Agenda 10/13/2005 AGENDA
, okane
j� SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
��"" Valle REGULAR MEETING
Y
October 13, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 8, 2005 minutes
PUBLIC COMMENT—for members of the Public to speak to the Commission regarding
matters NOT on the current agenda.
COMMISSION REPORTS
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Old Business— Public Hearing (continued) and consideration of amending
Ordinance No. 04-046 relating to Planned Unit Development (PUD), by
repealing provisions relating to the requirement for direct access to arterials
and collectors.
New Business— Discussion of Land Use Definitions and Schedules of permitted Uses.
FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER-
Discuss meeting schedule for November and December
ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
Fred Beaulac Marina Sukup, AICP
Robert Blum Greg McCormick, AICP
John G. Carroll, Vice-Chair Scott Kuhta, AICP
David Crosby, Chair Mike Basinger, Assoc. Planner
William Gothmann Deanna Griffith
Gail Kogle
Ian Robertson www.spokanevalley.orq
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Draft Minutes
Council Chambers-City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave
September 8, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Crosby called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
Staff attending the meeting: Marina Sukup, Director of Community Development,
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager, Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner, Mike Basinger,
Associate Planner and Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Commission, audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Commissioner Beaulac - Present Bill Gothmann - Present
Commissioner Blum - Present Commissioner Kogle - Present
Commissioner Carroll G. Carroll - Ian Robertson - Present
Present
David Crosby- Present
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Gothmann moved that the September 8, 2005 agenda be
approved as written. Commissioner Kogle seconded the motion,
Motion passed unanimously.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Kogle seconded by Commissioner
Beaulac that the minutes of the August 25, 2005, Planning Commission
meeting be accepted as written. Motion passed unanimously.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
No Public Comment
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Crosby reported that he attended a meeting to discuss impact fees
and how to work with them. It was well attended by several groups and some
elected officials. All other commissioners had nothing to report.
September 8,2005 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 8
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
None.
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearing for PUD 04-046. Commissioner Crosby opens the
hearing at 6:09 pm. Director Sukup explained to the Commission the
background for making this change. She also answered questions from
the Commissioners.
Meg Arpin, representing Black Rock. Ms. Arpin explained that this is
a significant change. She stated that over 70% of the city does not
connect, with an arterial or collector. None of these areas can change in
future with this wording. Ms Arpin explained that she had spoken to the
City's engineers; they indicated to her that they did not write or have any
input to this ordinance. According to Ms. Arpin, they do not want more
access to arterials or collector streets. This wording is contrary to good
transportation planning, according to Ms. Arpin. Ms. Arpin expressed this
ordinance doesn't promote new growth. This should only apply to
environmental/special cases. She indicated that she was aware of two
PUDs were in process, six others are waiting for this ruling.
James Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin, the dates on staff report are
incorrect, stating this had already been finished. Director Sukup stated
that this was an error on her part. She would amend the dates before it
is signed.
Mary Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin, Mrs. Pollard requested some
clarification on the changes. Was this in the ordinance when it was in
effect with the County, Director Sukup said that no it was not in the
county document, it was changed last November (2004) She stated that
she does not approve of having this ordinance changed. Mrs. Pollard
shared that the neighborhood is not developed outside of the PUD to
handle the cars that are generated by these PUDs. The rest of the area
roads are underdeveloped and it places a large burden on the community.
Maybe in the future the roads will be able to handle this increased traffic
but not now. Mrs. Pollard would like to have the Comp Plan in place
before this is changed. Mrs. Pollard said that passing this change is
premature and feels it is only catering to the developer. Unapproved of
by rest of the North Greenacres community. Leads out onto roads there
should be no changes in Phase I regulations, no bonus densities. Adding
August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 2 of 8
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes
density without impact fees it forces the cost of development on rest of
community.
Kathy Tabbert, 18505 E. 4th Ave., Ms. Tabbert stated she is directly
affected by the PUD which first brought this question to light. She lives
across the street from this development. The road that is being accessed
is onlyl9 feet wide. The winter seasons do not allow enough room for
cars and kids to both be on road. The road is unimproved and all the run
off from the development will be running into her yard. Ms. Tabbert feels
. that the builder gets preference. She feels that the PUD only increases
traffic in the area along with high densities when the roads unable to
handle it. Ms. Tabbert shared that she has an autistic child and worries
that her child will not be safe with the changes that are going on. Ms.
Tabbert feels that we will allow the developers tear up road just for their
own purposes and the developers do not understand needs of the
community. Ms. Tabbert said she is worried for children walking on
street. Ms. Tabbert said this issue is more than just changing a
requirement but is also about the problems they developer is to rush this
and not dealing with dangerous road conditions.
Brian Main, property owner/developer of a PUD now. Mr. Main stated
that this change does not affect his project now, but He is concerned
about the future development. Mr. Main feels growth will not continue if
you choose to limit it now. It will affect the potential for growth. The
Spokane County recognizes the need for housing. They are working with
the housing authority in order to acquire a grant. Mr. Main stated that
changes to the ordinance could cancel out the program by making it too
expensive for moderate/low income brackets to afford housing. He said he
felt it will cancel program because of the restriction, making it more
expensive for the developer. How will citizen be able to afford homes in
future? Mr. Main stated that the county has agreed to open the West
Plains to higher density. Mr. Main said he feels the commission should
think about it.
