Agenda 10/20/2016
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
SpecialMeeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
October 20, 20166:00 p.m.
I.CALL TO ORDER
II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III.ROLL CALL
IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 6, 2016, October 13, 2016
VI.COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i.
Findings:Comprehensive Plan Update,Spokane Valley Municipal
Code Title 17 General Provisions, Title 19 Zoning, Titles 21
Environmental Controls, Title 22 Design and Development
Standards,EnvironmentalImpact Statement
VII.ADJOURNMENT
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers –City Hall
October 6,2016
I.
CommissionerGrahamcalled the meeting to order at 6:02p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience
stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Hortontook roll and the following members and
staff were present:
Kevin AndersonKelly Konkright, Special Council
Heather GrahamMike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator
James JohnsonChaz Bates, Economic Development Specialist Development
Tim Kelley
Mike Phillips
Michelle Rasmussen
Suzanne StathosDeanna Horton, Commission Secretary
II.Agenda:
Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the October 6, 2016 agenda as presented.The vote
was sevenin favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III.Minutes:
There were no minutes to approve.
IV.COMMISSION REPORTS:
Commissioner Johnson stated he belongs to anonline neighborhood
community called McDonald.Nextdoor.comand he had shared the opportunity to comment on the
Comprehensive Plan withtheseneighbors.
V.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
There was no administrative report.
VI.PUBLIC COMMENT:
There was no public comment.
VII.COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Continued Public Hearing:DRAFT Comprehensive Plan; Draft Spokane Valley Municipal
a)
Code(SVMC)Proposed Amendments Title 17 General Provisions, Title 19 Zoning, Title 21
Environmental Controls, Title 22 Design and Development Standardsand SEPA Analysis for
Draft Comprehensive Plan.
This is a continuation ofthe public hearing from September 29, 2016
Economic Development Coordinator MikeBasingergave anoverview of the updateto the
Comprehensive Plan and the corresponding changes to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code.
Mr. Basinger began by sharing the vision gathered from thecommunity through anextensive public
participationprocess:
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
Which echoes the vision the City Council has for the City:
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
Mr. Basinger stated based on this vision the Plan has been completely rewritten in order to be:
28
10-06-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
Economic Development focus
Innovative and data driven
Easy to navigate with an attractive design
Concise and understandable
Includes existing studies
Retail Recruitment
Tourism
Existing conditions report
Include strategic actions
Specific section for goals and policies
Includes strategies in the goals and policies section
Includes an implementation matrix identifying:
Strategies, which are included in the sidebar of the Plan
Primary Element
Related Elements
Lead & Partners
Timing
Priority
There will be a separate chapterin thefront of the document which will contain allof the goals
and polices, making them easier to locate. We also made sure other City documents were
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The elements included in the Plan are as follows:
Economic Development
Land Use
Housing
Transportation
Capital Facilities
Utilities
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Natural Resources
Each element will be organized in a similar fashion:
Why the element is important
Planning Context
Current Conditions
Approach
–
Challenges and Opportunities
–
Community and Economic Development Priorities
–
Best Practices
Mr. Basinger continued explaining the changes to the Land Use designations. He statedstaff
combined the former two multifamily designations and zones into oneMultifamily designation and
zone.MF-1wasmoved into the R-4 zone or the new zone, which ever was more appropriate. The
new Multifamily Residential (MFR) designation was looked at being near services and along transit
routes. A buffer ofone half of a mile around bus stops was considered. Spokane Transit Authority
has stated their “Red Line” along Sprague Avenuehas the second highest ridership of all routes
and they are working for six minute service. A good deal of the MFRhas been concentrated near
Sprague, near the Appleway Trail and near transit service.
The City designated new areas for parks and open space. Designated space near Mirabeau Park
and the Appleway Trail right-of-way. The Office designation has been absorbed into Corridor
Mixed Use, which will allow multifamily, office, retail and light manufacturing. New areas for
Neighborhood Commercial designations have been placed at major intersections in close proximity
to existing neighborhoods. An Industrial Mixed Use designation was created for the land along
Trent Avenue which allows for light industrial uses such as contractors yards and towing companies
and continues to allow for commercial uses.
38
10-06-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
Mr. Basinger continued to explain the Spokane Valley Municipal Code has also been updated in
conjunction with the ComprehensivePlan. The MunicipalCode is required to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, comply with current laws and was rewritten to streamline the regulations.
SVMC Title 17 General Provisions was completely rewritten to streamline the processes, to
develop a stronger interpretation process, remove the rebuttal period, modify lettering size
requirements for Public Hearing notices, in certain instances we will notify outside of the
boundaries required, the Hearing Examiner change of conditions, and adding vesting provisions.
SVMC Title 19, Zoning,is where the bulk of the changes occurred. Since the regulations must be
consistent with the Comprehensive Planit has been update to reflect all of the changes in the Plan.
Ithas been completely reorganized to make it easier to use. The zoning districts have been modified
to be consistent withthe Land Use map. The Permitted Use Matrix has been update to reflect the
new zoning districts, remove the old zoning districts, incorporated language for small dwellings.
The density and dimensionstandards have been modified and transitional provisions have been
added to protect residential neighborhoods when they are adjacent to a more intense zone. The
Administrative Exceptions have been modified to make them clearer.Created zoning districts to
implementthe Plan. Residential districts R-3 and R-4 have been combined into one R-3 zone with
a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. The MF-1 zone has, based on our studies, not been
performing since before incorporation of the City. One Multifamily zone has been created and the
MF-1 has been absorbed into either the MF-2 or Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) whichever was
appropriate. Light Industrial and Heavy Industrialhave been combined into one Industrialzone.
However, a new zone has been created called Industrial Mixed Use to be able to take care of the
properties along Trent Avenue where Council had requested staff look to create zoning which
would be more appropriate for the uses along this corridor. Added some alternative dwelling types,
such as tiny homes and cottages. The Permitted Use Matrix has been updated to reflect the removal
of the Office, Garden Office, Community Commercial and Light Industrial zones from the code.
Medical, retail uses were added into broad use categoriesas well as creating a broad use category
for marijuana uses. Supplemental uses were put in one place so they were easy to find.
Uncategorized uses were also placed in its own section, such as home businesses. Density and
dimension standards were adjusted in the R-3 zone to have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet,
and removed the minimum lot width and length but the density still remains at six units per acre.
We adjusted the standards in the MFR to remove the density and the building height. We also
eliminated nonresidential dimensions except in Neighborhood Commercial. In order to reduce the
impacts of reducing these dimensions, staff added Transitional Provisions. There is a ground level
setback of ten feet. Within this setback there are limited uses allowed and it must be landscaped
per the landscaping requirements. There is an upper level setback which is a one to one ratio
starting at 15 feet at the property line starting at the property line.
Title 21, Environmental Controls, a SEPA exemption created to promote infill development. We
also make sure it was consistent with the Shoreline Master Program. We also made sure to update
methods and reference to reflect best available science.
In Title 22, Design and Development Standards, the off street loading requirements, clarified the
clearview requirements, streamlined buffering and screening requirements, modified landscaping
requirements and modified surety requirements.
In Appendix A, Definitions, weremovedany unnecessary definitions and strengthened the use
category definitions.
Mr. Basinger covered the schedule moving forward. The regular meeting and continued
deliberations is scheduled for October 13, 2016. The findings and recommendations arescheduled
for October20, 2016,and there needs to be time for staff to put together the Commission’s
recommendation to the City Council. The Administrative Report to the City Council is scheduled
for October 25, 2016. The City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing and the first reading of the
ordinance adopting the new Comprehensive Plan on November 8, 2016, with a second reading
scheduled for November 22, 2016.
48
10-06-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
CommissionerJohnson confirmed multifamily is allowed in Corridor Mixed Use, there was no
change to this.
Chair Graham reminded the public ofthe rules for the public hearing and called the first person to
testify.
John Howard, 11616 E. JacksonAvenue:
Mr. Howard commented regarding why people did not
receiving notices about zoning changes and about people building apartments.
Pat Korn, 12103 E. Frederick Avenue:
Ms. Korn stated she was opposed the request to change
the zoning at the Mirabeau Chapel on Pines.
Clara Misterek, 12025 E Frederick Avenue:
Ms. Misterek stated she was opposed to the request
to change the zoning at the Mirabeau Chapel on Pines.
Donita Mason, 12012 E. Frederick Avenue:
Ms. Mason stated she was opposed to the request to
change the zoning on the property at Mirabeau Chapel on Pines Road.
