Agenda 07/22/2004 SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chambers - City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Avenue
6:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
* * * July 22, 2004 * * *
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
• July 8, 2004
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
New Business:
• Public Hearing: Proposed ordinance amending Ordinance#03-053 relating to
Administrative Exceptions and Administrative Variances
• Public Hearing: Proposed ordinance establishing Section 4.15.1-Residential
Standards; and Section 4.15.2-Non-Residential Dimensional Standards
• Public Hearing: Proposal to amend Ordinance#03-053 to provide interim zoning
pursuant to Chapter 14.615 Urban Residential Estate (UR-1)Zone established herein
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
Xl. ADJOURNMENT
COMMISSIONERS CITY STAFF
Fred Beaulac Marina Sukup, AICP
Robert Blum Greg McCormick, AICP
John G. Carroll Scott Kuhta, AICP
David Crosby Debi Alley
William Gothmann, Chair
Gail Kogle
Ian Robertson, Vice-Chair www.spokanevalley.orq
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Commission Action
Meeting Date: July 22, 2004
Item: Check all that apply: 0 consent 0 old business El new business ® public hearing
0 information 0 admin. report pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed ordinance amending Ordinance
03-053 relating to Administrative Exceptions and Administrative
Variances.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70, Spokane Valley Ordinance 03-053
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council was briefed on interim development
regulations requiring review on April 6, 2004. The
Planning Commission was briefed on July 8, 2004.
BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan pursuant
to Ordinance No. 03-052, subsequently adopting the Zoning Code of Spokane County as
interim development regulations for the new city (Ordinance 03-053). Included in the latter was
a new section (14.404.090 Administrative Variances) which ostensibly granted additional
discretion for administrative approvals to building setback, height and lot area requirements.
Unfortunately, "variances" are narrowly defined in both state law and the Interim Development
Regulations and require notice to adjacent property owners and a public hearing before the
Hearing Examiner, effectively precluding administrative approvals. This discrepancy is resolved
by amending Section 14.506 Administrative Exception to include the provisions originally
addressed in 14.404.090 Administrative Variance and repealing that provision.
In reviewing Chapter 14.506 Administrative Exception provisions relating to "Arterial/Overlay
Zones" and "Future Acquisition areas" are obsolete. These provisions are deleted but intent
was preserved in a new subsection 10 in 14.506.020 which identifies Administrative Exceptions
as also applicable to improved properties adversely impacted by voluntary dedication of rights-
of-way, eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right-of-way by the City, County, State or
Federal agency.
A determination of Non-Significance was issued on May 6, 2004 and a draft proposal was
submitted to CTED and other agencies for their review on May 10, 2004. Following the public
hearing, the Planning Commission will forward its recommendation to the City Council.
OPTIONS: Approve, approve with amendments, disapprove.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Recommendation for City Council approval of the
proposed ordinance amending Ordinance 03-053.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS: Draft ordinance.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.04-0
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE 03-053 INTERIM DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
RELATING TO ADMINIS'T'RATIVE VARIANCES AND EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 03-053 adopted the Spokane County
Zoning Code as Interim Development Regulations pursuant to the requirements of RCW Chap. 36.70A;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Chapter 14.506 of the Spokane Valley Interim Development Regulations is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Chapter 14.506 ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION
14.506.000 Intent
The Community Development Director may approve minor deviations to requirements for
setbacks, lot coverage, minimum lot size and building height where the strict application of
.-. - - !- .. .• . _ . ..•- . . . . . . . . . . .. . . this• • Code is
found unreasonably detrimental to the development of the property and the interests of the
property owner, qualifies as an exception set forth in 1'1.506.024subject to 14.605.030, Approval
Criteria the Department may act to approve or deny such exception (deviation). Criteria for
14.506.020 Allowed Exceptions
Exceptions may be considered only when they involve any of the following circumstances.
1. Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed one(1)foot.
2. Under the following conditions:
a. A parcel established prior to March 31,2003 that does not meet the buildable square footage
requirements for a parcel in a particular zoning district;or
b. A legally non-conforming dwelling with respect to setbacks,height and size which otherwise
could not be expanded or reconstructed;or
c. A duplex constructed prior to March 31,2003 that does not meet the minimum parcel size,which
could not otherwise be reconstructed.
3. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for ten-twenty-five percent(4825%)or less of the
required yard.
4. Building height requirements where the deviation is for twenty-five ten-percent(251-9%)or less of
the maximum building height.
5. Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for twenty five percent(25%)or less of the
required lot area.
6. Maximum building coverage requirements where the wee-deviation is for twenty five percent
(25%)or less of the maximum building coverage.
67. Lot frontage and/or width under the following circumstances:
a. Lot frontage and/or width requirements where the deviation is for ten percent(10%)or less than
the required lot frontage.
b. Lot frontage and/or width requirements in the GA,RR 10,and SRR 5 zones where the deviation
is for thirty(30%)or less of the required lot frontage.
be. Lot frontage and/or width requirements where the deviation is greater than that listed in
14.506.020(67a)(eb)provided that the Department •. -:: - - . • - - -• ..-• -
.- - - - - . •• - • : .•. ` -.. -• - - may include require
circulation to affected agencies"resulting in conditions of approval.
78. Up to one-half(1/2)of a private tower's "impact area"off of the applicant's property.
89. Flanking Street Yard setbacks,provided that:
a. At the time the subject parcel was legally created the property was zoned under a zoning
classification of the pre-January 1, 1991 Spokane County Zoning Ordinance,and subsequently on
January 1, 1991 a new zoning classification from the Zoning Code of Spokane,Washington was
assigned to the subject property;and
b. Any Flanking Yard Setback deviation granted under this section shall not exceed the required
Flanking Street setback standards of the pre-January 1, 1991 Zoning classification of the subject
property.
10. Anv improved property rendered non-conforming through voluntary dedication of right-of-way,the
exercise of eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right-of-way by the City,the County or State or
Federal agency.
910. A roadway alignment of an arterial or road^ _ . .• •- - = •. • -- •- •" o•- .. • --
Engineer.
!• -. ..' _ - --- - . •- - .• . -• 1. ! • • -- -Acquisition Area;provided: (a)a need for greater spacing than required by 11.710.320 is
demonstrated due to special circumstances of the site;and(b)the purpose of the Arterial/Road
. ► • • _ - - .. • .. . .--• - 0• . - - . i•'�!! - .
- - • --• - • .. . .. , . - j0. . •- ..• - - ; - - • .
need for lesser setback than required by 11.710.300 is demonstrated due to special circumstances of
the site; (b)the purpose of the Arterial/Road Overlay Zone will be accomplished; (c)the public is
12. Disadvantaged property where the provisions of 11.710.320 cannot resolve the limitation.The
allowable 25%required parking stalls(sec 11.710.320)within the Future Acquisition Arca may be
increased up to an additional 10%;provided: (a)a need for more stalls than allowed by 11.710.320 is
• • .
Zone will be accomplished;and(c)the public is not responsible for the future loss or relocation of the
parking stalls; and(d)a"Title Notice" is recorded pursuant 11.710.220(2).
allowable driveway setback or spacing required(see 11.710.380)within the Future Acquisition Area
. --- - - - •- ' - - .. . e0, : _ - ... . .._ .: _ ..; . .
a need for less setback or spacing than required by 11.710.380 is demonstrated due to special
0 , _ .
the issuance of an interim permit pursuant 11.710.100 will, in the long term,resolve the site design
future loss or closure of the driveway when an interim permit is granted pursuant 11.710.100.The
".:. . . .w . ..11 . . . ,. . . . . . .. . . .1.1.
14.506.030 Approval Criteria
Criteria for approval or denial of applications shall be established by the Community Development
Director if it is shown that:.
1. The administrative exception does not detract from the character and nature of the vicinity in
which it is proposed;
2. The administrative exception enhances or protects the character of the neighborhood or vicinity
by protecting natural features,historic sites,open space,or other resources;
3. The administrative exception does not interfere with or negatively impact the operations of
existing land uses and all legally permitted uses within the zoning district it occupies;
4. Granting the administrative exception does not constitute a threat to the public health,safety and
welfare within the city.
14.506.040 Procedures
The decision and conditions of approval of the Department in granting or denying an administrative
exception should be submitted in writing to the applicant within thirty (30)days, but no longer than sixty
(60) days, of receipt of a complete application. Such decision must indicate how the administrative
exception is consistent or inconsistent with any criteria or guidelines set forth herein by-the-Planning
Director.
If the Department determines that a requested administrative exception does not meet appropriate criteria,
the application may be processed as a variance in the manner outlined in Section 14.404.080."
Section 2. Section 14.404.090 Administrative Variance is hereby repealed.
Section 3. 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 4. 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 ,2004.
Mayor,Michael DeVleming
ATTEST:
City Clerk,Chris Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Deputy City Attorney,Cary Driskell
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
_alley
ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS &
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES
Public Hearing
Community Development Department
July 22,2004
Background
• City Council was briefed on Development Regulation
policy issues on April 6,2004,and provided direction
concerning the intent of the provisions included in
Ordinance No.05-53
• SEPA analysis was completed on April 26,2004 and a
Determination of Non-Significance issued
Proposed Amendments
• The provisions of Section 14.404.090 adopted by City
Council have been incorporated into the amended
requirements of Section 14.506 and 14.404.090
repealed
• In addition obsolete provisions relating to"Future
Acquisition Areas"were deleted. Added were provisions
which allow consideration of Administrative Exception on
improved property rendered non-conforming as a result
of right-of-way acquisition by voluntary dedication,
purchase or condemnation
RECOMMENDATION
• Approval
1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Commission Action
Meeting Date: July 22, 2004
Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ® pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed ordinance establishing Section 4.15.1
Residential Standards and Section 4.15.2 Non-Residential
Dimensional Standards of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development
Code. The proposal consolidates and modifies regulations concerning
height, area and setbacks contained in the Interim Zoning Code,
deletes obsolete and/or non-urban provisions, provides for severability
and effective date.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.63.105, WAC 365-195-845, WAC 365-195-855,
Spokane Valley Ordinance 03-053
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council was briefed on interim development
regulations requiring review on April 6, 2004 and
on this issue on May 4, 2004. The Planning
Commission was briefed on the proposed
standards on July 8, 2004.
BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan pursuant
to Ordinance No. 03-052, subsequently adopting the Zoning Code of Spokane County as
interim development regulations for the new city (Ordinance 03-053). The interim Zoning Code
includes many regulations which do not apply within urban areas and other regulations which
staff has suggested should be amended to eliminate redundancy, ambiguity and conflicts in
enforcement.
The proposed amendment would consolidate dimensional standards for development into two
tables, residential and non-residential. The proposal would also amend residential dimensional
standards as follows:
1. Front yard setbacks: reduced to fifteen feet from 25 feet, measured from the property
line or the edge of the border easement.