Tom Tabbert, 18505 E. 4th, Mr. Tabbert said he was part of the appeal
against the current development. He said that many of the neighbors feel
that this type of development is awkward, but recognizes this is not the
issue tonight. Mr. Tabbert encourages Commissioners to look at this
development. Mr. Tabbert submits pictures taken earlier in the day. The
road is 18 ft. wide. 80 or more cars went by this point between Barker
and the elementary school, around 8:00-8:30 am. Mr. Taber wants to
address the safety issue for families, children. Mr. Taber said we do not
have a definition for of an arterial. He said there is no room for
pedestrians, now you want to add 22 more houses. Mr. Tabbert feels that
August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 3 of 8
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes
we need to stop and look at what we are doing. 70% of the Valley is
rural. Mr. Tabbert would like to know what acceptable? Mr. Tabbert
spoke to some of the neighbors today and they are feeling like this has
already been decided and railroaded and that it won't make any
difference. Mr. Taber submits a letter with pictures from Steve Hormel.
Ms. Arpin stepped to the podium and asked to be allowed to address the
statements made by the last two people testifying. Commissioner Crosby
explained to Ms. Arpin that if he allowed her to give a rebuttal then he would
have to allow all of the people who spoke to come up to the podium again. Ms.
Arpin stated that was fine with that she had already made the comment in her
testimony previously.
The commission began their discussion. Commissioner Crosby states that before
discussion we should have a motion. There was discussion between the
commissioners as to whether they were ready to have a motion. Commissioner
Crosby informed the commission that if the commission is not discussing a
motion then they cannot have any discussion either for or against it.
Commissioner Gothmann made a motion that the sentence read "all PUDs having
greater than 8 residential units have direct access to a designated collector or
arterial." Commissioner Beaulac second. Why 8 units? Commissioner Gothmann
said that he just picked a number to get things started. Commissioner
Gothmann made a motion that the sentence read "all PUDs having greater than
8 residential units have direct access to a designated collector or arterial."
Commissioner Beaulac seconded the motion.
There was then considerable discussion as to what it would mean to change the
ordinance. Questions were raised as to what information they would like to have
to make a better decision. Issues raised were traffic, concurrency, levels of
service, peak trips. Commissioner Gothmann made a motion to table the item
•
until the staff can provide the information needed to make an educated decision,
to the next meeting date of 10/13/2005. Commissioner Blum second.
Commissioner Carroll feels it is not enough time for the staff to be able to come
back with all the information the commission is requesting. Commissioner
Crosby calls for the vote on this motion. Commissioner Gothmann and
Robertson vote for, Commissioners Beaulac, Kogle, Carroll and Blum against.
Motion fails.
•
Return to the main motion, approve with amendment of 8 houses. Discussion.
What other information desired? Traffic counts, concurrency, LOS.
Commissioner Blum said that he had 2nd the previous motion but would like to
have information, before he votes on it. Call for the vote on original motion
(more than 8) Commissioner Gothmann yes, Commissioner Beaulac no,
August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 4 of 8
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioner Kogle no, Commissioner Carroll no, Commissioner Robertson
abstain, Commissioner Blum no. The motion is defeated.
Commissioner Beaulac made a motion to table until 10/13 in order to get as
much information as possible not only transportation but concurrency, levels of
service and anything else that might help this body make their decision.
Commissioner Robertson 2nd. Discussion. Would more public testimony be
accepted? It is closed at this time. The public testimony can be re-opened. Do
we have to re-notify? Not if you re-open it tonight. Re open for 10/13, you do
have to notice it. Stated that 4 commissioners are looking for more information
before make a decision. Mr. McCormick/Director Sukup can continue public
hearing? Can continue to a date certain tonight. Take care of table first.
Amend now? Take care of it later. Director Sukup, City Council has asked the
same question as the commission is this evening about PUD. Director Sukup is
preparing a primer for the council which she will share also with the Commission.
Commissioner Carroll, looking for a set of criteria that allows PUDs but also
minimizes the impacts that occur in unsafe areas. Voteto table the amendment
item will table to 10/13, staff to provide information on the issues we have
clarified tonight. Commissioners Blum, Robertson, Carroll, Beaulac and
Gothmann vote in favor, Commissioner Kogle votes no, 5 to 1, tabled to 10/13.
Leaves floor open to continue the Public Hearing to 10/13. Commissioner Blum
moves that we re-open and continue the public hearing in regard to the PUD
ordinance amendment to 10/13/05. Commissioner Robertson second. There is
discussion. Commissioner Gothmann more opportunity to discuss with public the
better decision you can make, Commissioner Kogle agreed. Motion passes 6 in
favor. Public Hearing is continued to 10/13.
Public Hearing -Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Crosby opens
the public hearing in regard to the Comprehensive Plan at 7:33.
Hal Sarff, 13505 E. Broadway. — Mr. Sarff is not a resident but is a
developer for a private senior independently living facility located at this
address. Most land around this property is zoned UR-22. Mr. Sarff would
like to see the parcel below this address be changed to medium density.
The parcels are across the street, 13420 E. Broadway. 3.7 and 2.25
acres. Have option on these parcels. Would like to have this zoned to
medium density. Engineers want to extend Blake Rd. south of Broadway.
Have an agreement not to fight county on the north side of Broadway.
But does not make sense south through private development. Children
going to school, thinks a light for children to cross road would be a good
addition. Not against impact fees. Thinks they should be taken care of as
long as those fees are used for improvements roadways, sidewalks, and
the like.