George Kovacs, 19122 E Valleyway Avenue:
Mr. Kovacs stated he was against the rezoning of
the properties at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Amber Haveman, 18722 E Sprague Avenue:
Ms. Haveman stated she was against the rezoning
of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
William Currier, 110 N Barker Road:
Mr. Currier stated he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Frank Roberts, 213 N Barker Road:
Mr. Roberts stated he was against the rezoning of the
property at the Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Zita Smith, 16 N Harmony Road:
Ms. Smith testified she was against the rezoning of the property
at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Nancy Board, 315 S Barker Road:
Ms. Board testified she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Stephanie Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway Avenue:
Ms. Colombo said she was against the rezoning
of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential. She does not agree with the
Corridor Mixed Use moving farther into the neighborhood or removing the height restrictions.
David Colombo, 18921 E Valleyway Avenue:
Mr. Colombo said he was against the rezoning of
the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Wayne Vinson, 117 N Barker Road:
Mr. Vinson testified he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Baker to Multifamily Residential.
Norman Shepard, 602 S Barker Road:
Mr. Shepard testified he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Marian Moseman, 630 S Michigan:
Ms. Moseman stated she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Athlan Lathan, 1302 S McMillan Road:
Mr. Lathan testified he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Dennis Crapo, 2602 N Sullivan Road:
Mr. Crapo requested a pieceof property he owns located
on Sands Road, have the designation change to Regional Commercial to allow at use of
Greenhouse/nursery commercial.
Russ Boucher, 10 N Harmony Road:
Mr. Boucher stated he was against the rezoning of the
property located at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Lee Nilson, 101 N Barker Road:
Mr. Nilson commented he was against the rezoning of the
property located at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Kurt Neil, 19724 E Sprague Avenue:
Mr. Neil testified he was against the rezoning of the property
located at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
58
10-06-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
Paul Belfry, 18807 E Second Avenue:
Mr. Belfry testified he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Karen O’Shogay, 105 S Barker Road:
Ms. O’Shogay said she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Karen Gallion, 18605 ETurtle Creek:
Ms. Gallion commented she was against the rezoning of
the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Gilbert Cook, 303 S Barker Road:
Mr. Cook testified he was against the rezoning of the property
at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
William McCord, 18816 E 4 th Avenue:
Mr. McCord stated he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Avenue:
Ian Robertson, 11919 E 30 th Mr. Robertson said he was supportive of allowing the small
residential dwellings in Spokane Valley. It will support home ownership.
Lynn Plaggemeir, 11708 E 19 th Avenue:
Mr. Plaggemeir stated he was supportive of impact fees.
Avenue:
Jerry Cline, 18406 E 10 th Mr. Cline stated he was against therezoning of the property at
Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Chariti Zlateff, 628 S Moen Street
:Ms. Zlateff stated she was supportive of parks and trails.
Supportive of multiuse functions, residential and commercial in same building. Shewas in support
of increasing transitional setbacks, not exceed four stories, and restricting the Multifamily building
height.
Dallas Williams, 18903 E Sprague Avenue:
Mr. Williams stated he was against the rezoning of
the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Taffy Hunter, 18820 E Sprague Avenue:
Ms. Hunter stated she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Kayloni Bonner, 19124 E 2Avenue:
nd Ms. Bonner stated she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Kris Petibone, 18009 E. Cowley:
Ms. Petibone stated she was against the rezoning of the property
at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Avenue:
Kim Alexander-Byrd, 18820 E 4 th Ms. Alexander-Byrd testified she was against the
rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Caroline Kroko, 805 S Harmony Road:
Ms. Kroko commented she was against the rezoning of
the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Raymond Harris, 18520 E Bow Avenue:
Mr. Harris stated he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Ryan Olson, 18904 E. 12Court:
th Mr. Olson stated hewas in favor of changing the zoning in the
area near Barker and Sprague.
Jacque Stallinga, 19025 E Riverside Avenue:
Ms. Stallinga commented she was against the
rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Chuck Richardson, 18808 E Valleyway Court:
Mr. Richardson said he was against the rezoning
of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Clyde Smith, 16 N Harmony Road:
Mr. Smith testified he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Andy Kautzman, 18502 E Sprague Avenue
: Mr. Kautzmanstated he was against the rezoning of
the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Marc Lippincott, 19004 E 2 nd Avenue:
Mr. Lippincott stated he was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
68
10-06-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
Sarah Ross, 18703 E 13Court:
th Ms. Ross testified she was against the rezoning of the property
at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Nicole Arnold, 17322 E Alki Avenue:
Ms. Arnold attested she was against the rezoning of the
property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Jackie Williams, 18903 E Sprague Avenue:
Ms. Williams commented she was against the
rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to Multifamily Residential.
Chair Graham closed the public hearing at 8:19 p.m.
To summarize the evening’s testimony there were:
35 people testified they were against the rezoning of the property at Sprague and Barker to
Multifamily residential
Oneperson testified in favorof the zoning change at Sprague and Barker.
One person testified against Corridor Mixed Use in the Sprague and Barker area
Three people testified against the request to rezone the property located at 3001 N Pines to
Mixed Use.
One person requesting a change in designation on his property located on Sands Road to
Commercial.
One questioning why people did not receive notices for rezones and apartment construction
One testified supporting impact fees
One testified increasing the transitional provisions setbacks
Two people testified against unlimited heights, one requesting four story height restriction.
One testified in support of alternative housing, specifically tiny houses
One testified supporting parks and trail development
One testified supporting mixed use development
Many people commented regarding the goal of preserving the neighborhood character
Many spoke regarding the impact of development on schools. Schools in the area being
over crowed, the need to bus local children to other schools because they are over capacity.
Many spoke regarding the need for infrastructure improvements to the intersection at
Sprague and Barker.Several people commented it is necessary to have a traffic officer on
Sunday mornings in order to handle the traffic coming from the church at that the
intersection at Sprague and Barker.
Many spoke of the need for infrastructure improvements to Barker Road before the area
would be able to handle any kind of influx of development. One person noted Spokane
County is approving homes south on Barker in Twin Bridges, Turtle Creek, Morningside
and the Morrison Ranch is expected to subdivide 200+ acres before too long, which all
impact the same intersection and Barker Road, which has no sidewalks, is unimproved and
is the only access for the area to the freeway.
There was consensus between the Commissioners to begin deliberations and to start with the
change of designation at Sprague and Barker. The Commissioners discussed the zoning of the
properties at the northeast corner of Sprague and Barker.
Commissioner Graham stated she did not think the zoning west of Barker, south of Bow Avenue
and north of Sprague Avenue which had been changed to Corridor Mixed Use was right for the
area.
Commissioner Kelley said he was concerned about overflow parking from multifamily
development, increase in noise from the developmentof 400+ homes south of the intersection. He
also commented regarding the schools not being able to handle the increase in students as well as
being able to handle special needs students.The Commissioners asked staff what the plans were
to improve Barker Road and this intersection. Mr. Basinger stated he could not speak to the specific
improvements planned for Barker but he was aware that it was on the 6-year Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP). Mr. Kelley stated impact fees are a difficult sell, but they do help with
improvements down the road. He also stated he was supportive of parks and trails.
78
10-06-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
Commissioner Rasmussen stated she felt the infrastructure needed to be in place ahead of
development. She said she was concerned about the schools being over capacity. She is concerned
the zoning does not seem to fit in this one place. She is not advocatingno growth, but this one
place does not seem to fit.
Commissioner Stathos stated she was in support of impact fees. She not in favor of the change of
zoning of the properties at the Sprague and Barker. She believes in a better notification system for
the public.
Commissioner Phillipsstated the area at Sprague and Barker is a good location for multifamily
because they are both arterial roads, which is why it was probably designated this way in the new
plan. He also said he did not feel it was the right time for it based on the lack of infrastructure to
support the additional traffic.
Commissioner Graham clarified there is no density restriction in the MFR zone. Mr. Basinger said
there Transitional Provisions would reduce the impacts to adjacent residential development. She
then commented if the property were zoned MFR only the people to the south and east would be
protected. She would not be supporting this change.
Commissioner Johnson asked if the recommendation was not to support the suggested MFR what
would the recommendation be for the property at Sprague and Barker. Commissioner Graham
stated her recommendation would be for the propertyto be R-3. She said she is ok with the
properties west of Barker and north of Bow Avenue being zoned CMU but not the properties south
of Bow. She said if they were zoned residential previously, they should remain residential.
Commissioner Johnson clarified she was considering leaving the CMU zoning west of Greenacres
Road and north of Bow Avenue.
