City Planning Commission

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2020 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. GENERAL BUSINESS: • Review of Agenda • Approval of Minutes from December 11, 2020 4. WORKSHOPS: • Possible Amendments to City Landscaping Code • 2020 Work Program Discussion 5. REPORTS: • Secretary’s Report • Planning Commissioner Reports • City Council Reporter of the Month 6. Citizens Comments 7. Adjournment Next Meeting: February 12, 2020 Non-hearing items scheduled, and their order, are only tentative and are subject to change. The Planning Commission may not address all items as listed and/or may continue certain items to a later session. The Commission reserves the right to take action on all items listed on the agenda. The Planning Commission provides at least 3 minutes for public comment and submission of written comments for inclusion into the public record and consideration by the Planning Commission is encouraged. For more information, please contact Planning & Engineering Services at 755-6708. The public is invited to attend. Parking and meeting rooms are accessible for persons with disabilities. Contact the City at 755-6700 with 48-hours advance notice for special accommodations.  PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2019 Planning Commission Members Present: Phil Folyer, Jesse Fox, Richard Siler, Charles Matthews, Tom Sahlberg Adjunct Member(s) Present: Paul Brown, Joe Mann Absent: Jamie Baird, Joshua McKee Staff Present: Lisa Key, Barbara Barker, Kelsey Wright Call to Order: Meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. Roll Call: A quorum of members was present. General Business: Review of Agenda & Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Brown moved that the November 13th minutes be approved, seconded by Commissioner Matthews. Minutes were approved with all ayes. Election of Planning Commission Chair: Commissioner Siler was unanimously voted as Planning Commission Chair. Discussions/Presentations: Efficient Irrigation & Landscape Design: BiJay Adams, with Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District, and Terry Pickel with Coeur d’Alene Water Department, presented on behalf of the Idaho Washington Aquifer Collaborative to discuss ways to conserve water, primarily through irrigation system improvements. They illustrated simple improvements which could be made on both residential and commercial properties. Discussion followed regarding sharing this information with residents and possible incentives for water conservation. Questions asked and answered. Workshops: Possible Amendments to City Landscaping Code: Barbara Barker led a workshop continuing the discussion on possible revisions to the landscape code. Adjournment: Multiple Commissioners had to leave early, quorum was lost and therefore the meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1|1 December 11, 2019  Possible GOALS to evaluate for any proposed revisions: (the previously noted 30 action items have been categorized to fall under each of the 7 identified goals) 1. Allow for more designer creativity rather than prescriptive methodology. Provide performance based guidelines with interactive worksheet for compliance 1.Required density of shrubs (prescribed number of shrubs per lineal feet) creates an overgrown condition that requires the owner to remove plantings as they mature. The current code does not address the size of the plant at maturity, rather is prescriptive by count of plants. Should we change from count-based prescriptive code to performance-based coverage code? 4.Should there be exceptions to buffers (none or narrower) if a fence is used 5.Need to further address how berms can replace perimeter planting. From 12/11/19 workshop (after hearing from iwac and LLSWD on irrigation practices) should we reconsider having code regulations on residential properties? Further discuss. 2. Maintain the tree canopy in the City, but allow for different configurations 6.Should alternative method for interior parking be expanded to other zones 7.Should tree canopy in parking lots have same count (for heat island and shading) but allow for fewer planted islands, easier maintenance. Currently every island has a 6’ strip for planting and every row has an island every 90’ (10 spaces) for a density of 60’ x 90’ for tree density. Change to plantings every other island (leaving space for lighting/cameras) and every 6 spaces (120’x45’). Rather than prescriptive, forcing designer’s spacing, provide performance density of 1 tree per 950 sq.ft. and let designer decide where they go. Encourage use of fewer, but larger, consolidated landscape islands, particularly in larger parking lots  3. Maintain streetscape aesthetic, views from rights-of way 16.Do driveways interior to lot need landscape buffers? see insert Commission: No (added for 12/11/19 workshop) 18.For ROW aesthetic, how can we encourage use of plants at building entrances and facades facing rights-of-way 20.Should a short plat require full frontage improvement? 21.Should we require plantings in R/W with utility easements? 23.If commercial development abuts a R/W with street trees, is additional 10’ buffer with trees required? Maybe just shrubs instead?? 