2. Garage setbacks: twenty feet, added to allow parking within the driveway which does not
overhang public right-of-way or border easements.
3. Side yard setbacks: reduced to a flat five feet.
4. Side yard setbacks (flanking street): reduced to fifteen feet. A significant portion of the
Administrative Exceptions relate to side yard setbacks on corner lots.
5. Rear Yards: the minimum size of rear yard would be increased from 15 feet to 20 feet
for single-family and duplex developments only.
6. Minimum lot sizes and other dimensional requirements within Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) have been deleted.
There is no change proposed for setback requirements of any accessory structure. Rural
residential zoning classifications SRR-5, R-5, SRR-1, SR-1 and SR-1/2 are repealed as
inappropriate for urban development and because no property within the corporate limits
presently maintains this zoning classification. Rural Residential -10 is retained only because of
existing property retains this designation.
Administrative Report
Dimensional Standards
Page 2 of 2
No changes to the non-residential dimensional standards are proposed. The repealing clause
would delete a provision which requires a minimum separation between Neighborhood Business
(B-1) zones of 2,640 feet, unless it is within 100 feet of another B-1 zone. The Interim
Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of business clusters rather than arterial strip
development, although there is no specific reference in the Comprehensive Plan that the
spacing of these zones is designed to accomplish this objective nor any evidence that the
requirement is intended to accomplish this objective.
The proposed amendment in the Interim Development Regulations is subject to review by the
Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. The Environmental Checklist
was completed on May 20, 2004 and a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) issued.
Appeals to the DNS should be submitted not later than June 11, 2004.
Following the public hearing, the recommendation of Planning Commission will be forwarded to
City Council.
OPTIONS: Approve, approve with amendments, or disapprove.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommendation for City Council approval of the proposed
ordinance amending Ordinance 03-053.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, 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. 53 TO ESTABLISH SECTIONS 4.15.1
RESIDENTIAL DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS AND 4.15.2 NON-
RESIDENTIAL DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY
UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE; REPEALING PROVISIONS IN
CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,The Interim Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City of Spokane Valley pursuant to
Ordinance 53,specifies dimensional standards for residential and non-residential development; and
Whereas, WAC 365-195-845 provides that "[t]he development regulations of planning
jurisdictions should include provisions addressing the general procedures for processing applications for
development,designed to promote timeliness,fairness and predictability";and
Whereas, WAC 365-195-855 which provides that "[i]n the drafting of development
regulations.....procedures for avoiding takings, such as variances or exemptions, should be built into the
overall regulatory scheme;"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, Policy ED.5.6 directs "[r] development regulations continuously to ensure clarity,
consistency, predictability and direction," including "[p]rovide opportunities for citizens to initiate
amendments to inconsistent, outdated, inappropriate or unnecessary or confusing regulations.."consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan(RCW 35A.63.105); 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 4.15.1 Residential Dimensional Standards and Section 4.15.2 Non-
Residential Dimensional Standards of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code are hereby
established as provided in Exhibit"A"and"B"attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes.
Section 2. Repealer:. The Interim Zoning Code, Sections 14.616.305 through 14.616.335,
14.618.305 through 14.618.335, 14.620.305 through 14.620.335, 14.622.305 through 14.622.335,
14.624.309 through 14.624.335; 14.626.310 through 14.626.335, 14.628.315 through 14.628.335,
14.630.310 through 14.630.335, 14.632.310 through 14.632.335, 14.634.310 through 14.634.335,
14.636.310 through 14.635.325, and Chapters 14.608 Semi-Rural Residential-5 (SRR-5), 14.609 Rural-5
(R-5), 14.610 Semi-Rural Residential -2 (SRR-2), 14.612 Suburban Residential -1 (SR-1), 14.614
Suburban Residential-1/2(SR-1/2),and 14.812 Solar Developments. are hereby repealed.
Page 1
Section 3. 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 4. 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_,2004.
Mayor,Michael DeVleming
ATTEST:
City Clerk,Chris Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Interim City Attorney, Stanley M. Schwartz
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Page 2
Section 4.15.1 Residential Zone Dimensional Standards
UR-3.5(3)(1) UR 7(3)(1) UR 12(3)(1) UR 22(3)(1)
Single Single Multi- Single Multi- Single Multi-
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
Lot Frontage 80 80 65 90 100 50 50 60 20 40 60
Lot Depth 80 80 100 80 80 100
§ Front Yard Setback 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2)
E Garage Setback 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2) 20(2,
Rear Yard Setback(4) 20 20 45 20 45 20 15 45 20 45 20 15 45 20 45 20 15
Side Yard Setback`°' 54 5 5*"5 54"5 5±5 54±5 5*'5 5*'5 5 5 54±5 5 ±5 5 ±5
Side Yard Setback(flanking
Street) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 25-15(2( 25-15(2) 25-15(2) 225-15(2) 25-15(2
E Density(DU/Acre) 4.35 4.35 7 7 7 12 12 12 22 22 22
Lot Coverage 50.0% 50.0% 55.0% 55.0% 55.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 65.0% 65.0% 65.0%
'm Building Height(in feet) 35 35 35 35 35 40 40 40 50 50 50
2 Building Height(in stories) 2% 2% 2% 21/2 3 3 3 4 4 4
(1) "Clear view"Triangle required
(2) e -_ _- .:-- •- .-• - '-- - -- :.: - , •'.•- - : -. - 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
(3) Spokane 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
PUDE
- SOLAR LOT STANDARDS UR-3,5 UR 7 UR-1-2 UR 22
UR-3:5 UR 7 148-42 UR22 S€ Duplex S€
6 7890 4,200 3480 809 6;080 47200 3409 5,000 800
'e1-•e ntage 40 48 45 30 50 58 45 50 30
Let-DepthNFA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 80 89 N/A
Front Yard Setback 45 45 45 45 25`x' 25`x' 25t4-) 25 25
vi
NFA NFA NFA NFA 20 45 1-5 45 1-5
NFA NFA N/A N/A 5*' S*'- 5*' 6,1, 5#'
N/A NFA N/A NFA 25`'' 2V4-) 25w1 25t``) 51H
Density-(DU/Asre) 5,35 7 42 22 4.35"" 7141 V) 4V) 2216):
het-Beverage Nene 68:0% Nene Nene 60:0% 68,0% 60.0% 60-0% 69:04
Building Height(in feet} 35 35 40 50 35 35 40 40 n/a
(4j
Limited b.,,nderlyin
(2) Or 55 feet froma-readway-whichever-is gr atcr
(3) In-addiliell-te-Density-Beaus
Section 4.15.2 Non-Residential Zone Dimensional Standards
B1 B2 B 3
i Ez Et.
o o m
co - N co
a) c c c 11 12 13
V) *fo co f/)
co V)
Lot Area 7,200 5,000 6,000 n/a 6,000 n/a 1 acre 15,000 n/a
Lot Frontage 50 50 50 50 45 n/a 125 90 90
Lot Width n/a 50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Lot Depth n/a n/a n/a 140 80 n/a n/a n/a n/a
Front Yard Setback 35 35 35 35 35 35 (9) 35 35
Rear Yard Setback 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 (7) 15
E
E Rear Yard Setback adjacent to Residential n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 50 n/a n/a
Side Yard Setback n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a (7)5 (7)5
Side Yard Adjacent UR 3.5 25 20 15 15 25 50 (7)5
Side Yard Adjacent UR 7 4 thru UR-22 25 10 15 15 20 50 m 5 100(8)
Side Yard Adjacent B2,B3,12 25(8)
Side Yard Adjacent B1,11 50(8)
Side Yard Setbacks(flanking street) 35 35 25 35 25 35 50* 35 35
Open Space Dedication (3) n/a (4) n/a (5) n/a n/a n/a n/a
E Density(DU/Acre) 7 n/a 12 n/a 22 n/a n/a n/a n/a
E Lot Coverage 50.0% 50.0% 55.0% 55.0% 60.0% 60.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60.0%
@ Building Height(in feet) 35 35t1t 5081 35 60 60(6) 40 40 65
2 Building Height(in stories) 2'/z 2% 4 2% 3 3 4 3 5
* 100 Feet adjacent to designated arterial or collector
(') Maximum height reduced to 25 feet within 100 feet of adjacent UR 3.5 Zone or existing residential subdivision
(18) Maximum height reduced to 35 feet within 100 feet of adjacent UR 3.5 Zone or existing residential subdivision
(2) Residential allowed only with Commercial on the first floor and only 50%of floor area
(3) 800 sq ft/4 du+100 sq ft/du>4 up to 5,000 square feet.
(4) 800 sq ft/8 du+100 sq ft/du>8 up to 10,000 square feet.
(5) 800 sq ft/12 du+100 sq ft/du>12 up to 15,000 square feet.
(6) Maximum height reduced to 35 feet within 150 feet of adjacent UR 3.5 Zone
m Five-feet per-story
(8) Or the minimum established by the adjacent zoning district
(9) 100 feet adjacent to highway,major or secondary arterial,50 feet from all other public streets
Chapter 14.605 EXHIBIT"A"
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
RR-10 SRR-5- SRR 2 SR 1- SR-1/2 UR-1 UR-3.5 UR-7 UR-12 UR-22
14.605.020 RESIDENTIAL USES _
Accessory Structure(s) P-Acc(1) P Acc(1) P-Ass(-1-)- P-Ass( )- P Acc(1) P-Acc(1) P-Acc(1) P-Acc(1)
Billboard N N- N- N- _ N- N N N N N
Caretaker's residence P(1) P(1) P(1-}- N- N- N N N N N
Clustered housing PUD only
Community residential facility(8 or less residents) N N- N- P- P— P P N N N
Community residential facility,greater than 8 residents,
no more than 25) N N- N- N- N- N N P P P
Community treatment facility(8 or less residents) N N- N- C.U. C.U. C.U.. C.U. N N N
Community treatment facility,greater than 8 residents,
no more than 20) N N- N- N- N- N N C.U. C.U. C.U.
Conditional residential accessory unit C.U.(1) C.U.(1) C.U.(1) C.U.(1) C.U.(1) C.U.(1) C.U.(1) N N N
Density bonus(under Chapter 14.704) N N- N- PUD P14Q- N PUD PUD PUD PUD
Dependent Relative manufactured(mobile)home P-Acc.(1) P-Ass{-) P-Ass{a-) P-Ase,(4-) N- N N N N N
Dormitory P P- P— P- P- N P P P P
Duplex P P— P- P- P- N P P P P
Fraternity,sorority P P- P- P- P- N P P P P
Home industry C.U. C.U. G.U. C.U. C.U. N C.U. N N N
Home profession P-Acc.(4) P-Aoc(4) P-Ass{ ) P-Ase(4) _P-Ass:(4) P-Acc.(4) P-Acc.(4) P-Acc.(4) P-Acc.(4) P-Acc.(4)
Household pets P P- P- P- P- P P P P P
Manufactured(mobile)home P(2) P(2) P(2) PR) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) N
Manufactured(mobile)home park P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) N P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2)
Multifamily dwelling N N- N- N- N- N N P P P
Nursing home,convalescent home N N- N- N- N- N N P P P
Prison,jail,or institution C.U. N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Private repeater facility P P- P- P- P- P P P P P
Retirement/elderly apartment N N- N- N- N- N N P P P
Single-family dwelling,new P P- P- Iz P- P P P P P
Solar collector&associated sys P-Acc. P-Ass: P Acc. P Acc. P Acc. P-Acc. P-Acc. P-Acc. P-Acc. P-Acc.