Commissioner Kelley stated this would be the correct place to put multifamily in the future, because
it is close to bus routes and when the infrastructure is in place, it will be an ideal place for it.
Commissioner Graham stated if you drive this particular part of Appleway, businesses have a hard
time staying in business. There are not supportive businesses going in this area. Commissioner
Kelley offered there would be in the future. Commissioner Graham said she felt the development
of those kinds of businesses would be going on the north side of the freeway, toward where a
medical center had developed. She said there is a bus stop but where would it take them.
Commissioner Johnson offered the Medium Density Residential has been eliminated from the
Comprehensive Plan, and it could be returned. It would make more sense to have a medium density
development at that corner instead of high density. Townhouses would be better than apartments
he offered. He said increasing the density for medium density to 16 units per acre, which would
make it more financially viable, given the increasing property values people are seeing. He feels
there is a pent up demand for small reduced cost home ownership. Commissioner Johnson said he
would support the CMU as was stated previously and make medium density from Greenacres Road
to the east side of the parcels which have been in discussion at the corner of Sprague and Barker.
Commissioner Kelley said he would support MFR up to 24 units per acre but would not support it
being unlimited, but keep it just as one density not as a medium and a high. Commissioner Graham
countered this would not solve the issue at Barker and Sprague. She said she was not opposed to
townhomes, they promote home ownership and stability and have a nicer look than apartments.
They would still change the feel of the neighborhood but not as much as apartments would.
Commissioner Stathos clarified the City is required to update the Comprehensive Plan every eight
years. However, there is still an annual amendment process in which a property owner is allowed
to come in and request a change to their property every year if they wish.
Commissioner Johnson moved to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. The vote on this motion was five
in favor and two against with Commissioners Anderson and Phillips dissenting. Motion passed
Commissioner Johnson suggestedbringing back a medium density residential with a maximum
density of 16 units per acre and a height restriction of two stories. It was pointed out this would
allow apartments as well. Commissioner Phillips stated he was in favor of MFR on the property
but not at this time, not until the road is improved. Until the road is improved, he feels it should be
88
10-06-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
left as residential. He said the property owner can come in and ask to change it every year, and the
neighborhood asks why they have to come back in and fight it every year. He said because that is
the law. There are 5 acres and he can put 30 homes on it. He is not in favor of bringing back
medium density residential and redesigning the whole thing. Commissioner Anderson stated with
the change in minimum lot size it would be easier to configure the lot. Commissioner Kelley
commented that townhomes are not necessarily residential homes, they can also be rented.
Commissioner Johnson said apartments are rarely owner occupied, but townhomes could be.
Commissioner Johnson said if left residential, then there couldonly be six units per acre, but Mr.
Basinger said there was a small difference in standards for townhomes.Mr. Basinger clarified that
R-3 zoning allows townhouses.
Chair Graham confirmed the consensus of the Commission was that lot at Barker and Sprague that
iscurrently zoned R-3remain residential, not moved to multifamily.
Commissioner Graham moved to the zoning between Greenacres and Barker Road, and south of
Bow Avenue. She was ready to make a recommendation on it. Commissioner Anderson looked
for an explanation why this area to CMU? Mr. Basinger responded with the deletion of the Medium
Density Residential, CMU was an appropriate designation for this area which allows for single
family residential outright. Commissioner Anderson noted so does multifamily. Commissioner
Kelley noted he could see since there is CMU along Appleway, he could understand the designation
following along this path.
VIII.GOOD OF THE ORDER
:Therewas nothing for the good of the order.
IX.ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Kelleymoved to adjourn the meetingat 9:14p.m. The vote on the
motion was unanimous in favor, motion passed.
_________________________________________________________________
Heather Graham, ChairDate signed
____________________________________
Deanna Horton, Secretary
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers –City Hall
October 13,2016
I.
CommissionerGrahamcalled the meeting to order at 6:01p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience
stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Hortontook roll and the following members and
staff were present:
Kevin AndersonJohn Hohman, Community & Economic Development Director
Heather GrahamCary Driskell, City Attorney
James JohnsonMike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator
Tim KelleyErik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Mike PhillipsChaz Bates, Economic Development Specialist
Michelle RasmussenGloria Mantz, Economic Development Engineer
Suzanne StathosDeanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
II.Agenda:
Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the October 13, 2016 agenda as presented.The
vote was sevenin favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III.Minutes:
Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the September 22, 2016 minutes. The vote on
this motion was seven in favor, zero against, motion passes.Commissioner Anderson moved to
approve the September 29, 2016 minutes. The vote on this motion was seven in favor, zero against,
motion passes.
IV.COMMISSION REPORTS:
Commissioner Graham reported she attended the debate for the
candidates for the office of Superintendent for Public Instruction.
V.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT:
There was no administrative report.
VI.PUBLIC COMMENT:
There was no public comment.
VII.COMMISSION BUSINESS:
Deliberations:DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Update; Draft Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a)
(SVMC)Proposed Updates; and SEPA Analysis forDraft Comprehensive Plan.
Community Development Director John Hohman began the meeting with an outline of the process
for the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan, Plan) which began in 2014. He said it has been conducted
in three phases, with the consultants who assisted in writing and compilingthe document itself and
associated reports. The first phase was conducted from November of 2014 to May/June of 2015
which entailed the public participation planand community vision report. This process validated
the City’s mission statement: “Acommunity of opportunity where individuals and families can
grow and play and businesses will flourish and prosper.” All public involvement which the City
conducted validated this mission statement. Phase II looked at the land quantity analysis, existing
conditions report, audited the goals and policies. SEPA analysis was conducted and it was
determined the City needed to do an Environmental Impact Statement. The City did quite a bit of
this work while it waited for the population allocation number from Spokane County. The City
waited for this number until November of 2015. Phase III began in Februaryof 2016to start the
writing of the Comprehensive Plan and associated regulations. In the beginning of September staff
provided the Commissioners initial draft of the document, and then a final drafttwo weeks later.
There have been three consultant teams working on this, Van Ness Feldman has taken the leadas
project management, legal aspects as well as the drafting the regulations, CommunityAttributes
who worked on the extra studies and wrote the draft Comprehensive Plan, and Fehr and Peers did
the transportation analysis. Mr. Hohman explained all of the meetings and the subjects which had
been covered with the Planning Commissioners since the beginning of the process leading up to
the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan and associated regulations. Mr. Hohman said there
had been 16 meetings, 11 being specific study sessions regarding Comp Plan topics, Existing
Conditions, the Comp Plan process,Retail Improvement, Tiny Homes, Comprehensive Plan Joint
Workshop, Land Use standards, Goals and Policies, and changes to the development regulations.
28
10-13-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
This lead to the public hearing on September 29, 2016 and October 6, 2016 in which comments
received were as follows:
86 total written and oral comments were received
04 of those were in favor of changing the zoning at Barker and Sprague
o
64 of those were against changing the zoning at Barker and Sprague
o
02 of those requested achange tothe zoning at 3001 N Pines Road
o
04 of those were against changing the zoning at 3001 N Pines Road
o
01 of those were in favor of changing the zoning at Barker and Laberry
o
02 of those were in favor of the changes in Commercial zoning changes made City-
o
wide
01 of those were in favor of more parks and trails, multiuse development, increased
o
transitional setbacks and setting a multifamily height limit
01 of those were in favor of alternative dwellings andspecifically tiny homes
o
01 of those were in favor of imposing impact fees
o
02 of those requested a change to the zoning to property on Sands Road
o
02 of those supported more noticing for rezones and building apartments
o
01 of those supported preserving neighborhoods
o
01 of those supported transit driven changes in the Comprehensive Plan
o
Mr. Hohman said there had been questions from the Commissioners about why this had to be done
on this schedule, why it could not wait longer to be finished. The City Council is receiving pressure
from citizens and businesses who are waiting for the Plan to be finished. There are people who
want to make investments in our community but they want to wait for the changes they support in
the updated Comp Plan. He shared someone,just two days before this meeting, was inwanting to
know when it would be done, he had a projecthe was waiting to complete. Realtors have sales
waiting to be completedalong Trent,waiting for the Plan to be finished. If there are grammatical
issues please feel free to submit those to staff and we will reviewthem to make sure they are
updated. Mr. Hohman said staff is willing to meet for as many nights between now and next
Thursday to work with the Commissioners to coverall of their issues, however theschedule must
be maintained because the City Council’spublichearinghas already been noticed and published.