25.Do we need to have buffer around structures? Landscaping setbacks to promote safe ingress/egress NEW LANDSCAPING GOAL: Emphasize and enhance safety considerations in landscape design, with consideration given to: • Bicycle & pedestrian safety • Ingress & Egress • CPTED principles (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) END OF 11/13/19 PC Discussion  1 1H I 73 -r 0 I I I II  4. Reduce the amount of maintenance for owners (both for snow and plants) and reduce initial costs of construction 2.Should there be exceptions due to use? Other jurisdictions have exceptions for parking areas used for retail or storage. (RV campground was example) commission: Yes for interior islands, but maintain perimeter buffers 3.Should there be an exception of landscape architect requirement for small lots? commission: yes 8.Should there be fewer shrubs required on interior islands for easier maintenance, more space for swales and snow storage. see inserts end of need to discuss 12/11/19 13.Should there be a minimum for interior island size for plant health? further discussion needed, but yes to concept appropriate % of cover, and tree workshop canopy std., yes to commission: yes discussion 14.Should there be exceptions for topography? see insert concept 15.Should there be smaller buffers required with a small lot? see insert 17.Should we require refresh landscape with a significant TI ? 19.How should we address Phased construction? 24.Do we need a prescribed landscape coverage %. If we define buffers and interior islands that should provide needed coverage. 26.Do we need section prescribing % allowance for hardscape within landscape zones? 28.Should we define a clear view triangle for entrances for trees and shrubs higher than 24” I : ‘ 1’, c\J Zn .3 C F /Th C çç\ 1’ 0 N1YY)  0 I r ‘ç) I 1  I + 4 LL - - - - - -- - - - L ___L — EEEEFEE’E —— — — 4—- 4- — __ Li ( 7J o4T fr:wQ:) P 4 4: I  I --.. ‘ csN 3 ‘ft p I 0’ I K - - .. •__?  see insert 5. Acknowledge adjacencies for required buffering (like zones/uses may not need buffering), maybe add buffers for other-than vehicular areas. 9.Should there be a required buffer for adjacent properties within the same zone and like uses? (ie at wake-up with 5’ buffer next to 5’ buffer (10’ total) for two commercial bldgs. adjacent) see insert 10.Should there be a required buffer in parking lots with adjacent shared parking 11.Should we identify categories for how much buffering there ought to be based on use like used in other jurisdictions? (Eg.fully- obscuring (non compatibility adjacent use)/ partial-obscuring (similar use) / non-obscuring (same use)) see insert Need to discuss difference between adjacent "use" and 12.Should we have requirement for a headlight screen (30” minimum height, evergreen only) at property lines? adjacent "zone", particularly ramifications for a vacant lot 27.Should we require street tree plans for final plats? done  -4 I t 4: I 2 0 H4 4- . S 0 0 - j H -- - — - — — I - —— 1 --  2016 Printing 2. Table 806-3 provides landscaping requirements for proposed uses that are adjacent to an existing use. The table indicates the type and width of landscaping required along side and rear property lines not abutting public streets. The requirements are determined by comparing the proposed use (in the left hand column) to the existing use (in the top column). Should there be a conflict in required landscaping between the zone buffering tables (Tables 806-1 or 806-2) and the use buffering table (Table 806-3), then the table that requires the most landscaping shall apply. Landscape requirements for mineral lands are considered separately from the standards in this chapter and can be found in chapter 14.620. Adjacent Use 0 G) .- 0 . D — 0 D 0 0 . — ..i. LL Table 806-3 W — . V >. .- — . .b a) Use Buffering = ,- Cl) E . 0 D 0 a) C U- . .92 “Ta) E — >‘ a)’ E E .E DO 0 0) a) z ci) J 0 I CL ci) a) ci) a) C) 0 V 0. V 0. 0 0. V 0. >.‘ >, >.‘ >.‘ >‘ > >‘ I- I— I- F— I.- F- Corn mercial Light Industrial Uses 20’ I 20’ I 10’ I 10’ II 10’ I Heavy Industrial Uses 20’ I 20’ I 10’ I 10’ I 10’ I 20’ I C) U) D C) Manufactured Home Park 10’ 1 10’ I 10’ I 20’ I 20’ 1 20’ II 20’ II U, a a. 0 I Multi-Family 10’ I 10’ I 10’ I 10’ 1 10’ II 20’ II 0 Public/Semi-Public1 10’ I 10’ I 10’ I 20’ I — 10’ I 1. Except Parks and Playgrounds Spokane County Page 806-4 Landscaping/Screening Zoning Code Chapter 14.806  Eergreen Tree Deciduous Shrubs 5 Feet Sight-obscuring fence Figure 806-1 - Example o(rypelLandscjrig ithjiglbs rice ot to scale) 2016 g. If a fully or partially sight-obscuring fence is installed it shall be consistent with the requirements for a clear view triangle. ergreen ree Deciduous Shrubs 1z - Grass Grass - Figure 806-3 - Example 2016 Printing Type III landscaping n-ey contain either evergreen or deciduous trees 1LJp1I feet nxirrum —shrubs 1’ shrubs shrubs - I Figure 806-4 Example - 6. Reduce water usage, incentivize the use of native plants and xeriscaping (consider the different aesthetic with less grass turf) 29.Should we incentivize low-water use plants and xeriscaping? 7. Incentivize the use of existing/mature trees rather than replacement (12” may be too large) 22.Is Heritage tree section necessary? Are there any? They are “significant trees” by definition 30.Should we incentivize the use of existing/ established trees (versus “save when practical”)