Transitional community facility(8 or less residents) N N- N- G . C.U. C.U. C.U. N N N
Transitional community facility(greater than 8 residents,
no more than 20 residents) N N- N- N- N- N N C.U. C.U. C.U.
Tower,private P-Acc.(1) P-Ass.{-) P-Ass{-) P-Ass{--) P Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1)
14.605.040 USE Public/Semi-Public
Adult Entertainment establishment N N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Adult Retail Use Establishment N N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Archery,rifle,gun,pistol ranges/clubs C.U. C.U. N- N- N- N N N N N
Business or professional office N N- N- N- N- N N N P P
Cemetery C.U. C.U. N- N- N- N N N N N
Church and parsonage P P— P- P- P- P P P P P
P Permitted
P(4)Definition P(1)Chap 14.615-14.622 standards
N Not permitted P-(Acc.)Permitted accessory P(2)Chap 14.808
(1)Specific standards (1)Specific standards C.U.(1)Chap 14.816
Chapter 14.605 EXHIBIT "A"
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
RR-10 SRR-5- SRR-2- SR-1- SR 1/2 UR-1 UR-3.5 UR-7 UR-12 UR-22
Commercial composting storage/processing G.U. N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Community hall,club,or lodge P(1) P(1) P(4-) P(-1-) P(1) P(1) P(1) P P P
Community recreational facility P-Acc.(1) P Acc.(4) P Acc.(1) P-Assam) P Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1)
Community transit center P(1) P(1) P(1) P(4-) P(4) N P(1) P(1) P(1) P(1)
Day care center N N- N- N- N- N N N C.U. C.U.
Day care center(in a church or a public or private
school) P(1) P(1) FAO-) P(1) P(1-) P(1) P(1) P(1) P(1) P(1)
Exercise facility/gym athletic club) N N- N- N- N- N N N N P(1)
Family day care home P P P P P P P P P P
Fire station P P P P P P P P P P
Golf course P(1) P(a-) P(1) P P N P N N N
Golf driving range/training center N N- N- N- N- N N N N P(1)
Hospital C.U. P P P P N P P P P
Incinerator C.U. N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Landfill C.U. N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Library P P P P P N P P P P
Medical Office N N- N- N- N- N N N N P
Mini-day care center(in a dwelling) P P P P P P P P P P
Mini-day care center(not in a dwelling) N N- N- N- N- N N N P P
Nonmotorized trail system C.U. C.U. N- N- N- N N N N N
Nursery school P P P P P P P P P P
Park-and-ride facility P(1) P(-) P(4-) P(1) P(4-) N P(1) P(1) P(1) P(1)
Park,public(including caretakers residence) P P P P P P P P P P
Post office P P P P P P P P P P
Public utility local distribution P P P P P P P P P P
Public utility transmission facility P(1) P(1) P(4-) P(1) P(1) P(1) P(1) P(1) P(1) P(1)
Racetracks C.U. N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Recreational area,commercial N N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Sanitarium C.U. P N- N- N- N N N N N
Schools-public and private
1.kindergarten P P P P P P P P P P
2.elementary P P P P P P P P P P
3.middle P P P P P P P P P P
4.junior high P P P P P P P P P P
5.high P P P P P N N N P P
6.junior college P P P P P N P P P P
7.college or university P P P P P N P P P P
8. Expansion of existing structure on adjacent
property P P P P P P P P P P
Sewage sludge land application P(1) C.U- N- N- N- N N N N N
Solid waste hauler N N- N- N- N- N N N N N
P Permitted
P(4)Definition P(1)Chap 14.615-14.622 standards
N Not permitted P-(Acc.)Permitted accessory P(2)Chap 14.808
(1)Specific standards (1)Specific standards C.U.(1)Chap 14.816
Chapter 14.605 EXHIBIT "A"
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
RR-10 SRR-5- SRR 2 SR-1- SR 112 UR-1 UR-3.5 UR-7 UR-12 UR-22
Solid waste recycling/transfer site P(1) P(1) P(4-) C.U. C.U. N N N N N
Solid waste recycling/transfer site C.U. C.U. C.U. C.U. C.U. N N N N N
Tower P(1) P(1) C.U. C.U. C.U. N N N N N
Video Board N N- N- N- N- N N _ N N N
Wireless Communication Antenna Array P-Acc.(1) P-Aee(-1-) P Acc.(1) P Acc.(1) P Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1)
Wireless Communication Support Tower C.U. C.U. C.U. C:U- C.U. C.U.. C.U. C.U. C.U. C.U.
14.605.060 USE-Agricultural,Silvicultural,and
Agriculture-Related
Agricultural processing plant,warehouse P P N- N- N- N N N N N
Agricultural product stand P(1) P(1) P(4.) P(1) N- N N N N N
Airstrip for crop dusting/spraying N N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Airstrip,personal P(1) P(1) N- N- N- N N N N N
Airstrip,private C.U. C.U. N- N- N- N N N N N
Animal clinic large/small veterinary C.U. C.U. C.U. N- N- N N N N N
Animal clinic-veterinary-small animals C.U. C.U. C.U. N- N- N N N C.U. P(1)
Animal,Wildlife Rehabilitation/Scientific Research P(1) P(4-) N- N- N- N N N N N
Animal raising and/or keeping P(1) P(1) P(1) P(4-) P(1) P(1) N N N N
Beekeeping,commercial P P P—Ass:(a-) P-Ass:{=1-) N- N N N N N
Beekeeping,hobby P P P AeG(1-) P-Ass-(1-) P Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) N N N
Circus N N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Cultivation of land commercial P P P P N- N N N N N
Dairy N N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Farm machinery sales&repair P N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Feed lot N N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Feed mill P N- N- N- N- N _ N N N N
Fish hatchery P P N- N- N- N N N N N
Floriculture flower growing P P P P P Acc. N N N N N
Gardening P P P P P P P P P P
Gasohol plant P(1) P(1) N- N- N- N N N N N
Grain elevator P P N- N- N- N N N N N
Grazing P P P P N- N N N N N
Greenhouse-commercial P P P- P N- N N N N N
Hazardous waste treatment/storage off-site N N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Hazardous waste treatment/storage on-site P-Acc.(1) N- N- N- N- N N N N N
Horse boarding and training P P N- N- N- P(1) N N N N
Horticulture vegetable growing P P P P P-Ase, N N N N N
Inherently Dangerous Mammal/Reptile Keeping P(1) C.U. N- N- N- N N N N N
Kennel C.U. C.U. N- N- N- N N N N N
Kennel,private C.U. GU- G.U. C.U. C.U. C.U.. C.U. N N N _
Nursery-wholesale P P P P N- N N N N N
P Permitted
P(4)Definition P(1)Chap 14.615-14.622 standards
N Not permitted P-(Acc.)Permitted accessory P(2)Chap 14.808
(1)Specific standards (1)Specific standards C.U.(1)Chap 14.816
Chapter 14.605 EXHIBIT "A"
RESIDENTIAL ZONES MATRIX
RR-10 SRR-S- SRR-2- SR-4- SR 112 UR-1 UR-3.5 UR-7 UR-12 UR-22
Orchard P _ P P P N- N N N N N
Pigeon,performing/show P-Acc.(1)_P-Aso:(4-) P Acc.(1) _ P-Acs{ -) P Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) P-Acc.(1) N I N N
Riding stable P _ P N- N- N- N N _ N N N
Sawmill and lumber mill P(1) P(1) N- N- N- N N _ N N N
Transient-agricultural labor residence N N- N- _ N- N- N N N N N
Tree farming P P P _ N- N- N N N N N
Truck gardening P P P P N- _ N N N N N
Vineyard P P N- N- N- N N N N N
Winery C.U. C.U. N- N- N- N N N N N
Zoological Park P(1) P(1-) N- N- N- N N N N N
P Permitted
P(4)Definition P(1)Chap 14.615-14.622 standards
N Not permitted P-(Acc.)Permitted accessory P(2)Chap 14.808
(1)Specific standards (1)Specific standards C.U.(1)Chap 14.816
jMalley
Proposed Dimensional
Standards
Public Hearing
Community Development Department
July 22,2004
BACKGROUND
• Authorized pursuant to RCW 35A.63.105,WAC 365-
195-845,WAC 365-195-855,and the City's Interim
Comprehensive Plan,Goal ED.Sa and PolicyED.5.6
• The interim Development Regulations include many
provisions which do not apply within urban areas and
other regulations which staff has suggested should be
amended to eliminate redundancy,ambiguity and
conflicts in enforcement
• On April 6 and June 1,2004,Council was briefed on
problems,including enforcement,associated with a
"sliding scale°of setback requirements and alternatives
BACKGROUND The
-r mquimment is
• Current building setback '' w , 5 Per story—
• s
requirements—"rural" this aseoonastory?
vs."urban"
• Significant customer
and staff time spent Mgarage is
Y
figuring out building y single-story
setback requirements , t property
Ipegy
m rtImo
• Customer service issue r"n' - whiie along the
for planning&building ��f k line
houses
,,,;f,,,_ s+z% line the house is
staff 4�r.:i ._}�r two story—so l
f +4 ;: can have a 5'
55'from the roadwaysetback on one
side and a 10'
centerline or 25'from the setback on the
front lot line,whichever is Street other?This is
greatest—where is the how the County
roadway centerline?J has always
done it.
1
Proposed Residential Setbacks
Current Proposed
Front Setback 25' 15'
Garage 25' 20'
Side Yard 5'/story 5'
Side Yard(flanking) 25' 15'
Rear Yard 15' 20'
• Tabular format
• Delete minimum 2,640 sq.t.separation between B-1
zones
CURRENT A Two-Story House PROPOSED
1 15 t
'
, 10
3
5
U
t5.