Mr. Hohman said he was looking to the Commissioners to help maintain the schedule for the
community. Commissioner Johnson stated there has been a great effort by staff and the community,
and if it ispossible to maintain the schedule it would be great. However, he feels that receiving the
final draft three weeks ago, and if it took three more weeks to review it, that would double the time
they have had to look at it and only delayed the overall process three week. If someone has already
been waiting six months, another three weeks would not be a huge impact. Commissioner Stathos
stated she concurred with Commissioner Johnson. She said ittook two years to craft the document,
and they were only allowedthree weeks to review it, two of which were public comments. Mr.
Hohman reiterated he was asking to work on the issues tonight and see how much forward progress
could be made in the review of the document. Commissioner Johnson stated he felt there were
people who left the meeting before commenting. He said he did not feel the comments received
were totally representative of the community’s feelings. Clearly it showed the feelings of the
citizens at Barker and Sprague and thatcommunity was very organized. He doesn’t feel there are
other areas which are as organized in order to be able to comment. Mr. Hohman suggested the
schedule should be maintained even more in order to allow those in other neighborhoods the
opportunity tocomment at the public hearing noticed for November 8, 2016.
Economic Development Coordinator, MikeBasinger offered the listofpolicy itemsand regulations
the Commissioners have noted they are having issue with and the other land use changes which
were brought up during the public hearing.
CommissionerGraham stated she wanted to bring up four goals from the Growth Management Act
which she felt were important: Encourage affordable housing and preserve existing housing, she
offered this was a goal of the Council; Promote economic development throughout the state and
respect regional differences, she feels respect regional differences had been lost by using out of
area consultants; Respect property rights and protect property owners from arbitrary actions, she
feels some of the changes to the Land Use map are arbitrary; Insure public facilities are in place
38
10-13-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
before development, she feels at Barker and Sprague ‘we’ have not done the due diligence to make
sure the facilities are in place, particularly roads.
Mr. Hohmansaidbarring some grammar and minor editorial comments, are there any major
concerns regarding the Comp Plan document itself? The Commissioners generally agreed they
liked the shape and feel of the document, it was easy to read and understand. Commissioner
Johnson said he wanted to talk about the goals and policies in the Housing Element. He feels the
identityof the Valley has always been and probably always should be a majority of the residences
being owner occupied. When reviewing thegoals for example he feelsHG-1 states Allow for a
broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community‘and encourage owner
occupancy” should be added. He said we are not trying to create a city of rental properties and then
have those people move someplace else. There would be gains in the schools system, investments
in fire, police and roads would be encouraged with owner occupancy. Commissioner Kelley does
understand the concern but does not know how it would be accomplished. Commissioner Johnson
said it couldbe a separate goal. Mr. Hohman offered the Commissioners needed to keep in mind,
when youhave a goal, you would have a corresponding policy; the policies lead to a development
regulation. He did not know how the City could write a regulation which would enforce this goal.
Commissioner Anderson and Graham supported the thought, but said that the zoning would be
where to allow the development to support thesetypes of housing.
City Attorney Cary Driskell, noted for the Commissioners that based on the Growth Management
Act RCW 36.70A.020(4) Goals and Policies, says housing “Encourage the availability of
affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of
.”
residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stockHe
said there a lot of competing interests listed here and the one thing the City would not want to do
is to have something, which on its face looks like we are working against that goal. While it could
result in a community that might be more desirable, someone could look at it and say you are
putting a barrier to Goal 4 related to broad housing types. Commissioner Johnson said a broad
variety of housing types does not mean rentals which are between $800 and $2,000 per month
before they get to a home which might cost them $180,000. A broad variety of housing types
includes homes which are between $100,000 and $125,000. The way you would accomplish this
would be in a multifamily type structure, condominium or rowhouses. Single family residential
allows row houses but you can only have six per acre and then what would you do with the rest of
the land, hope it is turned into a park. However if 16 row house were on an acre, then it would be
a viable situation. Mr. Basinger said staff looked at what kind of density would be allowed in
certain zones and six units per acre should be allowed in a single family zone. That is the character
piecethat we are trying to maintain. In order to get that density other zones would have to allow
this type of use. There is talk of this type of development happening in along the river, but
Commissioner Johnson said he hoped that would not be the only place allowed.
Commissioner Johnson said in Capital Faculties policy CF-P9 Continue planning for domestic
water needs. He did not see anywhere protecting the area’s water resources in some way. Mr.
Hohman said that during the joint workshop the City Council did not want that type of language in
the Plan. However if the Commission felt strongly enough about it, they could make a
recommendation regardingthis. Commissioner Johnson said the City should lead by example. Mr.
Hohman explained xeriscaping, and of conservation in landscaping. Commissioner Kelley offered
he would not be in favor of going back and tearing up a park, like Mirabeau Park which is a gem
of a park in order to use this type of landscaping. Commissioner Phillips agreed with Mr. Kelley,
he does not see the advantage to convince people to conserve in the parks and turning them into
less than green. Commissioner Rasmussen stated there has been advances in parks using
sustainable methods. Commissioner Graham said some of her favorite parts of the Centennial Trail
which were naturalstates. Commissioner Anderson said he supported this idea. The
Commissioners agreed this should be promoted in future City capital projects.
Commissioner Graham asked about how strategies, such as a white water course would be funded.
Mr. Hohman explained there is a group who went forward with the downtown Spokane whitewater
course and they are looking at a place just stream of the Sullivan Bridge and expanding Sullivan
Park. This came out as part of the Tourism Study which was conducted as part of the Comp Plan.
48
10-13-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
Commissioner Phillips stated he wanted to go on record this was an easy to read, well written, good
plan. His only issue was the paper map included in the documentwas difficult to read.Mr.
Basinger stated when the Comp Plan is online there will be links to an online maps from the
document, but recognized this might not be perfect for everyone and there will be larger paper maps
availablefor anyone who asks for them.
The Commission discussed the two requests which were made during the public hearing for Comp
Plan. One was for a change at 3001 N.Pines Road, owned by the International Foursquare Church
and one for parcel 45333.1807 along Sands Road which belongs to Dennis Crapo. The
Commissioner discussed and agreed to not review this items based on the fact they had not been
submitted during the CitizenAction Request(CAR) process for the Comprehensive Plan. The
Commission felt it would be unfair to the surrounding neighborhoods and to the people who had
already submitted a CAR at the appropriate time to review these requests at this time. Mr. Driskell
concurred with this. The Commissioners agreed to these requests can be submitted during an
annual request period in the future.
Commissioners reviewed adecision they made at the October 6, 2016 meeting. The decision was
to recommend the ‘whole square’ which includes four parcels Barker and Spragueto be changed
to Low Density Residential, R-3.
The discussion moved to the area between Barker and Greenacres Road, south of Bow Avenue and
north of Sprague Avenue. The recommendation from staff is to change it to this area to Corridor
Mixed Use (CMU). Mr. Basinger stated the intention to change this area from Medium Density
Residential, which has been eliminated in the new plan, to CMU was as Barker starts to handle the
traffic necessary to support the 1,000 units being planned in Spokane County, the area will change
significantly. Staff wanted the people who live in the area to have options if they needed it. There
will more noise, more traffic from the increase in development south of the intersection. This will
increase the traffic by 10,000 tripsper day. Commissioner Graham stated she said the people are
expecting this but she feels the people want to maintain the residential feel of the area. The lots in
the areaare larger than in other parts of the City. She said she felt the CMU everywhere else it was
placed in that area, but she did not feel putting it that far into the neighborhood is not appropriate.
Commissioner Kelley clarified no commercial uses are allowed in the R-3 zone.Corridor Mixed
Use would allow multifamily and commercial uses. Commissioner Graham said she feels that only
R-3 would be appropriate in this section and would vote no on any other recommendation.
CommissionersAndersonandStathos agreed. Commissioner Johnson wondered if there would
not be a time when there could not be a grocery store or something which would serve the
neighborhood in the future. Commissioner Kelley said he feels there could be some kind of
neighborhood commercial, mixed use development. Commissioner Phillips noted this would be a
downzone to change it to R-3, and if he owned property in there he would be upset if his property
was down zoned. CommissionersRasmussenand Kelleyagreed to not down zone the properties.
Commissioner Graham stated if this is CMU then the owner of the property at the corner of Barker
and Sprague could come in and ask for a zone change for his parcel again. Mr. Hohman said since
there has been considerable testimony regarding the parcels atSprague and Barkerand staff have
not made any progress on the traffic issues,Council is going to be very sympathetic regarding the
citizens who live in the area. There will be another Comp Plan update in eight years, and changes
in the area could have occurred by then. The Commission consensus was then to recommend the
area between Barker/Greenacres/Bow/Sprague be turned to R-3.
