said he supports this position because of the amount of public input and the work the Planning Commission put into it. He believes it reflects the desires of the community. Mayor Wilhite said she would have liked low, medium, and high density allocations. City Manager Mercier explained the houses per zoning allocation to be R -1 will accommodate one home per acre, R -2 will accommodate four homes, R -3 will accommodate five homes, and the R -4 will accommodate six homes per acre. Councilmember Denenny said by having the smaller lot sizes, there is nothing precluding any developer from putting one house on a 30,000 square foot lot. His struggle is with spot- zoning areas where there are acres still vacant surrounded by 10,000 square foot lots; his concern is that the City is going to say they will need to be developed as 10,000 square foot lots. He then asked what density the County uses. Deputy Mayor Taylor and Mr. Kuhta said the County has one zoning district for low- density residential that is one to six units per acre. Councilmember Denenny verified that in UGA's surrounding Spokane Valley, they will develop at one to six units per acre in areas that are supposed be outside of "urban" designations, while Spokane Valley is talking about maintaining 10,000 square foot lots. He feels there is contradiction there. Deputy Mayor Taylor stated that in talking about joint planning with the County and opposing the County on different projects because of the impacts to Spokane Valley, we've been saying we should be doing the urban development, not the County, and yet we are talking about putting standards in place that are less dense than the County's UGA's. The housing is going to go somewhere, so the question is whether we want to develop this with the appropriate zoning to go along with the vision for the City and at the very least be consistent with the surrounding jurisdictions. Spokane Valley interim zoning came from the County but they have redone their zoning. Deputy Mayor Taylor said the market dictates how many houses are going to be built on a particular lot size and he doesn't see them being built at six units per acre at this point but believes the flexibility should be there to do so. Councilmember Munson said he feels the concern is not necessarily with the density of housing on the lots, but the concurrency and the impact on traffic and services. He doesn't think the 10,000 square foot lots will cause conflict between the Valley and the County. He would like to keep the atmosphere people like and have expressed that to the Planning Commission. Councilmember DeVleming called for vote in regard to keeping the four zones. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked to amend it to two zones, having an R -1 and an R -4 at 6,000. To him the question is whether Spokane Valley is going to do something that will provide flexibility or are they going to put a bunch of different zones in place and have to create criteria Council Minutes: 8 -13 -07 Page 4 of 9 Approved by Council: 08 -28 -07 and force folks to go into re -zones depending on what type of development they want to put in. He wants to do something that is consistent and straight forward and suggested moving to something similar to the County's low density zones. In order to react to the complaints Council has been receiving regarding zoning, they need to put something specific in place to prevent moving from one zone to another zone. Councilmember Gothmann suggested in the areas outside the City that are coming into the City, Spokane Valley should dictate to the County what those areas should look like and not vice versa. Councilmember Schimmels said the variety and the option for variety is a nice part of the Valley. Deputy Mayor Taylor reiterated that just because something is zoned at six units per acre doesn't mean it will be developed at six units per acre and said going to the two zones allows for the broadest range of variety in development to occur. He asked if we are accommodating the growth that is projected and if we are not, he believes the municipalities in the outlying areas are going to take it. Mayor Wilhite asked if Council could get consensus for whether it would like to accept the four zones presented, or make an amendment to two zones. Councilmember Denenny asked if this is a topic that can be opened again for discussion at a later date if Council feels it needs to be addressed again once they start to apply it to a map. Mayor Wilhite indicated this is open for discussion until they vote on adopting the UDC. City Attorney Connelly said that if zone change criteria are established, staff can use that to prepare the map, which would be a starting point for Council to begin applying the zoning to the map to see how it all lays out. Planning Manager McCormick said they had circulated two maps; one reflecting R -1, R -2, and R -3 which left out the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size zone. The second map includes the 10,000 square foot lot size zoning district. In the second map, they looked at existing developments platted at a majority of 10,000 square feet or larger and anything unplatted was included in the R -3 so the 10,000 square foot lot size was used as a neighborhood preservation tool rather than for zoning other large unplatted areas. Councilmember Gothmann asked that the maps prepared for R -2 correspond in general to the maps they've had with the R -2 for the last couple of years. Deputy Mayor Taylor replied that if we take out that unplatted area, we may as well get rid of the six units per acre idea for standard urban zoning. Senior