PILI_
PIL
1
10Border Easement(Typ)
Street 50'ROW Street 24.28'ROW
Recommendation
• Approval
2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Commission Action
Meeting Date: July 22, 2004
Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ® pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING on a Proposal to amend Ordinance No. 03-053 to
provide interim zoning pursuant to Chapter 14.615 Urban Residential
Estate (UR-1) Zone established herein.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70, Spokane Valley Ordinance 03-053
PREVIOUS COUNCIL/COMMISSION
ACTION TAKEN: The City Council was briefed on the proposed interim zoning on June 22,
2004. Planning Commission was briefed on July 8, 2004.
BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan pursuant
to Ordinance No. 03-052, subsequently adopting the Zoning Code of Spokane County as
interim development regulations for the new city (Ordinance 03-053). The Comprehensive Plan
establishes the following Policies in relevant part". . . .Low density residential areas shall range
from 1 to and including six dwelling units per acre" (UL.9.1) and " Spokane County shall seek to
achieve an average residential density in new development of at least 4 dwelling units per net
acre in the Urban Growth Area through a mix of densities and housing types." (UL.9.2)
The zoning classifications established by these regulations provide for a maximum density of
seven dwelling units/acre for areas designated as "Low Density Residential" or "LDR" by the
Comprehensive Plan. Two well-established neighborhoods located within areas designated for
Low Density Residential (LDR) uses have requested consideration of a regulatory mechanism
that would permit the keeping of a limited number of large animals, primarily horses. These
neighborhoods were originally established over twenty-five years ago to allow the keeping of
such animals, a practice that was permitted under a previous zoning classification.
WAC 365-195-310(2)(1) provides that "[i]n developing the housing element attention should be
working with the desires of residents to preserve the character and vitality of existing
neighborhoods, along with the rights of people to live in the neighborhood of their choice".
The proposed amendment in the Interim Development Regulations is subject to review by the
Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. Following a public hearing, the
Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to City Council. A part of that
recommendation will be findings of fact and a work plan which, if adopted by the City Council,
will maintain the interim zoning in place for a period of twelve months. It is anticipated that the
City Comprehensive Plan will be adopted within that period, at which time the proposed interim
zoning may be made permanent and/or the environmental and access questions resolved. The
interim zoning may be extended in six months increments following the initial public hearing,
provided that a public hearing is held at the time of the extension.
OPTIONS: Approval, approval with amendments, disapproval.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Recommendation for City Council approval of the proposed
interim zoning of Estate Residential (UR-1), findings of facts and a work plan.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS: Draft ordinance.
Proposed Findings of Fact
Work Plan
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 03-53 TO PROVIDE INTERIM ZONING
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 14.615 URBAN RESIDENTIAL ESTATE (UR-1)
ZONE ESTABLISHED HEREIN.
WHEREAS,The Growth Management Act provides that all zoning regulations be consistent with
an adopted Comprehensive Plan(RCW 35A.63.105); and
WHEREAS, The Interim Zoning Code adopted by the City of Spokane Valley pursuant to
Ordinance 03-53, specifies a maximum net density (dwelling units/acre) for all residential zoning
districts;and
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.63.220 provides for establishment of interim zoning for up to one year
following a public hearing where a Work plan is developed for related studies; and
WHEREAS, the interim zoning may be extended for one or more six-month periods if a
subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal;and
WHEREAS, "Low Density Residential"is identified as LDR in the adopted Plan,with maximum
densities ranging from one to 4.35 (UR 3.5)and 7(UR 7)within designated districts; and
WHEREAS, WAC 365-195-310(2)(1) provides that "[i]n developing the housing element
attention should be working with the desires of residents to preserve the character and vitality of existing
neighborhoods,along with the rights of people to live in the neighborhood of their choice";and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan states that"Spokane County is a community that provides
the opportunity for a variety of housing types and development patterns for all incomes and lifestyles
while preserving the environment and the character of existing neighborhoods"; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan establishes the following Policies in relevant part:"UL.9.1.
. . . .Low density residential areas shall range from 1 to and including six dwelling units per acre" and
"UL.9.2 Spokane County shall seek to achieve an average residential density in new development of at
least 4 dwelling units per net acre in the Urban Growth Area through a mix of densities and housing
types.";and
WHEREAS, certain well-established neighborhoods located within areas designated for Low
Density Residential (LDR) uses have requested consideration of a regulatory mechanism that would
continue to permit the keeping of a limited number of large animals,primarily horses;and
WHEREAS, these neighborhoods were originally established to allow the keeping of such
animals; and
WHEREAS, these neighborhoods have been in existence for over twenty-five years.
Page 1
WHEREAS, the proposed development regulations must be submitted to the Washington
Department of Community Trade and Economic Development pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106WAC 365-
195-620;and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as
follows:
Section 1. Chapter 14.615 of the Interim Zoning Code is hereby established as an
amendment to Ordinance No. 03-53 to read as follows:
"Chapter 14.615
Urban Residential Estate(UR-1)Zone
14.615.100 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the UR-1 zone is to preserve the character and vitality of existing neighborhoods which
have historically permitted the keeping of a limited number of large animals and livestock. Lots are
presently served by a public water system and may require connection to a public sewer system. The
residential character necessitates the provision of paved roads and other public facilities.
14.615.210 Permitted Uses
Hereafter in the UR-1 zone no building, structure improvements or portion thereof shall be erected,
constructed, converted, established, altered, or enlarged, nor shall any lot or premises be used, except for
those uses specifically permitted in this zone pursuant to Chapter 14.605, Residential Zones Matrix,
Section 14.416, and 14.816. In addition, the following specific standards are required for the following
permitted uses.
A. Residential uses
B. Public and Semipublic Uses
1. Community hall, club or lodge,provided that it is related to local community social
activities and its principal activity includes a service customarily carried on as a business.
2. Public utility transmission facility,provided that:
a. The utility company shall secure the necessary property or right-of-way to
assure for the proper construction,continued maintenance,and general safety
to the properties adjoining the public utility transmission facility;
b. All support structures for electrical transmission lines shall have their means of
access located a minimum of ten(10)feet above the ground;
c. The facilities shall be compatible with the surrounding uses either by distance,
landscaping,buffering,or design,as determined by the Zoning Administrator;
and
d. The height of the structure above ground does not exceed one hundred twenty-
five(125) feet.
3. Day care center(in a church or public or private school),provided that:
a. There are no more than fifty(50)children;
b. Any outside play area shall not be closer than fifty(50)feet to a property line;
or
c. Any outside play area must be completely enclosed with a minimum four(4)-
foot fence.
14.615.220 Accessory Uses
Page 2
1. The keeping of poultry and livestock,excluding swine,is permitted subject to the
following conditions:
a. Any building or structure housing poultry or livestock,including but not limited to
any stable,paddock,yard,runway,pen,or enclosure,or any manure pile shall be
located not less than seventy-five feet from any habitation; and
b. No building or structure housing poultry or livestock,including but not limited to,
any stable,paddock,yard,runway,pen,or enclosure, or any manure pile shall be
located within the front yard nor be closer than ten feet from any side property line;
c. Not more than three horses,mules,donkeys,bovines or llama shall be permitted per
gross acre,or
d. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acre;or
e. Any equivalent combination of c. and d. above;and
f. A maximum of one animal or fowl including duck,turkey,goose or similar
domesticated fowl,or rabbit,mink,nutria,chinchilla or similar animal,may be
raised or kept per 3,000 square feet of gross lot area or fraction thereof. In addition,a
shed,coop,hutch or similar containment structure must be constructed prior to the
acquisition of any small livestock to ensure containment of the livestock on the
premises.
g. Structures,pens,yards,enclosures,pastures and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean
and sanitary condition. In the event that the City receives complaint(s)concerning
the maintenance of animals on individual premises,the Spokane County
Conservation District will evaluate conditions and propose environmentally
acceptable measures for remediation.
2. Home profession,provided that a home profession permit is obtained;
3. Tower,private,provided:
a. That a building permit for the private tower is obtained,reviewed and signed off by
the Community Development Department;
b. The applicant shall furnish a site plan showing height and location of the private
tower;
c. The applicant shall furnish a copy of the tower manufacturer's construction/erection
specifications;
d. The private tower shall be erected in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications;
e. > The applicant shall show that the impact area(that area in all directions equal to the
private tower's height above grade)is completely on his/her property. Up to one-half
(1/2) of the tower's impact area in distance may be administratively approved if off of
the applicant's property pursuant to Section 14.506.020(8); or,the applicant has
secured an easement(s)for all property in the towers impact area if not entirely on
his/her ownership. Such easement(s)shall be recorded with the County Auditor.with
a statement that only the Planning Department can remove the recordation;
f. That generally a residence has to be on the same site as the private tower,except for a
private repeater facility or remote base operations;
g. That the height limitation of the zone is not exceeded without approval of a variance
or administrative exception as respectively pertains; and
Page 3
h. That the setbacks for the private tower shall be the accessory use setbacks of the zone
where it is located,if detached,and shall be the primary use setbacks of the zone
where it is located,if attached to the primary use/building of the property.
4. Beekeeping,hobby,provided that:
d. The activity shall be accessory to a residential use only;
e. The number of beehives shall be limited to one(1)beehive per four thousand
three hundred fifty-six(4,356)square feet of lot area up to a maximum of
twenty-five(25)beehives;and
f. The beehives shall maintain at least the accessory use setbacks and be
completely enclosed with a six(6)-foot barrier(solid fence,hedge,
landscaping,etc.)that necessitates the bees flying over;or
g. The beehives shall maintain at least a twenty-five(25)-foot setback from all
property lines and be isolated from public access by a security fence;or
h. The beehives shall maintain at least the accessory use setbacks,be not less than
ten(10)feet in height above grade,and be isolated from public access by a
security fence or located on a restricted access platform.
5. Accessory Structure(s)are permitted under the following provisions:
a.
Lot Size Total Combined Square Footage of
Structure(s)Allowed
i. Less than 30,000 sq.ft. 1,000 sq.ft. or 10%of lot size
whichever is greater
ii. 30,000 sq. ft.to 1 acre 3,000 sq.ft.
iii. Greater than 1 acre to 2 acres 4,000 sq.ft.
iv. Greater than 2 acres 10% of lot size
b. One accessory structure not exceeding 1,000 square feet, shall be permitted prior to the
construction of a primary use.This structure is not for residential occupancy,business use,or
outside vehicle repair.
6. Wireless communication antenna array,provided:
a. That mounted antennas shall not exceed twenty(20) feet above the existing structure to
which they are attached.
b. That before the issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall have demonstrated that
all applicable requirements of the Federal Communications Commission,Federal
Aviation Administration and any required aviation easements have been satisfied.
c. That the antenna array is pointed or finished in such a manner to match the existing
structure in which it is placed upon,if possible.
14.615.230 Prohibited Uses
All uses not specifically authorized in the UR-1 zone are prohibited,including,but not limited to,the
following:
1. General agriculture use,except as specifically permitted in this section;
4. General industrial use;
5. General commercial use; and
6. Mining.
14.615.240 Conditional Uses
Those uses designated as conditional uses within the UR-3.5 zone on the Residential Zones Matrix,
Chapter 14.605,may be permitted in the UR-1 zone,subject to the same standards and requirements.