Title 19.40.100Alternative Residential Developments, Commissioner Graham said she was having
an issue with the community buildings. Mr. Basinger noted that (B)(2) ‘The dwelling structure
shall not exceed 900 square feet,excludingporches, and shall require a building permit.’Based
on the building code you are allowed to build any size structure as long as it meets the building
codes. So the size is arbitrary. The building code was changed in 2015 to require a means of
sanitation, a sink and a bathroom, there is no minimum on the size of the building. Staff believes
section B could be removed. The Commission had consensus to remove section B from the code.
Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb confirmed all tiny dwellings must be on a foundation.
Commissioner Graham stated section (C) supportive housing, this is allowed, andCommissioner
Stathos said these types of developmentscanthen turn into places which are not desirable. The
58
10-13-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
Commission should look at the Permitted Use Matrix and think about which zones these types of
housing developments should be in. Mr. Lamb stated the consultants worked to come up with
regulations because this is not common on this side of the state. If section B is removed, he would
suggest section A is also removed, which leaves just supportive tiny homes. ‘Wheels are
prohibited’ should be left in the code and this was agreed upon. Commissioner Phillips said he
feels there should be water and sewer required in the dwelling. The requirements in section A
could be moved into section C. This type of development would require a Conditional Use Permit
and go to the Hearing Examiner for approval. Mr. Lamb said there could be a provision that
requires a host, such as a church or a non-profit group for these supportive tiny homes.
Commissioner Anderson said there has never been any discussion regarding any of these types of
housing. There has little input about how this should work. Mr. Basinger said the new sections
are 19.40.060 Cottages, 19.40.050 Industrial Accessory Dwelling Units, and 19.40.100 Small
Residential Development. Commissioner Anderson is recommending to remove these sections
from the draft and make them a separate code text amendment. Hesaid this is completely new and
we have not had any input from the community about how this should work. Commissioner Kelley
clarified the regulations were written well enough now to enable staff to make good decisions
moving forward. Commissioner Phillips said he supported cottages, and tiny homes if they were
connected to water and sewer. Cottages can be used as buffer between multifamily and single
family. Commissioner Johnson said there could be more workdone on these sections.
Commissioner Rasmussen said she agreed with Commissioner Phillips, she was fine with the
cottages, and the industrial dwelling units, but does have a problem with the supportive housing,
which needwater and sewer. Commissioner Stathos stated she has questions on each of the sections
and would like to see them all removed for discussion. Commissioner Kelley said there was enough
instruction in order to allow staff to make the good decisions, but asked what the hang ups were.
Commissioner Graham said she was good with the cottages and industrialdwelling units. She had
a problem with the community facilities in the tiny homes. Those homes in the supportive housing
do not have their own water, sewer or refuse receptacles, could this be a small change.
Commissioner Kelley said he would agree with this. Commissioner Johnson said the idea for
supportive housing was to provide extremely low cost housing, but it need to be done right, which
is why he is in favor of taking this out for further review. There were discussion regarding where
churches are allowed and where the tiny supportive housing could be allowed. Commissioner
Anderson said cottages there is a section which said two times the density of the maximum allowed
in the zone. He feels this should be discussed. There is consensus to leave the cottages 19.40.060
alone in the code. Commissioner Johnson clarified the maximum allowed industrial accessory
dwelling units was ten units per site. The Commission recommended adding language to 19.40.050
to clarify they must be owner/operator or employee occupied. The Commissioners recommended
19.40.100 be removed from the draft for separate code amendment and discussion.
Commissioner Anderson askedhow the Neighborhood Commercial was laid out in the map. Mr.
Hohman stated staff looked at intersections in the City which could be in neighborhoods which
might be underdeveloped and Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard drove the City and provided a list of
recommendations as to where to provide it. The possibility for redevelopment and being located
on an arterial were defining factors.
The Commission moved to 19.70 the Development Standards. Commissioner Graham said the
residential lot size at 5,000 feet, she felt most of the Commissioner were not necessarily in
agreement with it but would not stand in the way of moving it forward. She said the consensus
would be to move that subject forward. Commissioner Stathos stated she wanted to go on the
record she was not in agreement with this minimum lot size, but she would not fight it. The
discussion turned to Multifamily Residential (MFR) standards. Commissioner Anderson is in favor
of retuning to 22units per acre and a50 feet height maximum. Commissioner Kelley asked if
builders had come in and asked for more height limits. Commissioner Johnson clarified there
would be no height limit or density for multifamily in CMU and he felt this was right forthis zone.
He still feels there should be two multifamily zones. He discussed two CARs requesting tochange
from medium density to high density. The room was full of people speaking against the proposals,
and only two in favor, which were the property owners. He said he feels increasing the density in
an MF-1zone would make it moreviable. Commissioner Phillips was in favor of no limit on the
68
10-13-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
density or height limits in MFR. Commissioners Kelley, Rasmussen, Graham and Stathos agreed
with adding back the density and height restrictions. There was consensus torecommend in the
MFR a density of 22 units per acre and a height limit of 50 feet. Mr. Hohman responded to MF-1
suggestion stating the properties which have been MF-1 have been zoned as this way for years prior
to incorporation of the City. This zone did not work, staff talked to several developers, there has
not been a MF-1 project in the City since incorporation except for one but this project was done to
maximize the density to allow for more dense development in the future. Mr. Hohman said the
return MF-1 would limit the potential of those properties for another 10-15 years. He strongly
recommends to not bring this back. Commissioner Johnson countered he respected the point of
view but he feels therehas been an economic situation over the last 10 years which has impacted
growth. He has seen the east coast has more townhouse/rowhouse situations and that there is a
pent up demand which will explode and people will want to buy their own home. The City will
need those low cost housing opportunities.We talk about having as many different options for
housing and home ownership. Mr. Hohman said those can be built in the MFR zone.
Commissioner Johnson said it isn’t what they are going to build. He feels there are going to be
rental properties from one end of the City to the other. Commissioner Kelley offered there is no
limit to the minimum density they can build. The other Commissioners did not want to bring back
the medium densityresidentialdesignation.
The Commission was fine with the standards in the other zones, after discussing building codes
governing the building safety.
Commissioner Phillips moved to extend the meeting to 11:00 p.m. The vote on the motion was five
in favor, two against, the motion passes. The dissenting votes were from Commissioners Anderson
and Stathos.
Commissioner Anderson stated he has a problem with the Transitional Provisionsbecause this only
applies zone to zone, not use to usein SVMC19.75.020. Mr. Hohman explain if a residence is
zone as Low Density Residential (LDR) and it abuts a MFR zone, then the Transitional Provisions
would apply. However, if the same residence was in a MFR zone already and the parcel next to
them was developed as a multifamily use, then these provisions would not apply. There are many
instances in the Valley where a business might not be able to use their property because there are
remnants of single family homes in industrial zones, example Eden and Tshirley, a heavy industrial
owner might not be able to use or expand their property because of these provisions. Commissioner
Anderson feels the home owner has rights and should be protected. Mr. Basinger said the only way
to do this would be to do this based on use. Mr. Hohman said staff was aware that this was an
overridingissue for the citizens was protecting the neighborhoods as does the Council. How do
you do that? You limit the proliferation of multifamily projects into other zones. You allow those
projectsto occur in the zones they are supposed to occur in. If you are going to have a Multifamily
or an Industrial zone then you have to be ok with the uses which are allowed there. Theother
propertieseventuallyhave to convert. It is more appropriate for those properties to convertor to
have those projects further into an R-3 area. This is what keeps the individual requests coming in.
If we are trying toput them into this corridor, then you have to allow them the flexibility to do the
projects in those zones. Bringing in use to use, will limit that and then push people into the single
family zones Commissioner Johnson said the problem is as a body we have agreed to eliminate
th
the medium density, so all those in this areabetweenthe trail and 4Avenue they could have a 50
foot structure 25 feet from their property line. Mr. Hohman said there is no intent to push these
residents out, they can stay as long as they want. Commissioner Stathos clarified the properties
th
along the north side of 4Avenue have been zoned medium density residential since some time in
the 1990’s. If you put a developer in a position where he can’t do what he needs to do, he will look
for property in asingle family zone to convert. Commissioner Kelley said these properties(MFR)
are close to services and close to transit. Commissioner Graham clarified the transitional provisions
would apply across the street, if the zone were different. Commissioners Kelley, Phillips,
Rasmussen and Graham were in favor of leaving it zone to zone, Commissioners Anderson,
Johnson and Stathos were in favor of adding changing it to zone to zone.