Planner Kuhta informed Council that the Planning Commission is currently working on a new map. Councilmember Munson said it may be best to wait for those maps before discussing lot sizes any further. He said the question is whether Council wants to stop the rezoning or make things more difficult. Councilmember Denenny said he doesn't believe that is what Council wants. DeVleming said he doesn't want to make it more difficult for development. Deputy Mayor Taylor said this section deals with value judgments by the City telling the property owner they will not get a particular value for their property because the City doesn't think it will look good for the neighborhood. He stated the criteria in sections 2a through 2d are generally brought in by the developer or needed by development in order to be supported, so should not be criteria for the development itself. He asked why six units per acre developed one -half mile away from an arterial are any worse than four units per acre within a half mile of an arterial. He said by forcing developers to go through the re -zone process itself keeps things from being automatically up- zoned. City Manager Mercier said by providing the criteria to the hearing examiner it will fill a gap without an effect because those are the parameters they use currently. In general, the hearing examiner is not looking for reasons to say no to the requests of property owners or developers. Unless they run afoul of one of the regulations, a property owner will be able to get what they are looking for to maximize the use of the land. Councilmember Munson said he likes the idea of describing the zoning as number of units per acre. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked how many houses per acre will generate the needed tax funding for City services such as police services and road maintenance. If we give the impression we want to limit growth and limit the number of housing per acre it is going to increase the cost of services to the rate payers because less people will have to pay for more. Councilmember DeVleming agreed Councilmember Council Minutes: 8 -13 -07 Page 5 of 9 Approved by Council: 08 -28 -07 Gothmann suggested Council adopt 19.30.30 with a few modifications. Item C, change "transit route" to "arterial." Deputy Mayor Taylor questioned section 2a regarding existing wastewater collection system. He is unclear as to whether that means it has to already be in place before development can occur, or can it be brought in by the development. Senior Planner Kuhta said this can be brought in with the development and it is addressed in the water and sewer concurrency chapter, and should possibly be deleted from this section and instead refer to that section of the plan. Council agreed that would take care of the issue. It was the consensus of Council to change section 2a to include a reference to the water and sewer concurrency chapter, and to change "transit route" to "arterial" in section 2c. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked if new developments of a certain size have to connect to an arterial for access. Mr. Kuhta said they are trying to encourage new development to be closer to transit systems because there is opportunity for less parking, and many times folks have fewer cars. Councilmember Munson said the transit route system in the Valley is embryonic and it won't service the outlying areas. He said there is a possibility for creating loop services within certain areas that would provide better service. Councilmember Gothmann pointed out that the quarter mile criteria are probably not very good because most arterials are within that range. It was the consensus of council to delete item 2c completely. Planning Manager McCormick said option 2d. is probably not a good criteria either because very few Community Commercial zoning districts lie outside of the core. Mayor Wilhite asked about 2b. Senior Planner Kuhta said 2b. is the main criteria for consideration. He explained these criteria only apply to low density areas, not medium or high - density. Mayor Wilhite said she would like to wait to look at the map before deciding on 2b. Councilmember Gothmann suggested staff take what they've heard in the general discussion tonight and try to think of any applicable criteria that may be relevant to the zoning and provide reasonable restrictions. It was the consensus of Council to leave the four zones as they are currently proposed in section 19.40.020 until they see the map. Section 19.30.030. It was the consensus of Council to reference section 2a to the water and sewer concurrency chapter; to keep section 2b for the present time; and to delete sections 2c and 2d. City Attorney Connelly said it is not necessary to include the general criteria Councilmember Gothmann listed previously because it is in every rezone ordinance; however, he doesn't see any downside to include them if it is the desire of Council. It is important to have the criteria be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Munson said one of problems cities face is how to deal with change and he thinks including the guideline regarding changing conditions is important. Mayor Wilhite called for a break at 7:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened 8: 00 p.m. Mayor Wilhite confirmed with Councilmembers that tonight's meeting will go until 9:00 p.m. It was the consensus of Council to schedule an additional special meeting for Monday, August 20, 2007 to continue the UDC discussion. Mayor Wilhite pointed out to everyone that for Title 22 they should be referring to the red- and blue -lined copy and not the one attached to tonight's agenda because it is in black text only and does not indicate any updates or changes. The one to use is dated 7/31/07 at the bottom of the first page. If Councilmembers do not have that version they can get it from the City Clerk. 