Page 4
provided that a conditional use permit authorizing such use has been granted,as set forth in Section
14.404.100. ,
14.615.300 Development Standards
Prior to the issuance of a building permit,evidence of compliance with provisions of Sections 14.615.305
thru 14.615.355 shall be provided to the Department.
14.615.305 Density
The maximum density of dwelling units in the UR-1 zone shall be one(1)Dwelling units per acre.
14.615.310 Minimum Lot Area
The minimum lot area for residential units in the UR-1 zone shall be 40,000 square feet per residential
unit.
14.615.315 Minimum Frontage
The minimum frontage for residential units in the UR-1 zone shall be eighty(80)feet on a public road or
street.
14.616.325 Minimum Yards
The minimum yards and setbacks for permitted and accessory uses in the UR-1 zone shall be as follows:
A.. All Uses Except Accessory Uses
1. Front Yard:A minimum fifty-five(55)-foot setback the centerline of all roadway rights-of-
way or thirty-five(35)-foot setback from the lot front line,whichever provides the greater
setback from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way.
2. Side Yard: Each lot shall have side yard(s) of at least five(5)feet for each story of building.
3. Flanking Street Yard:A minimum fifty-five(55)-footsetback from the centerline of all
roadway rights-of-way or thirty-five(35)-foot setback from the existing property line,
whichever provides the greater setback from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way.
4. Rear Yard:The minimum rear yard shall be twenty(20)feet.
B. Accessory Uses
1. Front Yard:A minimum fifty-five(55)-foot setback from the centerline of all roadway rights-
of-way or twenty-five(35)-foot setback from the lot front line,whichever provides the
greatest setback from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way.
2. Side Yard:
Structure Height(at peak)
0-15 feet = 5 feet
Over 15 feet = 5 feet plus one(1)additional foot for each additional foot of structure
height over 15 feet
Flanking Street Side Yard:A minimum fifty-five(55)-foot setback from the centerline of
all roadway rights-of-way or a thirty-five(35)-foot setback from the existing property
line,whichever provides the greater setback from the centerline of the roadway right-of-
way.
3. Rear Yard:
Structure Height(at peak)
Page 5
0-15 feet = 5 feet
Over 15 feet = 5 feet plus one(1)additional foot for each additional foot of structure
height over 15 feet
4. Other Yards:No other yards are required beyond those required for"clear view triangle"as
noted in Section 14.810.020(2) or for other safety and health standards as determined by the
Department.
14.615.330 Maximum Building Coverage
The maximum building coverage in the UR-1 zone shall be thirty percent(30%) of the lot area.
14.615.335 Maximum Building Height
The maximum height of buildings or structures in the UR-1 zone shall be thirty-five(35)feet.
14.615.340 Parking Standards
Parking standards for uses in the UR-1 zone shall be as provided in Chapter 14.802.
14.615.345 Signage Standards
Signage standards for uses in the UR-1 zone shall be as provided in Chapter 14.804.
14.615.350 Landscaping Standards
Landscaping standards for uses in the UR-1 zone shall be as provided in Chapter 14.806.
14.615.355 Storage Standards
All storage(including storage of recyclable materials)shall be wholly within a building or shall be
screened from view from the surrounding properties and shall be accessory to the permitted use on the
site.There shall be no storage in any required front yard or flanking street yard. Vehicle storage shall
conform to the provisions of Spokane Valley Ordinance 03-067,as it may be amended from time to
time."
Section 2. The Zoning Map of the City of Spokane Valley is hereby amended to establish Urban
Residential Estate(UR-1)zoning on two tracts shown as Exhibits"A"and"B"
Section 3. Amendment. The Zoning Code, Section 14.605.020 14.605.080 Residential Use
Matrix is hereby amended as shown on the attached Exhibit"A".
Section 4. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the Spokane
County Code, or any other law, rule or regulation or Resolution referenced in the attached Development
Regulation is necessary or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability or interpretation of the
Development Regulations, then such provision of the Spokane County Code, or other law, rule or
regulation is hereby adopted by reference.
Section 5. 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 June,2004.
Page 6
Mayor,Michael DeVleming
Page 7
ATTEST:
City Clerk,Chris Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Interim City Attorney, Stanley M. Schwartz
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Page 8
Exhibit"C"UR-1 Interim Zoning Work Plan
0x04 CO 04 01N or a5 0705
ID Task Name Start Fuush Dorabnn
May ..110 JtS At. s.0 ar /JC/ Drc .1a. Feb 4/r Are I.'_i/
•
I Neighborhood Character 6/30/2004 11/1/2004 17.8w MIIIIIII
2 Design Quality 10/1012004 12/15/2004 8.4w -
3 Environmental Quality 6730/2004 2252005 34.6w IIIIIIIMEMIN
4 Public Health 11/29+2004 3/412005 14w IMEMM
5 Public Natice 12'9/2004 218/2005 10.4w _
6 Regulatory Review 2125'2005 1/20/2006 472w
-11/11\1111111L
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FINDINGS OF FACT
Sjkane
PROPOSED INTERIM ZONING TO(URBAN RESDIENTIAL ESTATE
4,Valle
(UR-1) II
STAFF REPORT DATE: June 18, 2004
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Request for consideration of zoning controls to limit residential densities and
to continue practice of allowing the keeping of large animals on residential lots.
PROPOSAL LOCATION: Portions of the Ponderosa and all of Rotchford Acres residential subdivisions.
STAFF PLANNER: Marina Sukup, AICP, Director, Spokane Valley Community Development Dept.
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PROPERTY INFORMATION:
Size & Characteristics: Ponderosa: Located adjacent to Browne's Mountain on the southern
edge of the City, abutting the Dishman Natural Area on the east and the
Iller Conservation area on the south. Fully developed single-family
residential lots generally exceeding one acre in size, served by local
access and residential collectors. Limited access to municipal
wastewater collection system. Terrain hilly with intermittent streams
feeding Chester Creek. Portion of the subdivision located within the
100-year floodplain. Large stands of native Ponderosa pines. Abuts a
closed landfill. Platted in phases between 1964 and 1992.
Rotchford Acres: Located on the eastern edge of the City. Fully
developed single-family residential lots generally exceeding one acre in
size, served by local access and residential collectors. No access to
municipal wastewater collection system. Rolling terrain abutting steep
hills with drainage into Saltese Creek. Saltese Creek is located within
the 100-year floodplain. Platted in 1974.
SURROUNDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN&ZONING
Subject Properties: Comprehensive Plan– Low Density Residential
Zoning– Urban Residential 3.5 (UR-3.5), Urban Residential 7 (UR-7)
Preservation of Existing Residential Subdivisions(UR-1 Interim Zoning)
FINDINGS
April 30,2004
1 of 5
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Relevant provisions of the Spokane Valley Interim Comprehensive Plan are found in Chapter 6
(Housing) includes the Vision—"Spokane County is a community that provides the opportunity for a
variety of housing types and development patterns for all incomes and lifestyles while preserving the
environment and the character of existing neighborhoods."
"Planning Principles
The following planning principles, developed through citizen participation efforts, form the basis for
development of the Urban Land Use Chapter.
• Compact urban forms should be encouraged that create a greater sense of"community,"with
pedestrian/bicycle-friendly settlement patterns.
• Neighborhood character should be preserved and protected.
• Jobs, housing, services and other activities should be within easy walking distance and shorter
commute times of each other.
• Communities should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and
recreational uses.
• Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully connected
routes.
• Communities should have a diversity of housing and job types that enable residents from a wide
range of economic levels and age groups to work and reside within their boundaries.
General Goals
UL.la Provide a healthful, safe and sustainable urban environment that offers a variety of
opportunities for affordable housing and employment.
UL.1 b Create a future rich in cultural and ethnic diversity that embraces family and community values
and recognizes the interests of the whole community.
Goal UL.2 Maintain and enhance the quality of life in Spokane County through urban design
standards.
Policies
UL.2.1 Establish minimum performance standards within the zoning code for nuisances such as noise,
vibration, smoke, particulate matter, odors, heat and glare and other aspects as appropriate to ensure
compatibility with adjacent land uses and neighborhoods.
UL.2.2 The design of development proposals should accommodate and complement environmental
features and conditions, and preserve and protect significant cultural resources.
UL.2.6 Develop urban design "guidelines"that provide consistency of application for the design
review process. The guidelines should focus on the functional interrelationships between land use, site
design, neighborhood character and transportation systems.
UL.2.9 Develop neighborhood, subarea and community plans with specific design standards
that reflect and preserve community character.
UL.2.11 Promote linkage of developments with open space, parks, natural areas and street
connections.
Preservation of Existing Residential Subdivisions(UR-1 Interim Zoning)
FINDINGS
April 30,2004
2 of 5
UL.2.12Enhance and preserve the site characteristics of residential development(existing trees,
watercourses, historic features and similar assets)through sensitive site planning tools such as
clustering, lot averaging, transfer of development rights and flexible setback requirements.
Goal UL.4 Encourage exemplary developments and creative design through the use of
performance standards.
Policy
UL.4.1 Allow flexibility and innovative design through the use of performance standards which
emphasize outcomes.
Goal H.1 Coordinate housing policies and programs with other jurisdictions, agencies and
neighborhoods.
H. 1.3—"Provide opportunities for early and continuous participation of citizens and neighborhood
groups in land use and community development planning processes."
H. 1.5—"Encourage the creation and continued operation and effectiveness of neighborhood
associations through neighborhood and subarea planning programs.
Goal H-2 Reduce regulatory barriers and allow greater flexibility in the housing development
process.
Policy
H2.2-When developing housing regulations, consider the balance between housing affordability and
environmental quality, design quality and maintenance of neighborhood character.
H2.3. Develop consistent, precise, fair and enforceable regulations that maintain environmental quality
and public health and safety standards, while minimizing housing development costs.
Housing Policy H2.5. Provide incentives for safe and decent housing that is in close proximity to jobs,
transportation and daily activities.
Goal H.3a Develop a variety of housing options for all economic groups
Policy
H3.2 Ensure that the design of infill development preserves the character of the neighborhood.
Goal ED.5b Promote public/private partnerships that encourage innovation and creativity in the
economic expansion of our region.
Policy
ED.5.6 Review development regulations continuously to assure clarity, consistency, predictability and
direction. Provide opportunities for citizens to initiate amendments to inconsistent, outdated,
inappropriate or unnecessary or confusing regulations. Amendments shall be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER:
Ponderosa: Low density residential designed for on-premises maintenance of a limited number of
horses. Heavily wooded with rugged terrain in parts. Expansion to the west precluded because of the
Dishman Natural Area and terrain. Over 95% of lots fully developed. Some remain vacant because of
topography.
Rotchford Acres: Low density residential designed for on-premises maintenance of a limited number
of horses. Terrain is relatively flat east of Sullivan Road with steep hillside limiting any easterly
expansion. Equine easements provided on local streets. Subdivision is fully developed.
