Agenda 08/25/2016 SCITI
POKane
Valle
y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
August 25, 2016 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 11, 2016 minutes
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Study Session: Comprehensive Plan Update — Review of proposed
changes to the development regulations
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
August 11,2016
I. Commissioner Anderson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience
stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Elisha Heath took roll and the following members and
staff were present:
Kevin Anderson John Hohman, Community&Economic Development Director
Heather Graham,excused Mike Basinger,Economic Development Coordinator
James Johnson Elisha Heath, Secretary of the Commission
Tim Kelley
Mike Phillips
Suzanne Stathos
Hearing no objections, Commissioner Graham was excused from the meeting.
II. Agenda: Commissioner Kelley moved to accept the August 11, 2016 agenda as presented. The vote
was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. Minutes: Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the July 28, 2016 minutes as presented. The vote
to approve the corrected minutes was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had nothing to report.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Community & Economic Development Director John Hohman
announced the resignation of Planning Commissioner Joe Stoy due to health issues. A
replacement Planning Commissioner is actively being sought and the goal is to have someone
appointed to fill Mr. Stoy's vacancy by the end of August.
Mr. Hohman stated an updated schedule for the Comprehensive Plan is in the works and hopes to
present it to the Commissioners at the next meeting. Mr. Hohman stated it is City Council's desire to
have the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the end of the year. The draft Comprehensive Plan will be
presented to City Council on September 6,2016.There will not be a Planning Commission meeting on
September 8, 2016 rather there will be an open house lead by the consultants. The open house is open
to the public but will not be a Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Stathos inquired if Planning Commissioners could attend the open house as a member
of the community rather than representing the Planning Commission. Mr. Hohman stated he would
speak to Legal for clarification.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT:
Nick Casey, 3519 S.McDonald Ln: Mr. Casey stated he has been a resident of the Spokane Valley
for thirteen years.Mr. Casey has applied to the vacant Planning Commission seat. He wanted to come
by and introduce himself. This was his first meeting; he has no planning background but would love
how to do planning.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Election of Vice Chair: Commissioner Anderson announced it was possible to delay the election
of the Vice Chair till the next meeting. After some discussion the consensus was to conduct the
election at this meeting. Commissioner Phillips nominated Kevin Anderson to be Vice Chair,Mr.
Anderson accepted the nomination. Nominations were closed and the vote was four in favor and
one apposed, Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Anderson was elected Vice-Chair of the
Planning Commission
b) Study Session: Comprehensive Plan Update—Draft Goals and Policies
Commissioner Anderson asked why the draft Goals and Policies did not have alpha-numeric
numbering in the document since it made it difficult to refer to the current Goals and Policies.Mr.
Basinger stated since the document is a draft the numbers were not included and the fmal order is
08-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
not known at this time.However,numbering will be incorporated into the final draft document with
the appropriate alpha-numeric system. Mr. Basinger presented a recap of the process for the
Comprehensive Plan Update including three visioning meetings with community input, City
Council and Planning Commission input throughout the process. Commissioner Stathos asked how
the public is being notified. Mr. Basinger responded through conventional means including the
local paper and City email distribution lists. Commission Johnson asked if the information could
be included on the City's mobile application. Mr. Basinger stated he would be able to look into
that and bring back to the Commission.He updated the Commission on the changes to the website
for the Comprehensive Plan including changing the webpage address to
www.spokanevalley.org/CP to make it more accessible to the public.He asked the Commission to
look at the page and provide any feedback.The supporting reports:The Existing Conditions Report,
Transportation System Report, Retail Recruitment Report, and Tourism Report are now available
to view within the website. These reports and the data produced from them have been utilized to
shape the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Basinger explained the Comprehensive Plan is unique in that
it will have strategic action items on how best to move forward in regards to the various Goals and
Policies.
During community vision meetings there was a great deal of focus on access to parks and trails.
The City does have full funding for our Appleway Trail. Commissioner Stathos asked where the
Trail ending point would be located.Mr. Basinger explained the Trail will eventually connect to a
trail system in Liberty Lake.The other two sections which take the Trail from Pines to Sullivan are
expected be completed next year,however he will confirm this.He mentioned that the City Council
is thinking of adding the funding for amenities along the Appleway Trail to their legislative agenda.