19.50 Planned Residential Developments 19.50.010 Purpose. No changes. 19.50.020 Where Permitted. No changes. Council Minutes: 8 -13 -07 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council: 08 -28 -07 19.50.030 Permitted Uses. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked how the number of acres was determined and how it is justified. Planning Manager McCormick explained ten acres is a size significant enough to warrant the possibility for a small neighborhood. Senior Planner Kuhta said this is in relation to a new residential PRD (Planned Residential Development) and of a size large enough that it would warrant the potential for small commercial to be included. No changes. 19.50.040 Relationship of This Section to Other UDC Provisions. No changes. 19.50.050 Development Standards. Councilmember DeVleming asked why the site minimum in item 2 is set at five acres and not four or six. Mr. Kuhta agreed that it may be subjective, but as we think about development there is a certain amount of space within the development that needs to be open space and of a certain size, otherwise we would just have lots going in side by side and we would not be making a real neighborhood development. Councilmember DeVleming said he doesn't believe item 2 is necessary. Councilmember Denenny suggested using number of units instead of acreage. Councilmember Gothmann said he thinks there have been significant abuses in developing the PRD's in the past and this is a way to get around that. Deputy Mayor Taylor said this is one of the recommendations former Director Sukup put in place in conjunction with smaller lot sizes to provide more flexibility for development and to make it less attractive to develop a PRD, yet give more flexibility in minimum lot sizes. He questioned if five acres is too large and asked if it will inhibit growth. City Attorney Connelly said a PRD should not be an alternative way to subdivide or to create high density, but should be used in those special instances as outlined in the standards. Councilmember Schimmels asked about the omission of fencing criteria in this section. He asked if there is anything that addresses the need to match PRD fencing with the fencing of their neighbors. Councilmember Munson said he views the fencing as a way for a PRD to give itself a sense of community and allows them more privacy. Senior Planner Kuhta said it could also prevent them from becoming part of the larger community it is going into. Councilmember Gothmann said the density is not going to be much more than that of the underlying zone so the only need for fencing would be if it is abutting an area that is zoned differently and that already has fencing requirements. Mr. Kuhta explained the fencing question is addressed in Title 22. Deputy Mayor Taylor said five acres seems arbitrary and he would like it to be three instead. Councilmember Gothmann said the objective of the PRD is to create development that meets special situations and they are few and far between. It was the consensus of the Council to leave the site acreage minimum in item 2 at five acres. Deputy Mayor Taylor questioned how the term "undesirable impact" in item 1 is defined and stated he doesn't like the use of subjective terms. Councilmember Munson said parking could be an undesirable impact. City Attorney Connelly agreed, and said the terms "adverse impact" or "detrimental impact" have been tested by the courts. Deputy Mayor Taylor suggested and it was the consensus of Council to change "undesirable impact" to "adverse impact" in item 1. Item 4: Deputy Mayor Taylor asked if Council is comfortable with the 20% maximum dwelling unit density. Council concurred. Councilmember DeVleming asked how the figures are derived. Planning Manager McCormick said the figure of 20% provides an incentive to the developer and it is an achievable amount in some or most of the cases given the sites. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked for clarification on item 10c regarding the requirement of 35% of the residences being completed prior to any commercial use permits being issued. Mr. McCormick said the requirement to have one -third of the residential sites built before allowing the commercial sites to be built is because the intent of the PRD is to provide commercial service to that specific new development so Council Minutes: 8 -13 -07 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council: 08 -28 -07 there needs to be residences available on the ground to support the commercial services. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked if this may be an unnecessary preclusion because it could be argued that a developer could be generating revenue from the commercial portion of the PRD to help fund the residential portion. Mr. Kuhta explained the PRD is for residential areas, not mixed -use areas. He said if the commercial portion is built first and the residential doesn't happen, which has occurred in other areas, then you have a push toward re- zoning the area to commercial. He said this is not likely to happen in this area because there are not many areas in which this will apply. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he doesn't think this will be problematic and would like to take this criteria out. Councilmember Schimmels said he wants to leave it in. Councilmember Denenny said he wants to keep it in, stating the commercial use is there to serve the residential properties. Councilmember Munson said it helps to define the use of the project and encourages the developer in their approach. It was the consensus of the Council to leave 10c as it is. 19.50.060 Open Space Standards. Councilmember Gothmann asked if the 30% designation of active recreation open space in item 3b is a minimum or a maximum. Planning Manager McCormick said it is a minimum of 30 %. It was the consensus of Council to change item 3b to read "... a minimum of 30%..." Deputy Mayor Taylor asked how "active recreation" is defined. Councilmember Gothmann said it is defined as basketball courts, playing fields, etc. Mr. Kuhta said it could also include obstacle free walking paths, but would not include an undeveloped treed or rocky hillside. It also does not include wetlands. 19.50.070 Administration. Councilmember DeVleming asked why it is the "opinion of the Director" who determines when the permits are issued. Planning Manager McCormick said it is under the opinion of the Director because they are referring to administrative permits. Deputy Mayor Taylor asked if the Director has the ability to say the developer is not meeting a specific condition; therefore the project will not go to the hearing examiner until the conditions of staff are met. City Attorney Connelly said the Director cannot hold up a project unless the developer is not providing materials as set forth in their application or if specific statutory requirements are not met. The project could go before the hearing examiner and the City could recommend denial of the project, but it still has to be put before the hearing examiner. Legislature has provided rules as to when the City needs to proceed. In item 2b, Councilmember DeVleming asked if the "major adjustments" are greater than 10 %. Deputy Mayor Taylor said 2a and 2b are either -or statements. 19.50.080 Homeowners /Property Owners Association Required. No changes. 19.60 District Purpose & Supplemental Use Regulations Commercial, Office & Mixed Use Zones. 19.60.010 General Requirements. Item 3: Deputy Mayor Taylor asked if this condition used to be described as square footage. Planning Manager McCormick said he believes this provision was originally tied to a specific building size and then changed to the number of stories of the building, then changed to the configuration of the building. It was the consensus of Council to remove the word "office" from the sentence. Item 3 should read "New development exceeding three stories.... " Item 4: Councilmember Denenny asked what is meant by shared access with adjacent properties and why is it referenced. Mr. Kuhta said they are referring to a situation where one parking lot is connected to the parking lot next to it, there would be a shared through- access between the two lots, barricade free, so the public does not have to go back out onto the arterial to get to the next parking lot. Mr. Connelly asked Council if they want to put the burden on the property owner to direct traffic or on the City in designing the roads. Councilmember Denenny said he doesn't like the idea of putting non - beneficial requirements on the shoulders of the property owners. Mr. Connelly said another factor to consider is that for every car Council Minutes: 8 -13 -07 Page 8 of 9 Approved by Council: 08 -28 -07 that goes back into traffic, the less likely we are able to maintain concurrency. Councilmember Munson asked if the City could partner with the developer to assume some of the cost associated with putting in shared access. Deputy Mayor Taylor expressed the impact is a matter of keeping a lane open in the lots instead of putting in a barrier. It was the consensus of Council to leave it in for now; however, the word "office" should he deleted from the sentence to read "All new development shall provide for shared access with adjacent properties. " Mr. Kuhta said he will have the language clarified. 19.60.020 GO Garden Office District. Planning Manager McCormick explained the intent of having two office districts for the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for transitional areas of development. For example, there is an area between two arterials developed as Office that may have a building height of 100 feet, then in the area outside the arterials there would be a Garden Office with a building height of 45 feet, that would then transition to the residential areas. Mr. Connelly inquired as to how this will prevent a developer from requesting zone changes and suggested staff may want to look developing criteria to make the distinction. Mr. McCormick said one criteria would be they could not abut a residential or single family area. He said staff will add criteria under the single family chapter. 19.60.030 Office District. No changes. 19.60.040 Nei - hborhood Commercial District. Councilmember Schimmels inquired as to the previous controversy in Industrial Park regarding food services on Sullivan and asked if they will have more specific criteria for that area. Mr. Kuhta said those issues will be addressed in the retail and industrial zones chapters, The chapter on non - conforming areas will address what is grand fathered in. No Changes. Mayor Wilhite adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m, and said the discussion will continue with section 19.60.050 Community Commercial District on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. A E ST: � _ ,/ ( �WL�e� .SC�t.a Carrie Acosta, Deputy City Clerk -tzvtoviJA utbitiz Diana Wilhite, Mayor Council Minutes: 8 -13 -07 Page 9 of 9 Approved by Council: 08 -28 -07