Commissioner Phillips suggested changing the code numbering system to having the middle
numbers being three digits, ie: 19.050.150 as it would make it follow better.
78
10-13-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
SVMC 21.40 Critical Areas, this sections of the code needed to be consistent with the Shoreline
Master Program, and adopted best scientific practices. The Commissioners did not have any
comments on this section.
SVMC 21.20.040categorical exemptions, this is the areas on the Land Use map which were looked
at regardingtransportation. Mr. Basinger stated this was specifically areas where the intent was to
zone MFR. These areas were studied for transportation so when someone comes in to develop on
those properties they would not have to do SEPA and the project could be expedited. These are
specific infill areas. Commissioner Johnson asked about SVMC 21.20.040(B)(1), Mr. Hohman
stated this is existing codeand has not been changed. For a subdivision of up to 30 units and there
is no requirement to do a SEPA analysis. However traffic concurrency is still required under the
Street Standards for anything over 10 units. Mr. Lamb explained the steps involved in the process
for a SEPA checklist and determination. The places listed in SVMC 21.20.040 will be cumulative
traffic counts and not require a SEPA checklist but will require traffic study.
Parking, Landscaping needed to be rewritten and reorganized these titles. Council asked to have
them requirements reduced or removed. These codes were cleaned up, increased the flexibility,
and raised the thresholds in certain areas and reduced the landscaping requirements in the industrial
areas. The new code is easier to understand. SVMC 22.50, Parking, Off-Street Parking. Mr.
Hohman addressed some concerns raised by Commissioner Anderson, for example shared use
parking: no knew what it meant. Bike racks are back in the code after the Commission made an
amendment to change it to bike spaces. He believes it should be back to spaces. The new maximum
would be a requirement for four racks.The Commissioners had no suggested changes to this
section. SVMC 22.70.070Commissioner Johnson would like to see full screening when next to a
different use.Mr. Basinger offered to add use and keep the zone. The Commissioners suggested
to adding use to this code.
SVMC 22.130 this Street Standard requires developerwhoputs in a street for public use as part of
a development, they post a surety in the formof a Letter of Credit or a cash deposit in lieuof
actually putting in all the improvements. After the improvement are put in, which mustdone before
final approval, the City requires a warranty surety in case those improvements fail within two years
andthe developer does not go back and repair them, the City can draw from this account. This is
to make sure the public improvements are maintained. The code was confusing, it didn’t work
well. Getting a letter of credit was getting more difficult or tying up a developer’s funds for two
yearswas not working. The City wantsto allow for performance bonds. The standards were
written in 2007 and adopted in 2009, these updates are to allow for updated options. The
Commission had nothing to comment on regarding this code amendment.
The Commissioners had no comments on Appendix A –Definitions.
Commissioner Anderson asked to make sure Figure29 on page5-88 in the Transportation chapter
regarding traffic countswas corrected. Mr. Basinger commented he had looked into this after
Commissioner Anderson brought it upand an incorrect field was used in creating the map. The
data and the model are correct but the map is correct, but the mapwill be corrected.
Following are the recommendations which the Planning Commission made during their
deliberations:
Recommend moving two site specific request submitted at the public hearing for 3001 N.
Pines Road, parcel 45333.1807 along Sands Road and 102 N.Bolivar Road to an annual
amendment process
Recommend to change the area west of Barker Road, east of Greenacres Road, south of
Bow Avenue and north of Sprague Avenue to Low Density Residential, R-3
Recommend to change the four parcels located at the corner of Barker Road and Sprague
Avenue to Low Density Residential, R-3
Recommend adding a policy regarding xeriscaping City capital projects in the future
Recommended adding language to SVMC 19.40.050 Industrial Accessory Dwelling Units
to clarify the dwelling units must be owner/operator or employee occupied
88
10-13-16Planning Commission MinutesPage of
Recommended SVMC 19.40.100 be removed from the draft for aseparate code
amendment and discussion
RecommendedSVMC 19.70.20 Multifamily Residential standard be change to a density
of 22 units per acre and a height limit of 50 feet.
Recommended SVMC 22.70.070(D)(1) adding ‘uses’ to this section of the code.
The Commissioners were in a four in favor of leaving the Transitional Provisions as zone
to zone however three of them wanted to change it to use to use.
The Commissioners generally agreed they liked the shape and feel of the document, it was
easy to read and understand.
Commissioner Phillips suggested changing the code numbering system to having the
middle numbers being three digits, ie: 19.050.150
Commissioner Anderson moved to recommend to City Council approval of the 2016 Comprehensive
Plan update and amendments to Title 17 and 19, Chapter 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, and 22.130 of
the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement with the changes agreed to by Planning Commission on October 6
and October 13, 2016 meetings. The vote on this motion was six in favor, one against, Commissioner
Johnson dissenting based on his issue regarding medium density zoning thishas no representation
of the quality of the Commission or the staff. The motion passes.
VIII.GOOD OF THE ORDER
:There was nothing for the good of the order.
IX.ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Kelleymoved to adjourn the meetingat 10:22p.m. The vote on
the motionwas unanimous in favor, motion passed.
_________________________________________________________________
Heather Graham, ChairDate signed
____________________________________
Deanna Horton, Secretary
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date:
October 20, 2016
File Number:
NA
Item: Check all that apply
:Study Session old business new business
Public Hearing
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
Draft Comprehensive PlanUpdateand Associated Development
RegulationAmendments
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
Chapter 36.70A RCW (Growth Management Act); chapter 43.21C
RCW (SEPA).
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant toRCW 36.70A.130(1), every8 years every county and city in the state is
required to review and, if needed revise their comprehensive plans and development regulations to ensure
the comprehensive plans and development regulations meet the current GMA requirements. The City of
Spokane Valley’s update is due no later than June 30, 2017.
Staff and the consultants havedevelopedthe Draft Comprehensive PlanUpdate, associated development
regulation amendments, and a draft EIS. 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 11, 2016, staff provided an overview of the
Comprehensive Plan draft goals and policies. On August 25, 2016, staff provided an overview of the
draft development regulations. On September 22, 2016, staff provided an overview of the draft
Comprehensive Planand associated development regulation amendments.On September 29, 2016 a
public hearing was held allowing the public to ask questions and inquire about the draft Comprehensive
Plan and associated development regulation amendments. The September 29, 2016 public hearing was
continued to October 6, 2016. On October 6, 2016,a continued public hearing was held allowing the
public to ask questions and inquire about the draft Comprehensive Plan and associated development
regulation amendments. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission deliberated on the
designation change of multifamily at the corner ofBarker Road and Sprague Avenue and recommended
parcels 55173.1018, 55173.1019, 55173.1020 and 55173.1005 be designated Low Density Residential
and zonedSingle-Family Residential Urban(R-3).On October 13 2016, Planning Commission
continued their deliberations on the draft Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulation
amendments. After extensive deliberations, the Planning Commissionagreed upon a number of
proposed changes to the Draft Comprehensive Plan Update, associated development regulations and draft
EIS. Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend City Council approvethe 2016 Comprehensive Plan
Update and Amendments to Titles 17 and 19, including the Zoning Map,of the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code, chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, and 22.130 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code,
Appendix A of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, and Draft EIS, with the changes agreed to by
Planning Commission at its October 6, 2016 and October 13, 2016 meetings.
At the October 20, 2016meeting, Planning Commission will consider the findings to justify the
recommendation approved by the Planning Commission on October 13, 2016.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION
:Move to approve Planning Commission Findings and
Recommendation to City Council.
STAFF CONTACT:
Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator
ATTACHMENTS:
Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS, and Development Regulation Amendments (binders)
Staff Report
PlanningCommission’s Findings and Recommendation
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
2016COMPREHENSIVE PLANUPDATE,
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONSANDDRAFT EIS
October 20, 2016
Background:
A.
1.In 2006, pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW (the GMA), the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted
its Comprehensive Plan.
2.In 2007, pursuant to the GMA, the City adopted Titles 17 through 24 SVMC as its development
regulations.
3.Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(1) and RCW 36.70A.130(5), the City is requiredto review, and if
necessary, revise its Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations to ensure the
Comprehensive Plan and associated development regulations comply with the requirementsof the
GMA. The GMA refers to the review as anupdate and requires the City tocompleteits update
by June 30, 2017 and every eight years thereafter.