Commission Johnson inquired if parking access was included as part of the amenities.Mr.Basinger
replied parking had not been included,but there is an effort to identify locations especially at the
beginning of the Trail where parking could be available. The City has had some business owners
along the Trail come forward with ideas about parking. Commissioner Johnson commented that
integrating local business is a great idea. The presentation continued on community vision with a
focus on development around the new City Hall, a variety of housing types, preserving the
neighborhoods, locating housing near amenities and increase business opportunities and reduce
barriers.The goal is for the Comprehensive Plan and development regulations to be understandable.
If the development regulations are understandable it is good for business. Gloria Mantz will bring
the proposed changes to the development regulations forward for a very high level discussion with
the Commission at the next meeting.
Mr.Basinger continued stating looking at the community vision,it is easy to see the Council goals
are not that far off. The Council had some specific things they wanted staff to look at one of those
is the mixed-use designations along Trent Avenue. Staff looked at it and presented to Planning
Commission the new proposed zone for the area,in the draft land use map. Some of the other things
Council requested were have more neighborhood commercial areas.
Mr. Basinger defined the difference between goals and policies. Goals are broad statements of
intent. Policies are the more specific statements that support those goals. Goals and policies are
required for every element of the Comprehensive Plan. Strategies provide explicit direction for City
efforts. The strategies are not a common item in a Comprehensive Plan; they are a new, creative
way to add to structure not seen in very many plans. It will provide direction for City Council and
staff. As the City adopts these documents, it builds a plan for moving the City forward. These
strategic actions will provide direction for the Capital Facilities plan and the City's business plan.
The strategic actions will relate directly to consideration in the City's budget. Commissioner
Phillips commented on the confusion created by not having the presented definitions available at
the time of reading the Goals and Policies.He said his understanding was a goal is something you
want to do while a policy is an order.He also commented there were many policies which caused
him concern. Commissioner Phillips used one of the Utilities policy which says "Support the
formation of a water authority, potentially involving the aggregation of water rights." He said
that's policy, if that's what we are going to do as a City would it would be better as a goal. He
stated the policy should be thrown out because it is very confusing and quite frankly upsetting.
08-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
Mr. Basinger offered clarification; policies are the frame work for the City's regulations.
Commission Phillips was correct in his interpretation of goals and policies. He reminded the
Commission some of the policies are Council initiatives, for example under grounding utilities,
Council would like to see this moved forward. The difference between policy and strategic action
is policies set the frame work for development regulations,and strategic actions are the step further
which gives the City direction on its work plan. The Growth Management Act is very specific,the
City has to be consistent with its policies.He reminded the Commission if there are concerns with
policies moving forward the Planning Commission's recommendation should be to remove them
or modify them. Then their recommendation will go forward to City Council for consideration.
Commission Phillips asked for clarification if the Commissioners should bring up their changes at
the next meeting.Mr. Basinger stated that would be the time to bring up any revisions.
Mr. Basinger gave an example of feedback on one of the transportation policies. The City was
advised to include Commute Trip Reduction policies. In order for the City to participate in this
program and to show our commitment, the City needs to have that as policy. Another one was
intelligent transportation systems. There are policies which the Spokane Regional Transportation
Council (SRTC)would like cities to have in their plan in order to receive funding from them, and
the City regularly seek funding from SRTC. Commission Stathos commented there are times when
she feels funding comes with requirements which she does not feel are necessary. Mr. Hohman
explained that the City has to be consistent with the regional approach to be eligible for grants from
SRTC. There are requirements which come with some grant money and grants are how your tax
dollars come back to the community. That is how the system is set up, cities participate in the
process and receive gas tax back so it can put it to good use. The City doesn't have to do that but
then that gas tax money that you paid will go somewhere else. Commissioner Kelley confirmed
bike lines were a good example of grant requirements.