August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 5 of 8
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes
Bob Scarfo, 514 W. 25th Ave. Not a resident of SV. Has been
reviewing comp plan and would like to lay out some things for
consideration on the larger picture. Things no evident in comp plan. Did
not get a sense that the plan was looking 20 yrs. ahead. Trends are
coming is end of cheap oil and less driving. Creates more density and
pedestrian oriented. 2nd trend, the aging of the county. 3rd trend is
flexible packages for re-hire back to work. 4th trend. Work force facing
higher demands on time and work. Move closer to work, less travel.
Failing health is another concern and walking is not only a means of travel
but helps with your health, walking is a good exercise. In the end a city
center will create people using alternative methods of getting around,
demand high density around the city to keep things closer to home.
Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Rd. — Mrs. Pollard stated she is the
chairman of the North Greenacres Neighborhood Group. Had a meeting
to address traffic, attended by Engineer Steve Worley. 85 people
attended the discussion. They talked about traffic issues surrounding the
I-90/Barker interchange, linking Indiana with a road for a pass through to
Liberty Lake. Mrs. Pollard stated that most residents and some of the
developers would prefer to have the extension of Indiana link with Boone
Ave. Would like to see a policy that allows engineers to develop roads
with the character of the neighborhood in mind. Include transit,
sidewalks. Developer Greenstone wants to have Mission downgraded as it
fits into his development. Feels that the railroad right of way is a better
thing for a connector than mission. Too much traffic now, too many kids
walking down the street r `S#
James Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Rd. Mr. Pollard is submitting a
written statement by a neighbor who would not attend. Pete Miller,
18124 E. Mission. Mr. Pollard stated that Ms. Miller wrote that Mission is a
minor arterial. There is no change to the comp plan concerning road
widths in the area. Her suggestion is to state the road diagrams in the
comp plan are only a suggestion and not an actual standard. Boone is
listed as a minor 3 lane road.
Dave Black, not a resident, but a developer. He owns a piece of property
on Carnahan Road, just south of 8th Ave. Is currently zoned as
public/quasi-public. Would like to have it down graded to house a self-
storage facility he would like to build there. He bought it from a church, it
is across from a quarry. Please consider changing it so that he can
develop it.
Bob Boyle, Hanson Industries— talk about Hanson Center east. Talk
about Indiana going east. Change it from the turn that would go through
August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 6 of 8
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes
Centennial Properties and put it through Boone. The curve now is what is
in the plan, inherited from county. Sewer line also follows that path. It
would be a straighter too. Next talk about the zone in the area, it will go
to a mixed use zone, we support that. We have worked with the staff as
to what we would like to see there. Last issue. Aesthetic corridor for
Indiana. We inherited it from the county. We would like the planning
commission to drop that designation from Sullivan to Flora. It is not a
gateway to the city. It is not a major focal point coming into the city.
Can see that Sullivan to Pines might be because it leads to another
corridor.
Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner. Wants to make sure that some suggestions
be places on the record for consideration by the commission. Information
comes from Mr. Boyle, who just spoke, with Hansen Industries, Mr.
Dullanty, in regard to auto dealers, Mr. Cragg with the Industrial Park and
a specific request to change the property at 102 N. McDonald Rd. to
commercial, there is a defensive arts academy and dance studio.
Commissioner Crosby closes the public hearing regarding the comp plan
comments at 8:06 pm.
B. OLD BUSINESS — Comp Plan deliberations. We are now at the point
where we are going to be approving changes that have already been made to
the comp plan chapters and propose that they be added as amended.
Begin with chapter 7, economic development. Director Sukup realizes that the
planning commission does not have her version of the chapter for consideration.
She asks that the commission go to another chapter while she makes copies of
what they should be looking at.
Commission moves to chapter 8, natural environment. After the review of
changes Commissioner Kogle makes a motion to accept chapter 8 natural
environment as amended. Commissioner Beaulac seconds, passed as revised.
Chapter 10, Neighborhood Chapter. Commissioner Robertson makes the motion
to include Chapter 10, Neighborhood/Sub-Areas to the Comp Plan as amended.
Second by Commissioner Beaulac. Several concerns are raised in regard to this
chapter. Have we decided to include this chapter in the plan? Not, yet but we
are at that. Look at changes made, than vote to include. Commissioner Carroll
states that he believes that there are no implementation tools in place for these
goals and procedures. He feels it is a bastion of prejudice and bias. Does not
address how to guide the neighborhood. Commissioner Blum is concerned that a
small group could come in and try to force the way they want it. Commissioner
Robertson says he believes the plan will allow for this. Commissioner Beaulac
agrees. Commissioner Gothmann states that all the information was in the plan
already we just moved it to its own chapter. Commissioner Carroll expresses his
August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 7 of 8
Spokane Valley Planning Commission Minutes
concern that people will come in and say they represent a neighborhood and
they don't. Commissioner Beaulac shared that we do not have regulations yet to
support many of the things we have proposed so far but they are the next step.
Vote, to include Neighborhoods as amended: vote is as follows Commissioner
Gothmann yes, Commissioner Beaulac yes, Commissioner Kogle yes,
Commissioner Carroll no, Commissioner Robertson yes, Commissioner Blum no.
Chairman Crosby states it passes with a 4 to 2 vote. Commissioners Carroll and
Blum directly request that Commissioner Crosby vote and that his vote is stated
for the record. Commissioner Crosby votes no, noting that it is 4 to 3 and the
chapter is included as revised.