4.The City has prepared the required review and revisions to update its Comprehensive Plan (the
Comprehensive Plan Update) and Titles 17 and 19, including the Zoning Map,of the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), chapters 21.20, 21.40, 22.50, 22.70, and 22.130 SVMC, and
Appendix A of the SVMC(together the Development Regulation Amendments), which includes
an integrated non-project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). The Planning
Commission is considering the Comprehensive Plan Update, Draft EIS, and associated
Development RegulationAmendmentspursuant to the requirements of the GMA,SVMC
17.80.140and SVMC 17.80.150.
Mandate to plan under the GMA and to complete a periodic update:
B.The City is required to plan
under the full mandates of the GMA as of the date of its incorporation on March 31, 2003.
Accordingly, the City is required to review and, if necessary, reviseits Comprehensive Plan and
associated development regulations to ensure they comply with the requirements of the GMA. The
Comprehensive Plan Update and associated DevelopmentRegulationAmendments meet the City’s
requirement to conduct the required update.
Compliance with the StateEnvironmental Policy Act (SEPA) (chapter 43.21C RCW):
C.
1.The City is conducting environmental review of the Comprehensive Plan Update and the
Development Regulation Amendments pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW (SEPA), and chapter
197-11 WAC. Pursuant to WAC 197-11-210, the City is integrating its environmental review
under SEPA with the update to ensure that environmental analyses under SEPA occur
concurrently with and as an integral part of the City’s planning and decision making under GMA.
2.On January29, 2016, the City made a Determination of Significance for the Comprehensive Plan
Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments in accordance with SEPA
requirements.
3.Pursuant to the Determination of Significance, the City issued the non-project Draft EIS
September 16,2016. The non-project Draft EIS is integrated with the Comprehensive Plan
Update consistent with WAC 197-11-210.
4.The Draft EIS includes concise analysis of alternatives and addresses the environmental impacts
associated with its planning decisions at this stage of the planning process. The Draft EIS
considers mitigation of those significant impacts identified as a result of the Comprehensive Plan
Update and associated Development Regulation Amendments.
5.On September 16, 2016, the Draft EIS was sent to agencies listed in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIS
and made available to the public for comment as required pursuant to WAC 197-11-455.
6.The City is accepting public comment on the Draft EIS concurrentlywith the public comment
period on the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation Amendments.
7.A Final EIS shall be issued concurrently withadoption of the Comprehensive Plan Update and
associated Development Regulation Amendments.
Public Participation:
D.Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.140, the City has provided opportunities for early
and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan
Update and associatedDevelopment Regulations that included broad dissemination of proposals and
alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public meetings after effective notice, provision for
open discussion communication programs, information services and considerationand response to
public comments. These opportunities included the following specific steps:
1.The City Council adopted a public participation program on January 6, 2015.
2.The Planning Commission conducted and or participated in the following meetings:
a.Visioning meetings on January 23, March 4, and April 15, 2015;
b.Planning Commission study session, public hearings, and recommendation of Citizen Action
Requests on April 23, May 14, and June 8, 2015;
c.Joint City Council and Planning Commission interactive workshop on May 3, 2016;
d.Planning Commission study sessions on various components of the Comprehensive Plan
Update and Development Regulation Amendments on April 28, May 12, May 26, June 9,
June 23, July 14, July 28, August 11, and August 25, 2016;
e.Open house for the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development Regulation Amendments, and
Draft EIS on September 8, 2016;
f.Planning Commission study session on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development
Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on September 22, 2016;
g.Planning Commission public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Update, Development
Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on September 29 and October 6, 2016, after proper
public notice; and
h.Planning Commission deliberation and recommendation on Comprehensive Plan Update,
Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS on October 6 and October 13, 2016.
3.Planning Commission received 32 written and 54 oral public comments at the properly noticed
public hearing on September 29 and October 6, 2016. All commentsreceived up to
October 6, 2016,have been duly considered by the Planning Commission.
4.The Planning Commission deliberated on all provisions of the Comprehensive Plan Update,
Development Regulation Amendments, and Draft EIS in open public meetings on October 6,
2016 and October 13, 2016.
Review by Washington State Department of Commerce:
E.Pursuant to GMA requirements, the
Comprehensive Plan Update,Development Regulation Amendments and Draft EIS were submitted to
the Washington State Department of Commerce on September 16, 2016.
Comprehensive PlanUpdateand Draft EIS Findings:
F.Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and SVMC
17.80.140, the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to the Comprehensive
Plan Update and Draft EIS:
1.Consistency with County-Wide Planning Policies:
a.Spokane County(the County)has adopted its Countywide Planning Policies as a regional
framework for comprehensive planning pursuant to the GMA.
b.The Comprehensive Plan Update and associated Development RegulationAmendmentsare
consistent with the County’sCountywide Planning Policies. Each chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan includes references to applicable Countywide Planning Policies.
2.Consideration of Natural Resource Lands:
a.The City has not changed its designation ofagricultural and forest resource lands pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.170.The City does not have lands that meet the designation criteria for
agricultural or forest resource lands.
b.Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.131, the City has reviewed its mineral resource lands designations
as part of the update. Specifically, the City has requested and reviewed data from the
Washington State Department of Natural Resources(Department of Natural Resources)
relating to mineral deposits within the City. While the City has existing miningand mineral
extractionoperationswithin the City limits,any lands with mineral deposits within the City
are already characterized by urban growth and do not meet the RCW or WAC criteria for
having long-term significance for the extraction of minerals. Accordingly, designation of
such areas as mineral resource lands pursuant to RCW 36.70A.170 is not appropriate as
further described in the Comprehensive Plan Update.
3.Consideration of Critical Areas:
a.Consistent with RCA 36.70A.130(1)(c), the City considered and updated its critical areas
ordinances. Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive PlanUpdate is entitled “Natural Environment
Element” anddesignatescritical areaswithin the City, including wetlands, fish and wildlife
habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and areas
with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water.
b.The designation of critical areas in Chapter10 of the Comprehensive Plan Update
incorporates best available science and complies with guidelines in chapter 365-195 WAC.
Section 1.5 of the Draft EIS describes recent efforts that occurred as part of the City’s
adoption of its Shoreline Master Program to identify, designate, and protect critical areas as
they relate to shoreline areas in accordance with best available science. The documents and
science used to ensure no net loss of ecological function of critical areas within shoreline
jurisdiction were extended to critical areas outside of shoreline jurisdictionas part of this
updatein order to afford at least the same level of protection.
4.Required Elements of the Comprehensive Plan; Compliance with GMA:
a.The Comprehensive Plan Update includes all elements required by the GMA:
-Economic Development Element
-Land Use Element
-Transportation Element
-Housing Element
-Capital Facilities Element
-Private and Public Utilities Element
-Parks and Open Space Element
Further, as described above, the City has included the Natural Environment Element, which
includes required consideration of natural resource lands and critical areas.In 2015,the City
adopted its Shoreline Master Program pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW, which is also
considered in the Natural Environment Element chapter.The Shoreline Master Program is
adopted and incorporated by reference in the Natural Environment Element.
b.The Comprehensive Plan Update is internally consistent. The relationship of each chapter to
other chapters is addressed in “The Comprehensive Planning Framework” section of Chapter
One, Introduction and Vision.
c.The Comprehensive Plan Update and each Element is consistent with and includes the
standards and requirements of the GMA.
d.The Comprehensive Plan Update meets the requirements of the City’s required periodic
review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and WAC 365-196-610.
5.Concurrency: The Transportation Element and Capital Facilities Element require that new
development be served with adequate facilities and services at the time of development or within
a specified time frame and further calls of the implementation of a concurrency management
system for transportation, water, and sewer facilities. Growth, existing and future levels of
service, concurrency, and financing are all considerations addressed.
6.Urban Growth Areas:
a.Consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(1)(c), the City analyzed the population allocated to the
City from the most recent ten-year population forecast by the office of financial management.
Specifically, consistent with Countywide Planning Policies,in 2009,theCountyallocated to
the City a portion of the growth projected withinthe County.Subsequently, in 2013, the
County adopted a different population projectionthat was greater than the projection adopted
in 2009.TheCounty’s resolution adopting its new population projection was challenged and
the Growth Management Hearings Board invalidated the resolution. In 2015, the Court of
Appeals upheld the Growth Management Hearings Board decision. In November 2015, the
Steering Committee of Elected Officials(SCEO)voted to recommend a new population
forecast and allocationconsistent with the Washington State Office of Financial Management
medium forecast for 2037. The City has determined that it has sufficient land capacity and
availability to meet projected growth under either theCounty’s2009 allocation or the
SCEO’s2015 recommended allocation.
b.The City, in the development of the Comprehensive Plan Update, reviewed the densities
allowed under the City’s existing plan and those proposed in the Comprehensive Plan Update
and Development Regulation Amendments and confirmed that the City can accommodate the
projected population growth under either scenario. Accordingly, the City does not propose
expanding urban growth areas to accommodate its population.The City has considered and
included policies within the Comprehensive Plan Update to assess opportunities to annex
lands within theexisting urban growth areas.