Social Character: Well-organized and cohesive neighborhoods.
Preservation of Existing Residential Subdivisions(UR-1 Interim Zoning)
FINDINGS
April 30,2004
3 of 5
DESIGN QUALITY: Local access and residential collectors designed to accommodate lots of
approximately one acre. Direct access to public streets. Single-family housing is well-maintained
and designed for residential privacy. A limited number of large animals, especially horses is a design
theme in both neighborhoods.
Spokane Valley has not yet established performance or design standards to assure the quality
of residential design to preserve neighborhood character.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:
Wastewater. Limited access to public sewer in the Ponderosa. Balance of property relies on septic
systems. Rotchford Acres relies entirely on septic systems. Re-subdivision to increase residential
densities should not be permitted absent an organized wastewater collection and treatment system.
Potable Water. Ponderosa is served by Spokane County Water District#3, Rotchford by Vera Irrigation
Dist. #14, both Group"A" Community Water Systems. Re-subdivision to increase residential densities
will require adequate supply and pressure for domestic consumption and fire protection.
Stormwater: the Ponderosa subdivision has intermittent streams that drain to Chester Creek. The
contribution of to the rate and volume of flows from additional impervious cover resulting from re-
subdivision could result in an environmental damage as yet undetermined for which mitigation would
need to be established in a planned and coordinated manner. Similar concerns concerning drainage
which could affect Saltese Creek
Erodable soils: Both the Rotchford and Ponderosa subdivisions include or abut geological hazard
areas which require further evaluation prior to allowing additional residential densities.
Native Vegetation/habitat: Ponderosa includes areas of wildlife critical habitat for White Tail Deer and
threatened species.
Spokane Valley has not yet established performance or design standards to assure the
continued preservation of environmental quality in outlying areas with limited public
infrastructure and specific environmental conditions, such as steep slopes, intermittent
flooding and highly erodable soils.
PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY:
Access: Ponderosa: Property lies west of the Union Pacific Railroad with only two points of access.
Additional access should be required prior to any increase in residential densities for evacuation and
emergency services.
Animal Maintenance: The requirements for the maintenance and upkeep of even a limited number of
large animals raises issues of compatibility resulting from noise, odor, proximity to residential
structures, flies, etc.. These issues are compounded with increased residential densities and
requirements for buffering for any additional residential densities may be required.
Landfill: Ponderosa: The proximity of a closed landfill to an increased number of residences requires
additional study.
Spokane Valley has not yet established performance or design standards to assure continued
compatible principal and accessory land uses within residential neighborhoods.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Current property owners purchased property with notice of existing regulations pertaining to the
keeping of large animals. The Short Plat process requires notice only to adjacent property owners.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA): Ordinance No. 48 (effective
March 31, 2003) adopted on an interim basis by reference the Spokane Environmental Ordinance
(Spokane County) thereby implementing the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and Chapter 197-
Preservation of Existing Residential Subdivisions(UR-1 Interim Zoning)
FINDINGS
April 30,2004
4 of 5
11 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Spokane
Valley. An Environmental checklist was completed and a Determination of Non-Significance was
issued on April 26, 2004. Conclusions were based on the finding that a regulation preserving the
status quo would have no adverse environmental impact.
Conclusion(s):
Permitting piecemeal increase in residential densities without the establishment of performance
and design standards raise serious issues related to preservation of neighborhood character
and design, maintaining environmental quality, public health and safety, and the adequacy of
public notice, which require additional study prior to the establishment of permanent regulation.
III. DECISION
The Ponderosa and Rotchford Acres should be zoned UR-1 (see Exhibits "A" and "B" attached)
on an interim basis pursuant to RCW 35A.63.220 following a public hearing before the Planning
Commission, pending resolution of issues identified above. Resolution of issues shall be
accomplished in accordance with the Workplan attached as Exhibit"C"
Preservation of Existing Residential Subdivisions(UR-1 Interim Zoning)
FINDINGS
April 30,2004
5 of 5
-Kane a
Interim Zoning Proposed
UR-1 Residential Estate
Public Hearing
Community Development Department
July 22,2004
BACKGROUND
• Authorized pursuant to RCW 35A.63.105,WAC 365-
195-845,WAC 365-195-855,and the City's Interim
Comprehensive Plan,Goal ED.5a and Policy ED.5.6
• Several established neighborhoods have expressed
concerns about piecemeal development which would
change the character of the neighborhood—
neighborhoods are UR 3.5 and UR 7
• The keeping of large animals is a recurring theme—
residents are passionate on both sides of the issue
BACKGROUND
• Primary issues is the keeping of large animals—
how many is too many?
• How far should structures housing animals be
from residences and adjacent property?
• If the City receives complaints,who should
arbitrate?(14.618.220 covers accessory uses)
• Should"Home Industry"be allowed?
1
Proposed Standards
Current Proposed
UR 3.5 UR7
Minimum Lot Size 10,000 sq ft 40,000 sq ft
6,000 sq ft.
Front Setback 25' 35'
Lot Coverage 50%-55% 30%
Side Yard 5'/story 5'/story
Side Yard(flanking) 25' 35'
Rear Yard 15' 20'
• ,„."
44",AVE 111
ng
_.. . 601161,0
,,. . .. .
-"-41111141i, •:-.- .
''--
t ,p,,m,r, ...qamillso,„
Ponderosa ---, ,.--,
Rotchford Acres/Shelley Acres Addn
CV High School -.
•
‘... ...-•.: .„_--- _
,-;74-4i•••- .I',..-' i-----1;----. 1:-.....,-..:::'4,:,-.---; l', --' '1 '. 1- ' '
1 '
... , ,
. .
-'-4 1 7:-"- 7-1-1 ...' — -I-: .'-: '''I.•,:'.- '
2
Next Steps...
• In order to impose interim zoning regulations for 12
months,it will be necessary to make findings and to
establish a work plan to resolve issues
• There are a number of environmental and other
issues which deserve additional study,floodplain,
erodible soils,old landfills,water pressure,
wastewater capacity,access
• It is anticipated that the Comprehensive Plan will be
complete prior to the expiration of the 12 months
Recommendation
• Approval
3
Marina Sukup July 12, 2004
City of Spokane Valley
Community Development Director
11707 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley Washington 99206
RE: Proposed interim zoning for the Ponderosa area
Dear Marina:
I am a resident of the Ponderosa area in Spokane Valley. My home is at 4323 S. Felts Ct.
I live in an area of one to two acre lots. Several homeowners in the area keep large
animals. I have lived in the area for eight years, one of the reasons I bought a house in
the area is because of the larger lots and rural atmosphere. There are many high density
neighborhoods within the valley, I do not want to see the Ponderosa area turn into another
area of small lots and dense housing. I support the zone change to one acre minimum
lots.
I am also concerned with emergency access into and out of the area which has only two
roads in and out. The risk of a fire emergency is high in this treed area. Higher density
will bring more houses and more traffic on an inadequate road system. One acre lots will
keep this problem from getting worse.
Sincerely
Dave Wall
RETE/VEa
July 6, 2004
sp�� /2404
City of Spokane Valley11707 East Sprague Avenue
Department of Community Development coMM 00 .[4.y00±-
Attn:
./
City of Spokane Valley, 99206 sV.y00±- n�T
Attn: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
Ref: Proposal for re-zone in the Ponderosa
Notice of Public Hearing dated June 30, 2004
Public Hearing July 22, 2004 - 6:30pm - Spokane Valley City Council Chambers
Dear Ms Sukup:
I visited with Micki Harnois in the Planning Dept. on Friday, July 2, 2004 at the above
location. We will be out of town on the Hearing date, so I am writing to you for
consideration before, during and after the hearing. (We leave on July 10 and return
home about July 24, 2004).
My understanding is that the above proposal for re-zone does include our property:
- located at 4308 S. Woodruff Rd, Spokane, WA 99206.
- Parcel number 45324.0801
- Lot 1, Block 3 of Ponderosa Acres Fourth Addition
- now zoned UR 3.5 (4.35 dwellings per acres permitted).
- 1.23 acres
The proposal, as I understand it, is to change the zoning to one (1) dwelling unit per acre.
My wife and I are very strongly opposed to this proposal/change. We purchased this
property to provide a home for our daughter, her husband and family and to have space
on the property for a possible dwelling for us in the future (in our retirement). We believe
it very unfair to impose such changes on the present property owners. If this is desirable
for the long run, make the new zoning effective at property change of ownership and
inform the sellers and prospective buyers of the restriction before sale/purchase.
We ask, at the very least, that provisions be made (in the event that the proposed zoning
is implemented) so that we can, in the future, legally divide the property into at least two
parcels with dwellings permitted on each parcel. We expect that 'our parcel' would be
25% to 50% of the 1.23 acres. That is certainly within the UR 3.5 zoning which now
exists.
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter and contact me before July 10 if you have
questions or comments. Thank you, again, for your consideration.
Leonard Bouge, PE Home Phone: 922-4443
304 S. Conklin Rd - office Office Phone: 926-5300
Spokane Valley, WA 99037 E-mail: Birch1990@aol.com
Averly Nelson
immoupw. 4123 S Woodruff RD :i •' • n•,;
m..0..... Spokane Valley WA 99206
.
SPOKANE VALLEY /
-- � &' .-
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY TIF\'FrOPMEN7
1) /Alif C-efrt,""1"1-1-"Gt ,P-e--cA-6,1-69-7-l--6-c.--Lt,c 6,
--e._ L( R ._ 7
? �% ,�„.cam--
l � z>
Vim,
-c__D.,,
..„..,„/ tc...-c../-(_ t.A..., 01--(49 P cz).--7 C%(_-e---z,,,•--J___01
1) a L
r
c a c. L__c kz.4.4 / i, / ?r L..vt.v' S'/
-2'C
04- 5 /
_. . _ TiLl fi -V-- iLd 3'el"/ ,
7,--(1)1 t 1A 4 /
PeAf' a e---L.,c. -
jC_:--1.4.-, ter.-\ y` /7--6/j,
0 Nf `{fit--( I G.Y-7 -
? / R__.-e_ 1-20r 3 -s- 2//1 (-<
d_,(h/L,,,11-
1/1"-ed-1(' - 7- 6---1L3 (,_ p
lw Ave3 Nelson
0.4„11.4..„4.,�� Spokane Valley WA 9920a
ME _-1 3-2004 01 :38 AM P. 01
■ ■ ■
▪ ■
■•i
Saturday,July 17, 2004
City of Spokane Valley 10SYA 9 ?gQit
Department of Community Development SPOKANE VALLEY
11707 East Sprague Ave, Ste 106 DEPARTMENT OF
cnmmuNITY OEVELOPML_MT
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Attn: Marina Sukup
Dear Ms. Sukup
This is to officially submit my support of the proposal to re-zone properties located in
portions of Sections 04 and 05,Township 24, Range 44 (Ponderosa) Spokane County,
Washing ton to establish a minimum lot size of one dwelling unit per acre, and including
provisions for keeping of large animals, including horses. This would change the existing
Zoning from UR-3.5 and UR-7 to UR-1.
This zoning is consistent with my preferences and reasons for having purchased property
in this area.
Thank you for your time and attention
Thomas R Stanley
10520 E 43`d Ct
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
July 19, 2004
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Rotchford Acres Zoning
My husband and I grew up West of Spokane on small acreage.
After spending 9 years in the Seattle area we had the
opportunity to move to Spokane Valley. We had three children
and specifically wanted room to raise our children and have the
opportunity for a horse for our oldest daughter. We purchased
our home on 11th in August of 1978 because it was on an acre of
land and the location was ideal. We raised our children, had a
horse, ducks and "wheel" room for the kids! This neighborhood
has been home to the same neighbors for approximately 25 years.
There are about 11 immediate neighbors who have resided in the
same home and enjoyed the "space" for at least 25 years. We
moved in and raised our families and are still here.
Our neighborhood is unique, quiet and established. The thought
of changing our zoning and allowing more houses to be built on the
one acre parcels that we have cherished appalls us. The fact
that the zoning was changed "quietly" without proper notice and
hearings and neighborhood input appalls us. For the fact that it
was done in such a manner it should be changed back - no
questions asked.
There are now many opportunities for people to live in homes that
are one on top of another. Our choice was to live in a
neighborhood that was not that way and our choice still is.
Sincerely,
Reed & Sue (Scott) Tarmann
' 3 -7oo l(*('
Marina Sukup
To: Christy Lafayette
Subject: RE: comments for tonight's hearing
Dear Ms. Lafayette:
I will provide your letter to the Planning Commission for tonight's hearing. I also attach the draft findings for the proposed
interim zoning, and I think that you will find that the exceptions may in fact apply in this case ie. First, if part of the UGA
contains "... environmentally sensitive systems[that]are large in scope (e.g., watershed or drainage sub-basin), their
structure and functions are complex and their rank order value is high, ..."then a local government can apply densities of
less than four housing units per net acre. All three of these criteria must be met to qualify for the exception. "
While I would agree that a minimum of 4 du/acre is appropriate for new development, fragmented and piecemeal
resubdivision in areas without urban infrastructure is environmentally irresponsible, particularly where there is no
wastewater collection system over a sole source aquifer. I would refer you to good examples of this in Central and South
America, Africa and Asis. Density is not the only issue.
I also hope that you also can appreciate that what may be appropriate in the Central Puget Sound area, may not be
appropriate everywhere in the State.
Marina M. Sukup, AICP, CFM
Director of Community Development/Planning
City of Spokane Valley
11707 Sprague Avenue, Ste. 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Original Message
From: Christy Lafayette [mailto:christy(c�1000friends.orgj
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:31 PM
To: Marina Sukup
Subject: comments for tonight's hearing
Dear Ms. Sukup. Following is a copy of the attached comment letter for the PC Hearing tonight on the proposed one acre
zoning. Please make sure the PC gets a copy of this letter and the attached document. Also, please reply so I know you
received this and plan to submit it this evening. Thanks a lot. Christy
July 22, 2004
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
RE: One acre parcels within the City limits
Dear Planning Commission,
1000 Friends of Washington is a state wide public interest group working to keep overdevelopment from destroying farms,
forests and rural areas, while making cities and towns great places to live. We work with cities and counties to effectively
implement the Growth Management Act(GMA) and stop sprawl. We have members in Spokane Valley as we do
throughout the state. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed addition of a one acre zone in your city.
We hope you will read and consider the attached report; "Compact Urban Development, Four Dwelling Units Per Acre"
when you deliberate this issue.
1
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Christy LaFayette
1000 Friends of Washington
EA WA Organizer
West 35 Main, Suite 350 E
Spokane, WA 99201
Office: 509 838 1965
Pager: 509-880-6487
Please Visit our Website! www.1000friends.org
<< File: Compact Urban Development 4 DU per acre for Density Letter Final.doc>> « File: July 22 comment letter.doc
2
July 22, 2004
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
RE: One acre parcels within the City limits
Dear Planning Commission,
1000 Friends of Washington is a state wide public interest group working to keep
overdevelopment from destroying farms, forests and rural areas,while making cities and
towns great places to live. We work with cities and counties to effectively implement the
Growth Management Act(GMA) and stop sprawl. We have members in Spokane Valley
as we do throughout the state. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the
proposed addition of a one acre zone in your city.
We hope you will read and consider the attached report; "Compact Urban Development,
Four Dwelling Units Per Acre"when you deliberate this issue.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Christy LaFayette
1000 Friends of Washington
EA WA Organizer
West 35 Main, Suite 350 E
Spokane, WA 99201
509 838 1965
July 22,2004
Iii Requirements for Compact Urban Development,
a Minimum of Four Net Housing Units Per Acre
Friends ofWashington
Why Sprawl is Bad and Density is Good
Poorly planned low density sprawling development results in many adverse impacts on
Washington's residents, local governments, and environment.' A partial list of the
adverse impacts include:
• Higher public facility capital and maintenance costs.
• Higher housing costs and the exclusion of minorities and low-income families.
• More traffic because more people drive alone and must drive longer distances to
work and to meet the needs of their families. Sprawling places are likely to have
more traffic fatalities per capita than more compact regions due to higher rates of
vehicle use.
• Sprawl converts more prime agricultural land from farming to urban uses than more
compact forms of development.
• Sprawl destroys more critical areas and other environmentally sensitive areas than
compact development. Sprawl results in fish and wildlife habitat losses and habitat
fragmentation, the separation of habitats by development. Sprawl's dispersed
development pattern leads to the degradation of water quality by increasing runoff
volume, altering regular stream flow and watershed hydrology, reducing
groundwater recharge, and increasing stream sedimentation. Scientists at the
University of Washington have concluded that although impacts on salmon habitat
from urbanization occur in a linear fashion, changes to the physical and biological
factors necessary for high quality salmon habitat occurs most rapidly when five to
ten percent of a river basin is covered by impervious surfaces (roads,buildings, and
parking lots).
Assuring that urban areas have sufficient densities to wisely use the land addresses
each of these adverse affects and others. 1000 Friends of Washington urges cities and
'For a comprehensive study of the adverse effects of sprawl see Robert W.Burchell,Naveed A.Shad,
David Listokin,Hilary Phillips,Anthony Downs,Samuel Seskin,Judy S.Davis,Terry Moore,David
Helton,and Michelle Gall. The Costs of Sprawl—Revisited(Transit Cooperative Research Program Report
39,Transportation Research Board,National Research Council 1998). Available at:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/onlinepubs.nsf/web/TCRP Reports Also see Bremerton, et al. v.
Kitsap County,Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board(CPSGMHB)Consolidated
Case No.:95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision and Order pp.*17-*22 (October 6,1995) (a listing of the
adverse effects of sprawl).
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 1
counties to provide densities that wisely and efficiently use land. While the four
dwelling unit per net acre rule helps, it is not sufficient in itself. To provide transit
supportive densities, at least seven homes per acre is necessary? In most communities,
to provide housing affordable for working families also requires higher housing
densities. These needs must be considered in planning for sustainable communities.
Minimum Urban Densities
The Four Dwelling Units per Net Acre Bright Line Rule
To address these adverse impacts the Growth Management Act goals encourage
development within the urban growth area (UGA) and call for reducing sprawling low
density development.3 Urban growth must be encouraged in UGAs.4
To meet these goals and requirements, The Central Puget Sound Growth Management
Hearings Board (Central Board) adopted a'bright line" rule that a residential pattern of
four net dwelling units per acre or higher "is clearly compact urban development and
satisfies the low end of the range required by the [Growth Management] Act."5 "Any
new residential land use pattern within a UGA that is less dense is not a compact urban
development pattern, constitutes urban sprawl, and is prohibited."6
In subsequent cases, the board has clarified that all properties that do not meet limited
exceptions have to be designated and zoned at four or more housing units per net acre.
As the Central Board recently wrote:
In LMI/Chevron, the Board held, "the GMA requires every city to designate all
lands within its jurisdiction at appropriate urban densities." LMI/Chevron, [Final
Decision and Order], at 23; (underlining in original, italics supplied). This
concept of designating lands at appropriate urban densities within
unincorporated UGAs was extended to counties and zoning designations in
2 Boris Pushkarev&Jeffrey Zupan. Public Transportation and Land Use Policy(Indiana University Press,
Bloomington,Indiana, 1977) (public transit use is minimal below a net residential density of seven
dwelling units an acre).
3 RCW 36.70A.020(1)&(2).
4 RCW 36.70A.110(1).
5 Bremerton,et al. v. Kitsap County,CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.:95-3-0039c Corrected Final Decision
and Order p.*33 (October 6, 1995).
6 Id.
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 2
Forster Woods Homeowners Association, et al., v. King County (Forster Woods),
CPSGMHB Case No. 01-3-008c, Final Decision and Order, (Nov. 6, 2001), at 32.'
The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board used four dwelling
units per acre as a minimum urban density for determining if land was characterized by
urban growth for the purposes of establishing an UGA.8 The Eastern Board has not
adopted such a rule as of this date.
Limited Exceptions
The Central Board has recognized two exceptions to the bright line rule requiring all
urban residential properties to have minimum density of four dwelling units per net
acre. First, if part of the UGA contains "... environmentally sensitive systems [that] are
large in scope (e.g., watershed or drainage sub-basin), their structure and functions are
complex and their rank order value is high, ..." then a local government can apply
densities of less than four housing units per net acre.' All three of these criteria must be
met to qualify for the exception. Examples of areas found to meet this test have been
the "large environmentally sensitive system [that] includes overlapping flood hazard
areas, wetlands, critical fish and wildlife habitat areas and corridors ..." and wildlife
habitat diversity areas in MBA/Brink, a wetlands system adjacent to Hylebos Creek in
Litowitz, and the overlapping seismic hazards, floodplains, wetlands, and aquifer
recharge areas in Benaroya.10
In contrast, in MBA/Brink four areas had "isolated, sporadic and scattered occurrences
of flooding, wetlands, or priority habitats that can be appropriately addressed through
7 Master Builders Association of Pierce County, Terry L. Brink, et al. v. Pierce County(MBA/Brink),CPSGMHB
Case No.02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing Invalidity p.*8,2003 WL
22896415 p.*7(September 4,2003).
8 Fred R. Klein v. San Juan County,Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
(WWGMHB) Case No.02-2-0008,Michael Durland, et al. v. San Juan County,WWGMHB Case No.00-2-
0062c, &Town of Friday Harbor,Fred R. Klein,John M. Campbell,Lynn Bahrych,et al. v. San Juan County,
WWGMHB Case No.99-2-OOlOc Final Decision and Order Compliance Order,2002 WL 31405482 p.*7
(October 15,2002).