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
Decision to meet next Thursday for another meeting at 6:00 pm Sept. 15. A
note from staff that Marina and Greg will be gone to a Planner's Conference and
Scott Kuhta will be in charge that evening.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Blum motioned for adjournment, seconded by Commissioner Kogle
to adjourn at 9:00 pm. Passed
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant David Crosby, Chairman
August 25,2005 Planning Commission Page 8 of 8
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: October 13, 2005
Item: Check all that apply: [' consent ❑ old business El new business ® public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report is pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing (continued): An ordinance amending Section
4.08.19.15.3 of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code
relating to Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) to delete the
requirement for direct access to arterial or collector roadways.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70, Spokane Valley Ordinance 03-53
PREVIOUS COUNCIUCOMMISSION
ACTION TAKEN: City Council adopted regulations relating the Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) by Ordinance No. 04-046 on November 9,
2004. Council was briefed on the proposal on August 9, 2005.
Planning Commission opened the public hearing on September 8,
2005, tabling consideration of the item and continuing the public
hearing until October 13, 2005
BACKGROUND:
City Council has asked to reconsider the requirement that a Planned Unit Development be
required to have direct access to an arterial or collector roadway. Inasmuch as there are no
regulations in place which apply to non-PUD subdivisions of similar size concerninq direct
access, the requirement should apply across the board for all developments of similar size,
whether developed as conventional or PUD subdivisions. The size of development which would
trigger more stringent access requirements should be based on an engineering study.
A Determination of Non-Significance was issued on July 20, 2005 with comments due not later
than August 12, 2005 and a draft proposal was submitted to CTED and other agencies for their
review on July 20, 2005.
OPTIONS: Approve, provide staff with direction concerning additional amendments, or
disapprove.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I recommend approval of Spokane Valley
Ordinance No. 05- xxx deleting the requirement for direct access to arterial and
collectors in Planned Unit Developments".
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Ordinance
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 04-046
RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUDs), BY
REPEALING PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
REQUIREMENT FOR DIRECT ACCESS TO ARTERIALS
AND COLLECTORS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, The Interim Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City of Spokane
Valley pursuant to Ordinance 03-53, specifies dimensional standards for residential and
non-residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan Goal ED.5a is to "{p]rovide consistent, fair
and timely regulations that are flexible,responsive and effective" and
WHEREAS, Interim Comprehensive Plan Goal UL.3 is to "[e]ncourage
exemplary developments by providing for flexibility and innovative design through
planned unit commercial/industrial and residential developments"; and
WHEREAS, Interim Comprehensive Plan Policy UL.3.1 through UL.3.3
encourage flexible regulations and incentives; and
WHEREAS, there exist geographic areas within the City of Spokane Valley
which would benefit from more flexibility in order to preserve and protect sensitive
environmental resources; and •
WHEREAS, the development of Mixed-Use and Urban Activity Centers
identified in the Interim Comprehensive Plan require flexibility for successful design and
implementation; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development regulations must be submitted to the
Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development pursuant to
WAC 365-195-620; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley,
Washington, do ordain as follows:
Section 1. Section 4.08.19 of the City of Spokane Valley's Interim Zoning regulations is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 4.08.19
Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone
1
Section 4.08.19.01 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development Zone is to establish a process to foster
creative, efficient, and comprehensive design of site development. The overlay zone is to
be used in conjunction with other zoning classification except the Mining(MZ) zone.
These regulations provide flexibility in site design and offer incentives in order to:
1. Encourage innovative design and the creation of permanent open space.
2. Preserve and enhance special site features.
3. Encourage the conservation of natural features, wildlife habitat, and critical areas.
4. Facilitate the development of mixed-use projects.
5. Encourage the development of street,pedestrian and bicycle paths that contribute to a
system of fully connected routes.
6. Facilitate the economical and adequate provision of public services.
7. Provide for diverse and convenient recreational opportunities.
8. Provide a variety of environments for living,working, and recreation.
Section 4.08.19.02 Applications and Process
1. Planned unit developments shall be initiated by the owner(s) of all property involved,
if under one ownership, or by joint application of all owners having title to all the
property in the area proposed for planned unit development.
2. The planned unit development process entails a preliminary and final phase.-, as
follows:
a. The preliminary phase examines the planned unit development plan for compliance
with the requirements of the zone. The preliminary planned unit development is
considered through a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Once approved
by the Hearing Examiner,the planned unit development is a binding plan that
defines the concept of the development and uses to be allowed. The planned unit
development approval is valid for a 5-year period, which may be extended by a
period not to exceed twelve months by submitting a time extension request to the
Department.Any extension of time must be requested by the applicant, in writing,
before expiration of the original approval, stating specific reasons for such a
request.
b. The final planned unit development plan may be approved administratively,to
determine if all standards,requirements, and conditions of preliminary approval
have been met.
Section 4.08.19.03 Preliminary Planned Unit Developments
The preliminary planned unit development shall have a site development plan, including,
but not limited to,the following:
2
1. The exact boundaries and legal description of the property to be developed.
2. The name of the proposed planned unit development.
3. Date, north arrow, and scale of the drawing.
4.Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the owner(s), applicant(s), engineer, and
surveyor.
5. The general location of all proposed improvements that are to be constructed on the
land,including,but not limited to, all residential and nonresidential structures,
building heights,recreational facilities, walls, fences,refuse areas, streets,walks and
public transit facilities.
6. Setbacks to the property line, roadways, and the planned unit development perimeter.
7. Location of pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems.
8. Common open spaces showing size and functions upon completion.
9. A description of the method of ownership and responsibility for maintenance of all
common open space and private streets.
10. The location and dimension of off-street parking facilities,public and private,
including transit facilities for nonresidential uses.
11. Location and size of all public and semipublic sites if applicable(i.e., schools,
churches,parks,plazas, etc.).