7.Land Use Maps: The Comprehensive Plan Update includes a detailed map identifying all
categories of land use within the Cityanditsurban growth area boundaries(the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Map).
8.Relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment:The City has
considered the effect of the Comprehensive Plan Update upon the physical environment,open
space, streams, rivers, and lakes;the impact on neighborhoods and compatibility with and
consistency ofall land uses within the City;the adequacy and impact on community facilities,
including utilities, roads, public transportation,parks, recreation, and schools; the benefit to City
and region; the quantity and location of various types of land uses and density and demand for
such land; the current and projected population within the City; and the cumulative effect of each
Element within the Comprehensive Plan Update.The Planning Commission finds the
Comprehensive Plan Update bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and
protection of the environment.
Development Regulation Amendments and Draft EIS Findings:
G.Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130
andSVMC 17.80.150, the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to the
Development Regulation Amendments and Draft EIS:
1.Consideration of Natural Resource Lands and Critical Areas:
a.The City does not have lands that meet the designation criteria for agricultural or forest
resource lands and has not changed its designations.
b.TheCity has not identified any applicableDepartment of Natural Resources or Commerce
model development regulations for mineral resource lands. Although the City has existing
mining and mineral extraction operations, the City has determined that designation of mineral
resource lands is not appropriate at this time, as further described in the Comprehensive Plan
Update. While the City has not designated any mineral resource lands, the Development
Regulation Amendments do contain provisions to allow the continuation of the existing
mining and mineral extraction operations.
c.The City has designated critical areas. The Development Regulation Amendments include
amendments to chapter 21.40 SVMC, Critical Areas to protect such critical areas pursuant to
RCW 36.70A.060.The amendments to chapter 21.40 SVMC incorporate best available
science and comply with guidelines in chapter 365-195 WAC.
2.Required Development Regulations: Upon adoption of the Development Regulation
Amendments, the Spokane Valley Municipal Code shall be consistent with and implement the
Comprehensive Plan Update. The Development Regulation Amendments are consistent with the
requirements of the GMA and meet the requirements of the City’s required periodic review
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 and WAC 365-196-610.
3.Land Use Maps: The Development Regulation Amendments include a detailed map consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Mapidentifying all land use zoning within the City.
4.SVMC 17.80.150:
a.The Planning Commission finds the Development Regulation Amendments are consistent
with and implement the Comprehensive Plan Update.
b.The Planning Commission findsthe Development Regulation Amendments bear a substantial
relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment.
Planning Commission Changesto the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development
H.
Regulation Amendments:
During its deliberations on October 6 and October 13, 2016, Planning
Commissionconsidered theidentified areas of focus that came from thecommunity visioning
sessions, City Council goals,and public comments, as well as other considerations, and agreed to
recommend several changes to the Comprehensive Plan Update and Development Regulation
Amendments. The proposed changes are described in further detail below:
1.Add a policy in Chapter 2-Parks and Open Space Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan
Update to support xeriscaping, water conservation, and sustainable park management methods.
This change allowsthe City to set an examplefor its citizensthroughwater conservation and
usage on publicly owned parks property.
2.Designate parcels 55173.1018, 55173.1019, 55173.1020, and 55173.1005as Single Family
Residential (SFR) and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3). Out of
86 total public commentsreceived to October 6, 2016, 68 were with regard to these four parcels.
The Comprehensive Plan Update would designatethese four parcels Multifamily Residential and
the Development Regulation Amendments would apply a corresponding Multifamily zoning. Of
the 68 comments, 64 comments were against the Multifamily designation. The comments
reflected a desire to maintain the four parcels as SFR and R-3 to maintain the current character of
the neighborhood. Further, the comments highlighted concern that the traffic infrastructure
currently is not sufficient to meet impacts from multifamily within the area. Planning
Commission agreed that a change to SFR and R-3 will maintain the character of the
neighborhood and that the traffic infrastructure is currently not sufficient to meet the impacts
from multifamily.
3.Designate the parcels located in the area south of Bow Avenue, west of Barker Road, north of
Sprague Avenue, and east of Greenacres Road as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zone the
same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3).These parcels are adjacent to the parcels
described in (H)(3) above, and Planning Commission believed that until the traffic infrastructure
is improved, an SFR designation and R-3 zoning is appropriate in this area. Further, the current
uses are primarilysingle family homes and so this change will maintain the character of the
neighborhood.
4.Amend proposed SVMC 19.40.050 to require that industrial accessory dwelling units be
inhabited by the employer, operator, or employee of the company at which the industrial
accessory dwelling is located. Planning Commission acknowledgesthe benefitof an industrial
accessory dwelling unittotheowner/operatorand its employees for those instances where it is
beneficial for them to live in the same facility in which they are manufacturing goods, but had
concerns that without a limitation on who could use such industrial accessory dwelling unit, there
was potential for projects to become multifamily dwelling uses instead of industrial uses.
5.Remove SVMC 19.40.100 (small residential dwellings and small residential dwellings –
supportive housing) and other small residential dwelling and small residential dwelling –
supportive housing provisions in Title 19 SVMC for consideration through a separate future code
text amendment process. Planning Commission acknowledges this is a new type of residential use
for the City to consider. Accordingly, it believes that it is appropriate to consider this issue and
type of use separately from the ongoing Comprehensive Plan Update and Development
Regulation Amendments to give more detailedattention to the potential impacts, benefits, and
appropriate regulations for such use.
6.Amend proposed SVMC 19.70.020 and Table 19.70-1, Residential Standards, to provide for a
maximum density of 22 units per acre and a maximum building height of 50 feet in the
Multifamily Residential (MFR) zone. This change will provide further buffer between single
family residential and commercial zones and uses by limiting the multifamily densityand
multifamily building height to the current density and height standards.
7.Amend proposed SVMC 22.70.070(D)(1) to provide that full screening is required when a
multifamily or nonresidential project abuts a single family residential zoning district or single
family residential use.This change will further protect single family residential uses from
impacts of multifamily, regardless of which zonethe single family use is in.There are numerous
singlefamily uses in multifamily zones.
All of these recommended changes are within the range of alternatives in the Draft EIS and will either
not create additional impacts or will reduce impacts identified therein.
Conclusion:
I.The Planning Commission findsthe Comprehensive Plan Update, Development
Regulation Amendments and Draft EIS meet the requirements of the GMAand SEPAand therefore
approval is appropriate.
Recommendation:
J.After reviewing and considering the Draft EIS, the Comprehensive Plan Update,
the Development Regulation Amendments, and public comment received,the Spokane Valley
Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Updateand
Development Regulation Amendments, andconsidertheDraft EIS,with the following changes
proposed by Planning Commission at its October 6 and October 13, 2016 meetings:
1.Add a policy in Chapter 2-Parks and Open Space Goals and Policiesof the Comprehensive Plan
Updateto support xeriscaping, water conservation, and sustainable park management methods.
2.Designate parcels 55173.1018, 55173.1019, 55173.1020, and 55173.1005as Single Family
Residential (SFR) and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3).
3.Designate the parcels located in the area south of Bow Avenue, west of Barker Road, north of
Sprague Avenue, and east of Greenacres Road as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zone the
same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3).
4.Amend proposed SVMC 19.40.050 to require that industrial accessory dwelling units be
inhabited by theemployer, operator, or employee of the company at which the industrial
accessory dwelling is located.
5.Remove SVMC 19.40.100 (small residential dwellings and small residential dwellings –
supportive housing) and other small residential dwelling and small residential dwelling –
supportive housing provisions in Title 19 SVMC for consideration through a separate future code
text amendment process.
6.Amend proposed SVMC 19.70.020 and Table 19.70-1, Residential Standards, to provide for a
maximum density of 22 units per acre and a maximum building height of 50 feet in the
Multifamily Residential (MFR) zone.
7.Amend proposed SVMC 22.70.070(D)(1) to provide that full screening is required when a
multifamily or nonresidential project abuts asingle family residential zoning district or single
family residential use.
Approved this 20 th day of October, 2016.
Heather Graham,Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary