Loading...
PC APPROVED Minutes 09-13-12.pdf Spokane Valley Planning Commission APPROVED Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave. September 13, 2012 L CALL TO ORDER Chair Bates called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance IIL ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF Bill Bates -Chair Mike Basinger, Senior Planner John G. Carroll Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Rustin Hall Deanna Griffith, Secretary Rod Higgins Steven Neill � Fred Beaulac Joe Stoy—Vice Chair IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Higgins moved to approve the September 13, 2012 agenda as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Beaulac moved to approve the August 23, 2012 minutes as presented. This motion was passed unanimously. VL PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VIL COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Neill stated he attended The Historical Auto Society of Spokane car show held Sept. 8, 2012 at Mirabeau Park He mentioned it was a good show and a good use of the Ciry's facilities. Commissioner Higgins reported he attended the ground breaking for the new surgical center for Providence Medical Centers on Sept 4, 2012. Commissioner Hall apologized for his absence at the August 23, 2012 meeting. Commissioner Bates reported he also attended the ground breaking at the Providence Medical Center, which he explained will be a 24 hour surgery center. Mr. Bates also said he attended the Economic Development committee meeting on last Thursday, Sept. 6 at CenterPlace. Mr. Bates said the discussion was about the Use Matrix which the Ciry has just updated and there was good input from the attendees. Planning Commission Minutes 09-13-12 Page 1 of 4 VIIL ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Senior Planner Mike Basinger introduced and welcomed Eric Lamb, the City's new Deputy City Attorney. Staff also discussed with the Commission the Open House for the Shoreline Master Program to discuss Shoreline Designation changes. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. Unfinished Business: There was no unfinished business. B. New Business: CTA-03-12 - Proposed amendments to setback standards for multifamily development when adjacent to single family residential developments. Mr. Basinger began the study session regarding multifamily development standards by explaining during the last three or four years at least one Comprehensive Plan amendment has come in requesting a change from Low Density Residential to Medium or High Density Residential. The major issue has been height limits in the developments. The neighborhoods have complained they do not want a 35-50 foot building five feet from their back fence looking down into their yards. Several of these amendments have resorted to a developer's agreement, changing the setbacks of the multifamily buildings, to appease both sides. This creates unpredictability in our Municipal Code for the development community. Mr. Basinger stated staff looked at the issues and proposes to change the setbacks for multifamily Residential development when it is adjacent to single family residential. � Mr. Basinger explained a previous director had made an administrative determination_, stipulating the setbacks for single family residential in mixed use zones. The determination increased the side yard setbacic for single family development to 10 feet if there is a living space window. Mr. Basinger further explained the Municipal Code requires a Type I Landscape Buffer, which is full screening, when multifamily development is located adjacent to single family. This would include a six foot, site obscuring fence and could include conifers, evergreens and deciduous trees. Mr. Basinger then explained the proposed text amendment would set a relational height limit when multifamily is adjacent to single family residential. He said it would be a 1:1 ratio, with a minimum setback from single family i� residential being ten feet regardless of which side of the ' development it was; front, side or rear. , ' � Commissioner Stoy asked how the proposed relational i ; setbacks would work Mr. Basinger explained he had : developed a fairly simple formula where the developer j would take the height of the proposed building(s) and i subtract 15 feet. The difference would be the setback ! from the property line(s) adjacent to the single family � residential. One example given was: The building � f proposed is SO feet, subtract 1 S feet, (SO — 1 S = 35) the setback is 35 feet. Mr. Basinger stated the neighborhoods have complained the City will allow a 50-foot tall multifamily or commercial building to be five feet from the property line behind them and yet single family residential must have a 20 foot rear yard setback. Planning Commission Minutes 09-13-12 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Carroll asked Commissioner Hall if there could be two floors in a 25-foot building. Commissioner Hall, who is an architect, stated it could be done but with low ceilings. Commissioner Hall asked if the heights would be measured from existing grade and where would the heights be measured ta Mr. Basinger said heights would be measured from existing grade and the building would be measured from the peak. Mr. Basinger shared he visited several multifamily developments and he reported very few of them actually had only a five foot setback Most have more due to needing room for landscaping and room to maintain the landscaping. Commissioner Bates asked if staff had shared this proposal with any of the developers who were known to work in the City. Mr. Basinger said standard noticing practices would be followed for the public hearing. Mr. Bates felt staff should reach out into the community, developers and neighbors who had been affected in the past, more for input. Mr. Basinger said he would discuss the suggestion with Planning Manager Kuhta. Commissioner Hall suggested changing the diagram to show a five foot setback on the multifamily building and a line straight up at five feet a line going 50 feet to show the way it would look if developed with the standards as they are currently written. Commissioner Stoy asked if the proposed language would still apply if the multifamily was next to a legal non-conforming commercial use in a single family residence. Mr. Basinger said the formula would still apply, because the intention would be to allow a single family use to return to the house. . Commissioner Beaulac asked about lighting standards for multifamily developments. Mr. Basinger replied the developer is required to submit a plan showing how the light from the project will remain on site. The Commissioners asked about the supplemental regulations which were being proposed for zoning districts R-4, MF-1, MF-2, CMU and MCU. Commissioner Bates asked why R- 1, R-2 and R-3 were not included. Mr. Basinger explained, R-1, R-2 and R-3 do not allow multifamily development. However, multifamily development is a permitted use in R-4 but the height restriction is 35 feet. After discussion among the Commissioners it was decided to remove the supplemental regulations from R-4 zoning, because the height restrictions would not allow any kind of development of scale in which staff is trying to assist in avoiding. Mr. Basinger explained staff thought the developers would feel better if the standards were more predictable. Commissioner Bates asked Mr. Basinger if he was aware of any development where this new regulation would not work Mr. Basinger stated at the corner of Dartmouth and Appleway there is a complex which would have struggled to accomplish this standard. Mr. Basinger said he had been in the neighborhood recently; this development is tight in the setback against the fence, approximately five feet. When he was there, a neighbor asked him who was responsible for allowing "them"to build so close to her house. Commissioner Hall asked if the developer's agreements are mostly related to this issue, - bulk and scale. Mr. Basinger stated it was and this amendment would be asking them to be a little more creative. Commissioner Bates stated the public hearing for this amendment is scheduled for October 11, 2012. He again asked staff about having discussions with the communiry ahead of the Planning Commission Minutes 09-13-12 Page 3 of 4 public hearing. Mr. Basinger replied he would have a discussion with Mr. Kuhta and the Director to determine the next step. X. GOOD OF THE ORDER Chair Bates requested an updated advanced agenda and expressed some concern over the length of time between the study sessions and the public hearings for some subjects. XL ADJOURNMENT The being no other business the meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Bill Bates, Chairperson D e a n n a Digitally signed by Deanna Griffith DN:rn=Deanna Griffth,o=City of Spokane Valley,ou=Community Development, G ri ff i t h Dat520g2ff024102330 0700 rg Deanna Griffith, PC Secretary Date signed Planning Commission Minutes 09-13-12 Page 4 of 4