12. A tabulation of densities within each project area,phase or sector.
13.-If applicable, a subdivision map showing land divisions. The preliminary and final
subdivision map shall comply with the county subdivision ordinance and state
subdivision regulations.
14. A proposed phasing and/or timing schedule.
15. Topographical map of existing terrain at a minimum two foot contour level, including
100-year flood plains identified under the National Flood Insurance program.
16.Natural features to be retained, such as natural slopes, stands of trees, etc.
17. All critical areas as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
Section 4.08.19.04 Final Planned Unit Developments
1. Prior to expiration of the preliminary planned unit development, approval of a final
planned unit development plan is required. Approval of the final planned unit
development shall be administrative. A final planned unit development differs from
the preliminary planned unit development in the amount of detailed information
provided. In addition to all of the information required for a preliminary planned unit
development,the final planned unit development plan shall include the following
items.
a. Approved road plans.
3
b. Approved drainage system plans.
c. Typical building footprints.
d. A tabulation of the percentage of total building coverage in the development.
e. A schematic landscaping plan indicating the type and the size of plant material to
be used, and the method for providing permanent maintenance to all planted areas
and open spaces.
2. Any planned unit development not finalised before the expiration of the preliminary
planned unit development approval shall become void, unless a time extension is
granted by the Director of Community Development. Construction shall not
commence until a planned unit development has been given final approval.
Section 4.08.19.05 Phased Planned Unit Developments
1. A planned unit development may be developed in phases, subject to an approved
phasing schedule.All construction and improvements not completed within five (5)
years of approval of the phased final planned unit development are subject to
compliance with updated City Standards through a time extension action. Any
planned unit development where construction has not commenced before expiration
of the final planned unit development approval shall become void.
2. Each phase of the proposed development must contain the required parking spaces,
common open space, ingress, egress and transportation circulation landscape, and
utility areas necessary to sustain that phase as an independent development, in the
event that the remaining property is not developed.
Section 4.08.19.06 Modifications
1. The Hearing Examiner may require modifications to the application for a planned unit
development to ensure that the purpose and intent of this chapter is accomplished.
2. A substantial modification to the approved preliminary or final planned unit
development plan shall only be approved through a change of condition application
process. All modifications which are not minor shall be considered substantial.
3. A minor modification to the preliminary or final planned unit development plan may
be approved administratively. Minor modifications shall be consistent with the
following requirements:
a. The modification shall be limited to minor shifting of the location of buildings,
proposed streets,utility easements, or common open space.
b. The modification shall not:
i. Enlarge the boundaries of the approved planned unit development plan.
ii. Change the approved uses.
iii. Change the general location or amount of land devoted to a specific land
use.
4
iv. Increase the residential densities.
Section 4.08.19.07 Permitted Uses
Used allowed in a planned unit development include those uses allowed in the underlying
zone(s) and those accessory uses and structures ordinarily associated with a permitted
use.
Section 4.08.19.08 Development Standards
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, evidence of compliance with provisions of this
chapter,when applicable, shall be provided to the Division.
Section 4.08.19.09 Density
1. The total units permitted in a planned unit development shall be determined as follows.
a. In any planned unit development,the number of dwelling units per acre of land
shall not exceed that which is permitted by the underlying zone(s), except as
approved for density bonus by the Hearing Examiner subject to the following
procedures. However,this does not preclude an applicant from transferring
density from one portion of the development to another portion of the
development, so long as the total project does not exceed the maximum density of
all zoning classifications included within the project boundary.
Residential density shall be determined by the following formula:
Net Maximum number of Density
Development x per acre Total Units
+ Bonus _
Factor allowed in Earned Permitted
underlying zone
b. The net development factor is the acreage of the planned unit development area
minus the area set aside for, or existing in, any of the following:
i. Schools.
ii. Commercial and/or industrial uses.
iii. Single-family residential platted areas, if determining net development factor
for the multifamily portion of a mixed single-family, multifamily.
development.
iv. Natural water bodies, including lakes, streams, swamps,marshes, and bogs
which are not incorporated in the common open space plan of the planned unit
development.
v. 75% of areas having slopes that exceed 40%.
vi. Public or private streets.
5
2. Bonus Density: The following units per acre may be cumulatively earned as additional
density to the maximum base unit density of the underlying zone.
a. Common Open Space.
i. 0.3 unit-per-acre bonus if at least 50% of the dry, common open space has a
slope of 10% or less.
ii. 0.5 unit-per-acre bonus if significant recreation areas are developed and
equipped with at least 2 of the following features: hard surface biking,hiking or
walking trails connecting the entire development; improved playfields, sport
courts; swimming or wading pool; or children's play areas that incorporate play
structures/equipment and are at least 10,000 square feet in size.
b. Environmental Concern.
i. 0.3 unit-per-acre bonus if general public access is provided to lake or river;to
trails, 0.1 unit-per-acre bonus;to scenic viewpoint, 0.1 unit-per-acre bonus.
ii. 1.0 unit-per-acre bonus if 40% or more of the existing, disease-free trees over
10 inches in diameter, are retained on the site. Tree diameter shall be measured at
6 feet above the ground. This bonus shall only apply in forested areas where the
density of the above-described trees is equal or greater than 10 trees per acre. The
health of the trees shall be certified by a licensed arborist.
c. Internal Circulation and Parking.
i-0.2 unit-per-acre bonus if nonresidential parking areas are kept small (10 to 20
spaces in a group) and interspersed with landscaping, or provided within or under
main buildings.
ii. 1.0 unit-per-acre bonus for an interconnected roadway system without cul-de-
sacs.
iii. 0.5 unit-per-acre bonus for an un-gated development allowing through access
to the public.
d. Public Service and Facility Availability.
i. 0.3 unit-per-acre bonus if public transit is available within '/4-mile walking
distance of the majority of dwelling units and offices. The walking route shall be
hard-surfaced and accessible, and may require an off-site sidewalk/pathway.
ii. 0.2 unit-per-acre bonus if off-site convenience shopping facilities are
functionally accessible within reasonable walking distance (approximately '/4-
mile). The walking route shall be hard-surfaced and accessible, and may require
an off-site sidewalk/pathway.
iii. 0.5 unit-per-acre bonus if special facilities for public transit are incorporated
into the design and approved by the STA(e.g., sheltered, lighted waiting/loading
facilities,including benches and park-and-ride spaces).
iv. 0.2/acre for school bus loading shelters approved by the school district.