Mr. Basinger continued into the Land Use element and an example could be ensure that land use
plans,regulations,review processes and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and
vitality. Supporting policy: provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development
types on commercial,industrial and mixed-use land.The purpose is to ensure the City is not limiting
development in areas particularly commercial,industrial and mixed use areas.Those are areas that
the City is trying to attract businesses through supportive regulations. The change from Garden
Office to Corridor Mixed Use is a prime example of accomplishing this policy. Commissioner
Anderson felt the use of words like `enhance,' `balance,' `vitality,' `catalytic,' `robust,' and
`innovative' are creating a label and were unnecessary. Discussion continued around the different
qualifying words.
Commissioner Phillips requested a copy of the draft Comprehensive Plan at the same time of the
City Council. Mr. Basinger will confirm that it is possible to bring the document to Planning
Commission. Mr.Basinger continued with the following example transportation goal:Ensure that
the transportation system and investments in transportation infrastructure are designed to improve
quality of life or support economic development priorities. Defining the word "or" in this goal is
not used to say that only one of these choices is an option. Commissioner Anderson brought up the
third transportation goal including the State's Target Zero and inquired why this would be included
in a City document. Mr.Basinger replied that it is required by the Growth Management Act to be
included in Comprehensive Plan and it cannot be removed, but will confirm if this policy is
required.Commissioner Johnson requested a digital word document copy of the Goals and Policies.
Mr. Basinger reminded the Commission there will be more opportunities to adjust some of the
goals and policies as the process moves forward.He will take the Commissioner's comments back
to staff and the consultants. He continued with the example the Council brought up relating to the
third Land Use goal. Council would like to see that goal taken out. Commissioner Johnson
commented that he thought the intent of that goal is just about creating a buzz.If there is a medical
district when discussion comes up everyone knows where you are talking about. There are going
to be certain types of improvements then the City would want to make them fit that type of land
use. Streets and access in a medical district is most likely not the same as the City would make in
an industrial district. Mr. Basinger stated the Commission could consider putting it back into the
document as a recommendation. The discussion continued around the wording of the goal and the
08-11-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4
definition of attractive.Attractive has the implication of expense.Commissioner Johnson countered
that there are numerous types of attractive; stating that he did not believe the intent was visually
attractive. Discussion continued around other areas where the idea of a district was used and was
successful. Mr. Basinger offered a good example being the industrial area and what makes this
area attractive is sewer, water, and roads. Commissioner Anderson said no one questions lack of
infrastructure equals lack of development. Pointing out locations were water and sewer are
available allows for a turnaround for a `factory' to be six months to a year not eighteen months to
two years. Continuing Mr. Basinger commented another defmition of attractive could be the uses
allowed in a zone. Different ways to interpret attractiveness and our intention to say solely trees,
bushes and landscaping that cost money, or that we were going to dictate businesses have to do
that. The discussion turn to available water and alternative landscapes which use less water.
Commissioner Johnson brought up he felt stormwater regulations need to be addressed. The
extensive lawns around the City are unbelievable expensive to maintain and water. It might cost a
little bit more in landscaping originally, within a couple of years your way ahead plus the water
you've saved. Commissioner Stathos clarified if he was refereeing to industry or private.
Commissioner Johnson responded that he was talking about how the City develops things. What
we want to encourage and if the City is doing it people are going to follow right along with it.
Everyone wants to look like they fit in or be a part of the community they are moving into. Once
the buzz starts it just keeps going.Mr.Basinger added that this is considered catalytic development.
Commissioner Stathos took the discussion to utilities and asked for clarification on irrigation water
rights and municipal water rights. Mr. Basinger explained when the City originally developed it
was more agriculturally based,with a lot of irrigation rights.Irrigation water rights are not the same
as municipal water rights. Some water districts have run out of municipal water rights, meaning
they cannot permit more development in their district. East Spokane Water District #1 is one of
those water districts. What we are saying is we want to support the conversion of irrigation water
rights to municipal water rights so the City can continue to develop. Commission Anderson asked
if water rights were a state level issue. Mr. Basinger confirmed that was correct. Commission
Phillips brought up the goal to support the formation of a water authority. He questioned the need
and the type of formation of a water authority. Mr. Basinger stated the purpose of this goal was to
support the formation of a water authority, if desired by the districts, to allow a redistribution of
water rights.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kelley moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:32 p.m. The vote on the
motion was unanimous in favor,motion passed.