9 Master Builders of Pierce County&Brink(MBA/Brink), et al. v. Pierce County,CPSGMHB Case No.:02-3-
0006 Final Decision and Order p.*10,2002 WL 31998487 p.*11 (February 4,2002). This exception is
sometimes referred to as the Litowitz test because the three part test was first enunciated in Litowitz v. City
of Federal Way, CPSGMHB Case No.96-3-0005 Final Decision and Order p.*12,1996 WL 678415 p.*9 (July
22, 1997).
10 MBA/Brink,Final Decision and Order p.*13,2002 WL 31998487 p.*13,Litowitz p.*12, 1996 WL 678415 p.
*9,&Benaroya v. City of Redmond,CPSGMHB Case No.95-3-0072c Finding of Compliance p.*10—11
(March 13,1997).
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 3
existing critical areas regulations."11 So these areas did not qualify for densities of less
than four dwelling units per net acre. Similarly, in LMI/Chevron a 2.4-acre part of a
wetland and pleated woodpecker and banded pigeon habitat on a 60.8-acre property
did not meet the Litowitz test.12
Second, in Bremerton the Central Board also indicated that a major equestrian facility
surrounded by "horse-acre lots" may also justify densities less than four dwelling units
net acre.13 However, this potential exemption was in dicta which is not an essential part
of the decision and is not legally binding. So this potential exemption should be
carefully evaluated before it is used.
The Four Dwelling Units per Net Acre Bright Line Rule Should be Permitted
Outright
In footnote 6 of the MBA/Brink Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing
Invalidity, the Central Board included this note of caution against using applicant
initiated rezones or planned unit developments (PUDs) to reach the minimum four
dwelling units per net acre density.
It should be the exception, rather than the rule, that lands within UGAs do not
yield a minimum density of 4 du/acre. In such exceptions, a variety of flexible
regulatory mechanisms are available to local governments to accommodate new
development when challenged by difficult topography, parcel shapes or other
localized constraints. Nevertheless, the Board cautions against reliance on
certain pre-GMA tools, such as planned unit development permits and site
specific rezones, as the primary mechanism to enable developers to reach the
GMA-mandated minimum urban densities. The growth accommodation
mandate of RCW 36.70A.110 and the permit processing guidance of RCW
36.70A.020(7) would be thwarted if, in order to meet these mandates, an
applicant would also be required to show "changed circumstances" (pre-GMA
rezone criteria) or "public benefit" (classic PUD criteria).14
Indeed, the four housing unit per acre minimum should be allowed as of right. Also, to
meet the other requirements of the Growth Management Act and to wisely use our
11 MBA/Brink,Final Decision and Order pp.*1243 2002 WL 31998487 p.*13.
12 Lawrence Michael Investments,L.L.C. & Chevron(LMUChevron)v. Town of Woodway, CPSGMHB Case No.
98-3-0012 Final Decision and Order p. *17(January 8, 1999).
13 Bremerton at p.*33.
14 Master Builders Association of Pierce County, Terry L. Brink, et al. v. Pierce County(MBA/Brink),CPSGMHB
Case No.02-3-0010 Order Finding Partial Noncompliance and Continuing Invalidity Footnote 6 p.*12,
2003 WL 22896415 p.*11 (September 4,2003).
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 4
limited land resources, most residential zoning should have maximum densities much
higher than four dwelling units per net acre.
The Four Dwelling Units per Net Acre Bright Line Rule is Not Excused by a Lack of
Capital Facilities,the Protection of the Existing Housing Stock, or the Protection of
the Character of Existing Neighborhoods
The Central Board has also concluded that a lack of capital facilities cannot justify
densities of less than four dwelling units per net acre in urban growth areas. "{T]he
City points to Policy LU-3.6 to argue that, in effect, lack of service capacity serves as
justification for a [Future Land Use Map] FLUM with densities significantly below 4
du/acre. The Board disagrees with the City."15 Indeed, city and county "capital
facilities plans must certainly identify, locate, and take steps to finance those capital
facilities that are needed to accommodate new growth."16
The Central Board has also addressed the issue of whether RCW 36.70A.020(4)'s goal of
encouraging the preservation of the existing housing stock and RCW 36.70A.070(2)'s
requirement to "ensur[e] the vitality and character of established residential
neighborhoods" affects the duty to designate and zone residential areas at a net density
of at least four dwelling units per acre. The board has answered no.
The GMA clearly encourages the preservation of existing housing stock (See
RCW 36.70A.020(4)) and provides for ensuring the vitality and character of
established residential neighborhoods (See RCW 36.70A.070([2]). However, as the
Board stated supra, "any opportunity to perpetuate an'historic low-density
residential' development pattern, in the Parkland Spanaway Midland area,
ended in 1994 when the County included the area within the UGA." It is clear
that existing housing stock and neighborhoods may be maintained and
15 Corrine R.Hensley v. City of Woodinville(Hensley III), CPSGMHB Case No.96-3-0031 Final Decision and
Order,1997 WL 123989 p.*8 (February 25, 1997) (footnote omitted from quote).
16 West Seattle Defense Fund and Neighborhood Rights Campaign(WSDF IV)v. City of Seattle,CPSGMHB Case
No.96-3-0033 p.*32,1997 WL 176356 p.*27(March 24, 1997). ("FN15.In Hensley v. City of Woodinville,
CPSGMHB Case No.96-3-0031,Final Decision and Order(1997),at 9,the Board held:The GMA creates
an affirmative duty for cities to accommodate the growth that is allocated to them by the county.This
duty means that a city's comprehensive plan must include: (1)a future land use map that designates
sufficient land use densities and intensities to accommodate any population and/or employment that is
allocated;and(2) a capital facilities element that ensures that over the twenty-year life of the plan,needed
public facilities and services will be available and provided throughout the jurisdiction's UGA.In
Benaroya,et al. v. City of Redmond,CPSGMHB Case No.95-3-0072c,Finding of Compliance(1997),at 8,the
Board clarified that this affirmative duty means that cities are to:'give support to;'foster' and'stimulate'
urban growth throughout the jurisdictions'UGAs within the twenty-year life of their comprehensive
plans.")
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 5
preserved, however existing low-density patterns of development cannot be
perpetuated.''
The Meaning of Net
For properties that do not qualify for the limited exceptions, the definition of net may be
an issue in crafting comprehensive plan policies and development regulations. The
Central Board defined "net" in Benaroya v. City of Redmond:
As applied to GMA planning exercises, "net" has the same general meaning as
"buildable." Most cities within King County determined what their "net" land
supply was for purposes of the County's UGA allocation exercise. From the
record in Vashon-Maury, the Board is aware that various cities in King County
deducted, for example, public rights-of-way and environmentally sensitive lands
in order to determine the "net supply" of buildable land. Generally speaking, the
concept of "net" remains the same when applied to a specific parcel of land —
that portion which is encumbered with rights-of-way or certain critical areas
would not be available for the placement of housing, for example.18
So in calculating net densities, the unbuildable land may be deducted from the gross
acres to determine the net acres.
Additional Growth Management Act Provisions that Require Higher
Residential Densities
It is important to remember that the four dwelling unit per net acre rule is a floor.
There are other Growth Management Act provisions that will require higher residential
densities. They include:
• The Growth Management Act goals to encourage growth in the UGA, reduce
sprawl, protect natural resource based industries and protect the environment.'9
• The Growth Management Act goal to encourage the availability of affordable
housing to all economic segments of the population of this state and promote a
variety of residential densities and housing types.20
• The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development
regulations, shall include mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement
and development of housing.2'
17 MBA/Brink,Final Decision and Order p.*10,2002 WL 31998487 p.*10.
18 Benaroya, et al. v. City of Redmond, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.95-3-0072 p.*21,1996 WL 650317
p.*25 (March 25, 1996).
19 RCW 36.70A.020(1), (2),(8),&(9).
20 RCW 36.70A.020(4).
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 6
• The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development
regulations, shall identify sufficient land for housing, including,but not limited to,
government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured
housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care facilities.22
• The requirement that the housing element, and its implementing development
regulations, shall make adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all
economic segments of the community.23
• The requirement that the UGA shall include "areas and densities sufficient to permit
the urban growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding
twenty-year period."24
Also, if most of our cities and towns are zoned for four housing units per acre, the land
needed to accommodate our future growth will be much greater than if we
accommodate more homes per acre.
Practice Tips
In planning for urban densities, consider the following recommendations:
• Almost all of the land within the UGA will require a density of four housing units
per net acre and most will require greater densities to achieve community goals and
to comply with all of the goals and requirements of Growth Management Act.
Remember four units per net acre is "the low end of the range required by the
[Growth Management] Act."25
• If an area has extensive critical areas, do not add it to the urban growth area in the
first place. If it is not annexed, move it outside of the urban growth area. That will
provide the land with the most protection since it will not be subject to urbanizing
pressures. Both the Central and Western Boards have held that extensive critical
areas should not be added to the UGA 26
• Build a good record showing why the less than four housing units per acre density
is needed and that you have enough land elsewhere to meet your adopted growth
targets. Maps showing the critical areas are very helpful and were specifically
21 RCW 36.70A.070(2) &RCW 36.70A.040(3) &(5) (counties and cities shall adopt development regulations
that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan).
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 RCW 36.70A.110(2).
25 Bremerton, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.:95-3-0039c Corrected Final
Decision and Order p.*33(October 6,1995) (underlining added).
26 Bremerton, et al. v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Consolidated Case No.:95-3-0039 Final Decision and Order
p.*33—34(October 6, 1995)&Abenroth v. Skagit County,WWGMHB Case No.:97-2-0060 Final Decision
and Order p.*11 of 63,1998 WL 1985337(January 23,1998).
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 7
referred to in MBA/Brink. Aerial and ground photos help too. In both Litowitz and
Benaroya, the fact that it was undisputed that both cities had adequate land for there
growth targets impressed the board.
• The more critical areas the merrier. In both Benaroya and MBA/Brink, the areas that
were upheld for less than four housing units per acre zoning had multiple critical
areas.
• The critical areas should cover the whole area or almost entirely the whole area if
you want to apply the Litowitz rule. This was important in Litowitz, Benaroya, and
MBA/Brink.
• The critical areas should be serious natural hazards or important habitats.
For Additional Information
Contact Tim Trohimovich, ACIP,JD, Planning Director 1000 Friends of Washington.
Telephone (206) 343-0681 or e-mail tim@1000friends.org
Copies of the Growth Management Hearings Board decisions referenced in this report
are available at their website: http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/index.html The boards' also
have excellent digests that summarize their decisions. The digests are also available at
their website.
S:\1000 Friends Reports\Compact Urban Development 4 DU per acre for Density Letter.doc
Urban Densities are Required to be at Least Four Housing Units Per Net Acre 8