6
Section 4.08.19.10 Parking, Signage, and Landscaping Standards Parking, signage
and landscaping standards shall be as provided in chapter 14.802, Off-Street Parking and
Loading Standards; chapter 14.804, Signage Standards; and chapter 14.806, Landscaping
and Screening Standards.
Section 4.08.19.11 Storage Standards All storage in the planned unit development zone
shall be within a closed building, except for the storage of retail products that are for sale
or rent,which may be stored outdoors during business hours only Outdoor storage of
retail products shall not be within any required front or side yard, nor in any public street
or road right-of-way.
Section 4.08.19.12 Refuse Storage All outdoor trash, garbage and refuse storage areas
shall be screened on all sides from public view and, at a minimum,be enclosed with a
51/2-foot-high concrete block, masonry wall, or sight-obscuring fence with a sight-
obscuring gate for access. Single-family and duplex residences are exempted from this
provision.
Section 4.08.19.13 Mechanical Equipment All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
screened from adjacent roadways and properties, so as not to be visible by persons
standing at the property line.
Section 4.08.19.14 Utilities All utilities shall be underground.
Section 4.08.19.15 Additional Requirements
1. All streets shall meet or exceed the current design and construction standards for
public streets adopted by the City of Spokane Valley, as they may be amended from time
to time.
2. All areas which are to be occupied or traveled over by motor vehicles shall be paved.
3. No proposed street shall impede the current or future development of any arterial or
collector identified on the Arterial Road Plan. ' -" . - • - . " - •
designated collector or arterial_
4. Energy efficient street lights shall be located at the entrance of the development and
at each intersection. The lights shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners'
association or local electric utility.
5. Maintenance of Private Streets and Common Areas.
a. Residential developments. A homeowners' association shall be created
pursuant to RCW Chapter 64.38. The association shall be created for the
purpose of managing and maintaining private streets, common areas, and
7
other improvements not otherwise owned by individual lot owners, and any
other lawful purpose allowed under RCW Chapter 64.38.
b. Nonresidential developments. An association or other legal entity shall be
created pursuant to the laws of the State of Washington for the purpose of
managing and maintaining private streets, common areas, and other
improvements not otherwise owned by individual lot owners, and any
other lawful purpose.
c. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded
with the Spokane County Auditor for all planned unit developments
containing private streets and/or common areas._The Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall include the following
provisions:
i. Repair and Maintenance Rights and Duties of
Association: The Association shall maintain, repair and
replace all parts of the common area including private
streets, drainage systems, and retention ponds or similar
drainage facilities, or shall contract for such
maintenance, repair and replacement to such areas are
maintained in good condition and function for their
intended use.
ii. Maintenance of Private Streets: The private streets, as
designed and approved by the City of Spokane Valley,
have been or are being constructed for the purpose of
providing ingress and egress and pedestrian access to
the property. The City of Spokane Valley has no
obligation to maintain, repair or reconstruct the private
streets. The Association is responsible for repairs and
maintenance. The Association shall maintain the
private streets in reasonable conformance with the
approved private road plans on file with the City of
Spokane Valley.
iii. Dissolution of Association: The Association may be
dissolved only if ownership and maintenance
responsibility of common areas, common area
roadways, and drainage control features is assumed by a
governmental entity with the authority to assume such
ownership and upon written acceptance of the same by
the governmental entity. It is not the policy of the City
of Spokane Valley to assume ownership of common
areas, private streets or other common area
improvements.
iv. Enforcement: The Board, any Owner, and any
governmental or quasi-governmental agency or
municipality having jurisdiction over the Project shall
8
have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in
equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants,
reservations, liens, and charges now or hereafter
imposed in the Declaration, and all such action shall be
entitled to recover cost and reasonable attorneys fees as
ordered by the Court.
v. Reserve Fund: The Association shall exercise good
faith and best efforts to maintain a Reserve Fund for the
maintenance of private streets and other improvements
such as common greenbelts, security station structures
and equipment, and other infrastructure. This Reserve
Fund should not be co-mingled with any other
association fund. The balance of the fund should be
equal to the total replacement cost of the private streets
and other improvements divided by the average life
expectancy of those improvements times the age of the
improvements.
vi. Access Required: Emergency vehicles utility personnel,
the U.S. Postal Service, and governmental employees in
connection with their official duties shall have access to
the planned unit development
6. Drainage improvements shall be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance
with the current Spokane Valley Storm Water Management Standards, as they may be
amended from time to time.
7. Pedestrian Circulation Facilities. Within planned unit development projects,pedestrian
circulation facilities serving each unit shall be provided on both sides of the street or
private road and shall be:
a. Hard-surfaced with asphalt or concrete. Asphalt walkways shall be only allowed
when physically separated by a minimum of 7' from the vehicle roadway.