Heather Graham, Chair Date signed
Elisha Heath, Secretary
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: August 25, 2016
File Number: NA
Item: Check all that apply: Study Session ❑old business ❑ new business
❑ Public Hearing
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Update
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Development Regulations
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:None
BACKGROUND: Per RCW 36.70A.130(1),every county and city in the state is required to conduct an
update of its comprehensive plan and development regulations every 8 years.The City of Spokane Valley's
update is due no later than June 30,2017.
Staff and the consultants are continuing to develop the Draft Comprehensive Plan. On May 3,2016, staff
conducted a joint workshop with City Council and the Planning Commission to provide direction to City
staff and the consultant team on the land use alternatives as well as goal and policy focus areas. On June
23, 2016, staff provided the results from the joint workshop with the City Council and the Planning
Commission. Staff received feedback from City Council on the workshop results providing further
direction on the development of the land use alternatives and the goals and policies. On July 14, 2016,
staff provided a presentation on residential development in our region to offer context for the proposed
residential development standards. On July 28,2016,staff provided an overview of the draft land use map
and the correlation to the existing conditions report,with an emphasis on the focused analysis of Medium
Density Residential, Mixed Use, Office, and Neighborhood Commercial. On August 25, 2016, staff
provided an overview of the Comprehensive Plan draft goals and policies
Tonight, staff will provide an overview of the changes to the development regulations as part of the
Comprehensive Plan legislative update. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan provide the
foundation for regulations, programs and actions. Staff will be updating the development regulations to
address statutory requirements, ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and streamline
regulations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion
STAFF CONTACT: Gloria Mantz,Development Engineer
Attachments: Development Regulations;PowerPoint
Title 17 SVMC
Title 19 SVMC
Chapter 21.40 Critical Areas
Chapter 22.50 Off-street parking and loading standards
Chapter 22.70 Fencing, Screening and Landscaping
Chapter 22.110 Sign Regulations
Comprehensive Plan
Legislative Update
Development Regulations
Gloria Mantz, Development Engineer
Legislative Update
• Joint Workshop on May 3, 2016
• Results of Joint Workshop provided on June 23, 2016
• Residential Development Standards Comparison on July 14, 2016
• Overview of Draft Land Use Map on July 28, 2016
• Policy Overview and Discussion on August 11, 2016
• Draft Regulations Overview August 25, 2016
Spokane Development Regulations 2
Valley
Community Vision
• Increased focus and access to parks and trails
• Consider a specific focus area around new City Hall
• Provide for a greater variety of housing types
• Preserve the character of the neighborhoods
• Locate housing near amenities like retail, health care, parks, and transit
• Increase business opportunities and reduce barriers
Spokane Development Regulations 3
Valley
Council Goals
• Streamline land uses and maximize flexibility
• Preserve established neighborhoods
• Provide for a variety of housing types like tiny homes cottage houses
• Change the mixed-use designations along Trent
• Consolidate Office and Garden Office or change to Corridor Mixed Use
• Expand and designate new areas of Neighborhood Commercial
Spokane Development Regulations 4
Valley
Overview
■ Title 17 General Provisions
■ Title 19 Zoning Regulations
■ Title 21 Environmental Controls
■ Title 22 Design and Development Standards
■ Appendix A Definitions
S aan ` Development Regulations 5
j�ley.
Development Regulations Revisions
■ Comprehensive Plan and Implementation
■ Statutory requirements
■ Streamline regulations
Spokane Footer 6
j�ley.
Title 17 General Provisions
• Develop a stronger interpretation process
• Remove rebuttal period
• Modify sign requirements for Public Hearing Notice
• Hearing Examiner change of conditions
S aan ` Development Regulations 7
j�ley.
Title 19 Zoning Regulations
■ Title reorganization
■ Modify zoning district to reflect new land use map
■ Modify permitted used matrix to reflect new zoning districts and consolidate uses
■ Incorporate language for Tiny Homes and Cottages
■ Modify Density and Dimensional standards
■ Modify language to support Neighborhood Commercial
■ Adjust residential standards to support infill development
■ Add language for Mobile Food Vendors
■ Create Transitional Standards
Spokane Development Regulations 8
Valley
T-7.74e.
