PC APPROVED Minutes 10-13-16 APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
October 13,2016
I. Commissioner Graham called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m, Commissioners, staff and audience
stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and
staff were present:
Kevin Anderson John Hohman, Community& Economic Development Director
Heather Graham Cary Driskell, City Attorney
James Johnson Mike Basinger, Economic Development Coordinator
Tim Kelley Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Mike Phillips Chaz Bates,Economic Development Specialist
Michelle Rasmussen Gloria Mantz,Economic Development Engineer
Suzanne Stathos Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
II. Agenda: Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the October 13, 2016 agenda as presented. The
vote was seven in 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:
a) Deliberations: DRAFT Comprehensive Plan Update; Draft Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC)Proposed Updates; and SEPA Analysis for Draft 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 compiling the document itself and
associated reports. The first phase was conducted from November of 2014 to May/June of 2015
which entailed the public participation plan and community vision report. This process validated
the City's mission statement: "A community of opportunity where individuals and families can
grow and play and businesses widlflourish 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 February of 2016 to 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 draft two weeks later.
There have been three consultant teams working on this, Van Ness Feldman has taken the lead as
project management, legal aspects as well as the drafting the regulations, Community Attributes
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.
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8
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
o 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 a change to the 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-
wide •
o 01 of those were in favor of more parks and trails,multiuse development,increased
transitional setbacks and setting a multifamily height limit
o 01 of those were in favor of alternative dwellings and specifically 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
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 in wanting to
know when it would be done, he had a project he was waiting to complete. Realtors have sales
waiting to be completed along Trent,waiting for the Plan to be finished. If there are grammatical
issues please feel free to submit those to staff and we will review them to make sure they are
updated. Mr. Holman said staff is willing to meet for as many nights between now and next
Thursday to work with the Commissioners to cover all of their issues,however the schedule must
be maintained because the City Council's public hearing has 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 is possible 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 it took two years to craft the document,
and they were only allowed three 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 that community 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 to comment at the public hearing noticed for November 8, 2016.
Economic Development Coordinator,Mike Basinger offered the list of policy items and regulations
the Commissioners have noted they are having issue with and the other land use changes which
were brought up during the public hearing.
Commissioner Graham 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
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8
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. Hohman said barring 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
identity of the Valley has always been and probably always should be a majority of the residences
being owner occupied. When reviewing the goals for example he feels HG-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 could be a separate goal. Mr. Hohman offered the Commissioners needed to keep in mind,
when you have 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 these types of housing.
City Attorney Cary DriskeIl, 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 stock." He
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 row houses. 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
piece that 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 GF-P9 Continue planningfor 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 regarding this. 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 natural states. 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.
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8
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 document was 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
available for 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 Citizen Action 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. DriskelI
concurred with this. The Commissioners agreed to these requests can be submitted during an
annual request period in the future.
Commissioners reviewed a decision they made at the October 6,2016 meeting. The decision was
to recommend the `whole square' which includes four parcels Barker and Sprague to 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 trips per 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 area are 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.
Commissioners Anderson and Stathos 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
down zone to change it to R-3, and if he owned property in there he would be upset if his property
was down zoned. Commissioners Rasmussen and Kelley agreed 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 at Sprague and Barker and 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 19.40.100 Alternative 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, excluding porches, 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, and Commissioner
Stathos said these types of developments can then turn into places which are not desirable. The
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8
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 lie
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. He said 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 work done 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 need water 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 industrial dwelling 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 asked how 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 22 units per acre and a 50 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 for this zone.
He still feels there should be two multifamily zones. He discussed two CARs requesting to change
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-1 zone would make it more viable. Commissioner Phillips was in favor of no limit on the
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8
density or height limits in MFR. Commissioners Kelley, Rasmussen, Graham and Stathos agreed
with adding back the density and height restrictions. There was consensus to recommend in the
MFR a density of 22 units per acre and a height Iimit 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 there has been an economic situation over the last 10 years which has impacted
growth. He has seen the east coast has more townhouse/row house 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 density residential designation.
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 Provisions because this only
applies zone to zone, not use to use in SVMC 19.75.020. 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
overriding issue 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
projects to 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. The other
properties eventually have to convert. It is more appropriate for those properties to convert or to
have those projects further into an R-3 area. This is what keeps the individual requests coming in.
If we are trying to put 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
the medium density, so all those in this area between the trail and 41"Avenue 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
along the north side of 4C"Avenue 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 a single 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 use to use.
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.
10-13-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 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 21.20.040 categorical exemptions,this is the areas on the Land Use map which were looked
at regarding transportation. 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 code and 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.
Hallman 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 22.70.070 Commissioner 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 developer who puts in a street for public use as part of
a development, they post a surety in the form of a Letter of Credit or a cash deposit in lieu of
actually putting in all the improvements. After the improvement are put in,which must done before
final approval,the City requires a warranty surety in case those improvements fail within two years
and the 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
years was not working. The City wants to 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 Figure 29 on page 5-88 in the Transportation chapter
regarding traffic counts was corrected. Mr. Basinger commented he had looked into this after
Commissioner Anderson brought it up and an incorrect field was used in creating the map. The
data and the model are correct but the map is correct, but the map will 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
10-13.16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8
• Recommended SVMC 19.40.100 be removed from the draft for a separate code
amendment and discussion
• Recommended SVMC 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 ii favor, one against, Commissioner
Johnson dissenting based on his issue regarding medium density zoning this has 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 Kelley moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:22 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor, motion passed.
--d6t/#20(-) '1)4,6 /1/V / , ,0/ 2D/to
Heather Graham, Chair Date signed
S
�t ? Q v l
Deanna orton, Secretary