Alternative hard surface material may be used when approved by the Public
Works Department. Sidewalks separated by less than 3' from the roadway shall
have a vertical curb separating sidewalk from roadway. Walkways shall meet
accessibility standards.
b. Functionally and safely convenient to each dwelling unit served;
c. Functionally and safely convenient to schools and to industrial, commercial,
recreational and utility areas within or adjacent to the project;
d. Sufficiently wide(minimum of six [6] feet for commercial areas and five [5]
feet for residential areas)to accommodate potential use;
e. Located and designed in accordance with approval from the City of Spokane
Valley
Section 4.08.19.16 Required Open Space
9
1. Required Open Space: A minimum of 10% of the total area of the planned unit
development shall be designated and maintained as common open space. Required
landscape areas and storm water facilities shall not be used in the calculation of open
space.
2. Types of Open Space: Land dedicated for open space should be usable for either
greenbelts that serve as a buffer between land uses,using existing vegetation and new
plant materials, active or passive recreational activities, or for protecting environmentally
sensitive areas or critical areas. Unusable open space includes the design of areas that do
not meet the intent and purpose of this chapter, such as open space areas that are not
accessible to residents of the development, or do not function for active/passive
recreation or do not conserve wildlife habitat or other natural features.
3. Maintenance and Ownership of Common Open Space: The applicant shall choose 1 or
any combination of the following methods of administering common open space:
a. Dedication of common open space to the City,which is subject to formal City
acceptance; or
b. Establishment of an association or nonprofit corporation of all property owners
or corporations within the project area to ensure ownership of and responsibility
for perpetual maintenance of all common open space.
4. Transfer of Ownership. Where dedication to the public or a homeowners' association
is proposed required improvements shall be completed prior to any transfer of ownership.
Where improvements are not completed in accordance with these requirements,building
permits and/or approval of permitted structures may be withheld upon notification to the
Building Official by the Community Development Director,pending completion of said
improvements.
5. Phasing: All common spaces, as well as public and recreational facilities, shall be
specifically included in the phasing schedule and be constructed and fully improved by
the applicant at an equivalent or greater rate than the construction of structures.
Section 2. Section 4.15.1 of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code is
hereby amended to add the dimensional standards for residential PUDs as shown on
Attachment"A"made a part hereof for all purposes.
Section 3. Chapter 14.704 Planned Unit Development Overlay Zone of the
Interim Zoning Code is hereby repealed.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on
the official date of incorporation provided publication of this Ordinance or a summary
thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law.
PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2005.
10
Mayor, Diana Wilhite
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Chris Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Deputy City Attorney, Cary Driskell
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
11
•
Section 4.15.1 Residential Zone Dimensional Standards
UR-3.5 3)(') UR 7(3)") UR 12(3)))) UR 22(3)(1)
Residential
Single Single Multi- Single Multi- Single Multi- PUDs t3)(1)
Family Duplex Family Duplex family Family Duplex family Family Duplex family
Lot Area/Dwelling
Unit 10,000 20,000 6,000 11,000 15,000 4,200 5,000 6,000 1,600 3,200 6,000 1,600
Lot Frontage 80 80 65 90 100 50 50 60 20 40 _ 60 30
Lot Depth _ 80 80 100 80 80 100 50
Front Yard Setback ,
E (5) 1 15"z) 15"z) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(5)
E Garage Setback 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) cz) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) iz) (s)
'� 20 20 20
' Rear Yard Setback
(4)(5)(6) 20 20 20 20 15 20 20 15 20 20 15 15
Side Yard Setback
(4)(5)(6) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Side Yard Setback
(flanking Street)(5) , 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 15(2) 10
Open Space ! 10%gross
area
Density(DU/Acre) 4.35 4.35 7 7 7 12 12 12 22 22 22 Zone+Bonus
Lot Coverage 50.0% 50.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0% 60.0%
E Building Height(in
co feet) 35 35 35 35 35 40 40 40 50 50 50 Zone
Building Height(in
stories) 2% 2% 2% 2% 3 3 3 4 4 4 Zone
(1) "Clear view"Triangle required
(2) Measured from property line outside border easement,if any
Zero setbacks along rear and/or one side are allowed provided that a 5'-0"construction and maintenance easement(s)is recorded with the Spokane
(3) County Auditor prior to issuance of a building permit.Minimum rear yard setbacks on zero lot line configuration shall not be less than fifty(50)feet or the
sum of the rear yards required by the underlying zone,whichever is greater.
(4) Minimum side yard setbacks between dwelling units and adjacent lots shall not be less than 10 feet on the side opposite the zero in a zero lot line
configuration
(5) Institutional and Office uses have the same setback as residential uses in zones where permitted. Attached garages loading from the side may have the
same setback as a principal structure.
(6) Permitted accessory structures shall maintain a five foot(5-0")side and rear yard setback
ATTACHMENT "A"
12
September 8, 2005
City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Re: PUD Ordinance restricting Planned Unit Developments on Rural Roads
My wife and I are owners of property at 516 South Barker Road. This property sets adjacent
to the property that is sought to be developed by Mr.Dennis Crapo,along with Whipple Consulting
Engineers, Inc (the Applicants). That Applicants initially applied for development of a PUD on
property that is located along the south side of 4'Avenue,west of the intersection of 4'Avenue and
Barker Road. This property is approximately 4.6 acres. The Applicants also sought a rezone from
UR 3.5 to UR *7 zoning.
The hearing examiner granted the rezone,but denied the PUD. The PUD was denied because
the access road would be made on 4' Avenue, a rural road. The PUD Ordinance at issue in this
hearing prevents placing PUDs with access on rural roads.
It is being suggested by the Applicants(through counsel)that such ordinance does not make
sense and that they know of no other community that has such a restriction. It is suggested that
normally municipalities want access to smaller roads to avoid traffic congestion on main arterials.
I do not believe that the Applicant's position is accurate. It may well be that local
government's attempt to prevent access to PUDs on 4 lane arterials,but that has no bearing on the
types of roads in our immediate neighborhood. For example,Turtle Creek development has access
from Barker Road. Long Road is the access for the development where Mr. Crapo lives. Both of
these roads are wider collector or arterial two lane roads. They are not rural roads.
The Applicant also takes the position that the PUD Ordinance restricting PUDs from access
on rural roads is somehow unconstitutional. As the Applicant's attorney will concede,the Ordinance
is constitutional if there is some"rationale basis"to justify the ordinance. Here,especially when you
look at 4"Avenue, it can easily be established that the Ordinance in question has a"rational basis"
in the law.
Finally, I understand that the Applicant believes that some engineer justification is needed
for the ordinance or that the recommendation should have come from an engineer before the
ordinance was recommended to and Council and passed by the Council. Such belief is not warranted
here. One drive, or one look at the narrowness of 4" Avenue provides plenty of justification and
needs no engineer to figure out why the Ordinance at issue here is wise.
I have taken some pictures of 4th Avenue. They are attached. The first picture shows two 1/2
ton pick-up trucks side-by-side on 4th. This picture demonstrates the narrowness of 4th Avenue. The
picture is taken from the spot of the PUD application, submitted by the Applicants(part of the sign
is located on the right side of the picture for reference). The next two pictures show the narrowness
of the road at the intersection of Barker Road and 4th Avenue.
The narrowness of 4th Avenue is key. At the other end of 4th Avenue, at the intersection of
Long, is the Greenacres Elementary School. There are school children that walk along 4th and ride
bikes on 4th Avenue. Increase traffic by a higher density PUD on 4th is a massive health and safety
issue for the children and property owners living on 4th Avenue. 4th Avenue is a rural road with no
sidewalks. As can be seen by the pictures,the residential properties abuts the street with no real or
natural walkways. This distinguishes roads like Barker and Long and Sprague from roads like 4th
Avenue.
Prohibiting PUD access on rural roads like 4th makes complete sense in light of the health,
safety,and morals of the community. In order to preserve health and safety on these narrower roads,
it is rational that our city officials would limit access to streets like Barker Road and Long which are
wider and don't present the safety issues presented by a PUD's access on to rural roads.
I am unable to attend tonight's public meeting due to a family emergency. This family matter
may keep me from attending any City Council meeting next week. I ask the Planning Commission
to delay any recommendation to the City Council until the end of next week so that I may attend any
public meeting on the City Council's decision based on your recommendation.
Additionally, this affects me directly because I have filed in the Superior Court of Spokane
County a "LUPA" Petition on the decision to rezone the subject property. I do not want to be
prejudiced on the PUD decision and my ability to participate fully in that decision since I was a
respondent in the appeal before the City Council on the PUD Ordinance at issue.
I therefore request that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the
current ordinance restricting PUD access on rural roads remain in affect. This ordinance helps
preserve the health and safety of our community and for that reason is rationally b e s.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Hormel
Affected Property Owner
516 South Barker Road
Spokane Valley, WA 99016
\ k ,
Y 43. t �..
rw r , , I Or_..:!...,rt-41-: - - AT-4, 24 .:,,,.-74:7kf,l,'! ,; 4..,-; ,-•:,-;-.J,
3 —, r ,r•i .fly+ �.i�1 I �i���!1 r
• 1 . ) *1..,,-4, . •••
Am rriN .4paiks:$3, ,, : A...., Xill,
•
Stephen Hormel
PUD- affected Property Owner
516 S Barker Rd.
submitted 19/13/05
El
.
•
Ax •
e . , 1� r. • • .;
r •
t,
�^ h t •
• ♦ t
t f•.
•
•
•
1 err - .----`07`,...r.
'� '! '1 r . ! r' ,,: •� -rj
` �`�.�i' r -11 , ,.: :' • .
��• } It`d
• • V ,.
,.
%.
+r
•
y f .xri
•
•
-.x r '
-1...,--1:--- • r r { ' t
RV 9 ' o 6 /r��'R J�
sxi•-
4ysl'*:fin n �_'4 F .- - - .-
r`` / r r - • �.r' 1 `r
., •r• i kl� • �F � , gip'" ' ,l tf,� Rs - ' r' ' r � l�� �: � I M ' r
7 1 Y 1 P( f
,.
YI ! rye ',, $ i-f'• *4 f / , tyR. i a/r i��', li.' i, it • �1r' j
I' .' '' 191' .: ' •'S ' '' I Ifs ,f „M'+' 4,i.lyr•
' ! ur Ocii, 1 i r.l 1 �r t " i) , /r it 4* i' r i t .,
�h I, 1. +i� R t t° I f r t�
iisraokii
ivoi.....„_1 • I isfigisbt..c I - , , . :t ......,_ 4 4 . 4 ..
- ' IJ ' �l
Abi
tt St' I 0-- At i •, , % .
AIONPr
r 4"011110."1"10%. r1l �.
( f ..,,,fit
j arrr<.•iew+M�+r.r:o..s�werw�aw.... _. .......w✓.tlT�-v. ..::a - i.A� r _.
•
•
;y y
09 /06 /2005