7 I
160.6'
(N. %
.
_ LOT 11
• cr!12005 SF 05 Current Regulations
ea
- =
At II 1 7:4
--
71! LOT 10
•
- - -
r-.1 8114 SF
06
106.2'
,41
"
Y**".
6.) . • Layout meets code
11 LOT 9
*3 7344 SF ^
106.3 • Minimum width
woo
LOT 5 LO
a' 17 4 51-‘ 7 LOts MOO SF 7551T SF r-• requirements creates 2
9 9' [-IMO' 105A'
odd shaped lots
< 7,, t LOT 8 iq LOT 7
Cr 7500 SF 7518 SF g
-
1.1.1 og LOT 4".
8934 SF 106.5'
_
105.3' 10()-
, .
•
_
L.
Siiokane Development Regulations 9
.000§0Valley
lif
r ! .
c.` ..N 53.7 r; 52.5' 544'
Q
, . LOT 12 -,°,1 LOT 11 S .1E10 ..- ,
Proposed Regulations
Li.... L� LOTS LOTS N • Removing minimum
9 8311 SF 9722 m
100.0' width requirements
1T 9
•
2 ,� ti .q ,�j SF
_ o Gains one more lot
wi LO---e:...._ ?.;. __,_,
.4X9.9' po.0.Q'
ce 4 . i
16.4' . . ,...
o Eliminates odd
_: g c, earl LOT 8 LOT 7 c a
r 6934E 7500 7518 SF shaped I ots
>n w
05.3 .
1H'.'. --, µ ' fit— . �
Spokane Development Regulations 10
Valley
„ ;-'• • . .--: ',.,., ,.,,,_ rg. .
Current Regulations
c` 5 p
f k:. 100.7 ^ LOT E. ^ S
91.0' 9527 SF 4
y = 0•T10 1 Subdivision as proposed :
a 6920 SF
85.2'
OUVE AVENUE • 90.6, • 3 lots lot depth < 95'
' -- 13 10270LOT 75E =
51
a WS' I
• 4 lots lot area < 7500 sq .ft.
-- �G
LOT 16 85.6' - • ,.
�4 • Administrative exception
LOTS
sex 16242• 1
LOT 181
6883'SF `'
a '
iiik I,
_” a • LOT 9 '`
- •�^v LOT'1
Subdivision as proposed —
�riiiiii -11Lti-,A it i.
" D•
75.6
VALLEYWAY AVENUE meets proposed regulations
liin r
Spokane Development Regulations 11
Valley
VALLEYWAV AVENUE I Residential
.Z. 1.91.11111 Dimension
, _ .
. . -. _ 1T1 - Standards
' an. ...` 3 --� • Current code — 3 large
A -_4440, ; •1 duplex lots. Half duplex
o lots cannot be sold
1435' ¢
- independently
LOT 3 -
c., • Proposed code — 6 lots
MIA' that can be sold
independently
Spokane Development Regulations 12
Valley
Title 21 Environmental Controls
• Consistency with the Shoreline Master Plan Critical Areas
regulations
• Simplify regulations to account for wetland types in the City
• Updated methods and references to reflect best available
science
Spokane Development Regulations 13
Valley
Title 22 Design and Development Standards
• SVMC 22.50 Off-street Parking and Loading Standards
• SVMC 22.70 Fencing, Screening & Landscaping
• SVMC 22. 110 Sign Regulations
• Re-organize and streamline language
.�(j'pkall� Development Regulations 14
Title 22 Design and Development Standards
• Modify off-street loading space requirements
• Clarify clearview requirements for new development
• Streamline buffering and screening requirements
• Modify off-premise directional sign requirements
• Allow projecting signs
.�(j'pkall� Development Regulations 15
Appendix A Definitions
■ Remove unnecessary definitions
■ Strengthen Use Category definitions
■ Combine zones to allow flexibility
Spokane` Footer 16
j�ley.
Discussion
17
Spokan Development Regulations
j�ley.
Next Steps
■ Draft Comprehensive Plan Study Session on September 22, 2016
S aan ` Development Regulations 18
j�ley.