Agenda 12/08/2016 SCITI
POKane
Valle
y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
December 8, 2016 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 20, 2016
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Study Session — Supportive Housing Discussion
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
October 20,2016
I. Chair Graham called the meeting to order at 6:00 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
Michelle Rasmussen
Suzanne Stathos Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
II. Agenda: Commissioner Anderson moved to accept the October 20, 2016 agenda as presented. The
vote was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. Minutes: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the October 6, 2016 minutes. The vote on this
motion was seven in favor, zero against, motion passes. Commissioner Anderson moved to approve
the October 13, 2016 minutes. Commissioner Rasmussen noted on page six the last line in the last
paragraph "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." the last'zone to zone' should actually read'use to use.' The minutes will be amended as stated.
The vote on this motion was seven in favor, zero against, motion passes.
IV. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
a) Planning Commission Findings of Fact: Comprehensive Plan Update, Spokane Valley
Municipal Code Titles 17 and 19,Chapters 21.20,21.40,22.50,22.70 and 22.130,Appendix A
and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Economic Development Coordinator Mike Basinger began the meeting by explaining the findings
of fact. This is a document which lays out the Planning Commission's process and the
recommendation based on the discussions, public hearing and deliberations the Commission has
had regarding any subject, but this document will be in regard to the Comprehensive Plan and
associated documents. Mr. Basinger stated in section(H)of the findings states the Commission's
recommendations and supportive text as to why those decisions were made. He said staff felt it
was important for Council to understand why the recommendations were made. Deputy City
Attorney Erik Lamb provided the findings are a review and a factual basis to approve the
recommendation for the Council to approve the Comprehensive Plan Update and the associated
documents. He said there are numerous requirements throughout the Growth Management Act and
through SEPA, certain things the Comprehensive Plan must have, such as the required elements.
There are certain procedural requirements such as the Public Participation Plan. All of these things
have been discussed through study sessions, the public hearings and the deliberations. This
document puts into words and paper the factual background which provides the basis for the
Planning Commission's approval and recommendation.
Community and Economic Development Director John Hohman stated on Tuesday October 25,
2016 the City Council would be having administrative report to highlight the Commission's
recommendations, including the discussion points which were brought up. Mr. Hohman stated
staff wants to make sure they bring forward the topics and discussion and represent the Commission
faithfully to make sure it will be as detailed as possible. Mr.Hohman said there had been excellent
discussion regarding the topics on which the Commission had made recommendations,he believes
the recommendations are solid and staff wants to support these recommendations and move them
forward to the City Council.
10-20-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4
Commissioner Stathos clarified the public hearing for the City Council, regarding the
Comprehensive Plan and associated documents, is scheduled for November 8, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Hohman stated there will be a special meeting at 5:00 p.m. that evening to handle the regular
meeting items, and then there will be two public hearings on that evening beginning as soon as
possible after 6:00.
Commissioner Johnson said he felt the Commissioners might have overlooked the possibility of
impact fees during their deliberations. Commissioner Stathos said she was told there was nothing
they could do. Mr. Hohman responded impact fees are a very detailed and complicated subject.
He shared the City of Spokane has impact fees for traffic. When a project comes in a trip generation
letter or study is done so you know how many extra trips the project is going to create, and they
have a per trip cost based on the area in the city. The developer writes a check, walks away and
there is no further analysis done. The City of Spokane Valley has not implemented this. It is a
very controversial subject from the developer standpoint. What the City has done in the past is
perform concentrated studies for certain areas and developed per trip costs, similar to an impact
fee. However,this is all voluntary. One area which this was successful was the Hanson properties
on Indiana. They had development agreements with Spokane County and the City carried those
over. They also entered into another agreement in 2011 which allows them to move forward on
projects with contributions based over time. There was a specific traffic study done, allocated the
trips to different properties they have,and creating a type of bank account of trips,which is reduced
with each project. The City is working on similar type of project for properties in the Mirabeau
area for Pinecroft and Centennial Properties. But again, this process is entirely voluntary. The
City would not be in a position to force developers into this type of situation,because we have not
performed the detailed studies, similar to what the City of Spokane had done. Commissioner
Johnson said he understood this type of agreement, but when developer put up a project in the
middle of a block and it affected existing intersections how does this get addressed. Mr.Hohman
said then a site specific analysis is required as part of the project. The study looks at the trips
generated,the direction of travel and intersections which will be impacted within a certain radius
of the project, depending on its size. They look at safety features, such as left turns which could
cause problems. This requirement is covered in the existing code, which also allows for the
expansion of the area reviewed. Doing it pre-project would allow for a larger developer to pre-
study it and set the trips aside. On a single parcel development would be a stand-alone traffic study.
This would be detailed, reviewed and approved by the senior traffic engineer. No one gets away
without addressing traffic issues, it is a GMA requirement to look at traffic concurrency. If there
is a site specific impact on the infrastructure,then the developer must mitigate those impacts.
Mr. Basinger confirmed Figure 29: Average Daily Traffic has been replaced in the finished Comp
Plan with a corrected figure. This map was generated by accidently pulling from an incorrect field
in the GIS program used to create the map. All modeling generated was done on accurate data and
all the information generated from this data is accurate. These are two separate programs. This
has been corrected and City Council will have the corrected map in their version of the Plan.
Mr.Basinger covered each of the items in Section H of the findings to review the decisions:
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 allows the City to set an example for its citizens through water
conservation and usage on publicly owned parks property. Commissioner Johnson said he
believed the intent was this policy would only apply to new parks and not apply to established
parks. Mr. Basinger suggested adding "for upgrades and new parks." to the end of the first
sentence. This changed was incorporated and the Commission determined it reflected their
deliberations
2. Designate parcels 55173.1018, 55173.1019, 55173.1020, and 55173.1005 as Single Family
Residential (SFR) and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3). Out
of 86 total public comments received to October 6, 2016, 68 were with regard to these four
parcels. The Comprehensive Plan Update would designate these four parcels Multifamily
Residential and the Development Regulation Amendments would apply a corresponding
10-20-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4
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. The Commissioners confirmed the parcel
numbers in this list were the correct and reflected their deliberations.
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 primarily single family homes and so this change will maintain
the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Rasmussen pointed out this needed to
reflect (H)(2) above. This correction was made and the Commission determined it reflected
their discussions.
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 acknowledges the benefit of an industrial
accessory dwelling unit to the owner/operator and 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. The Commission agreed this was accurate and reflected their deliberations.
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 detailed attention to the potential
impacts, benefits, and appropriate regulations for such use. The Commission agreed this was
correct and reflected their discussions.
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 density and
multifamily building height to the current density and height standards. The Commission
agreed this was accurate and reflected their deliberations.
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 zone the single family use is in. There are
numerous single family uses in multifamily zones. The Commission agreed this was accurate
and reflected their deliberations.
It was noted in Section J that in (1) the new language "for upgrades and new parks"would need
to be added as well. These changes were incorporated into the findings document while it was on
the screen and the Commission was reviewing them.
Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the findings and recommendations with the changes
requested by the Planning Commission. The vote on this motion was six in favor,one against with
10-20-16 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4
Commissioner Anderson dissenting. The findings were updated and a copy was printed for the
Chair's signature.
V. GOOD OF THE ORDER:
The Planning Commission had consensus to cancel the October 27,2016 regular meeting.
Commissioner Phillips clarified an issue regarding Roberts Rules of Order. A person who makes a
motion is allowed to vote against that motion,but may not argue against the same motion.
VI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:39 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor,motion passed.
Heather Graham, Chair Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: December 8, 2016
Check all that apply: ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® study sessions
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study Session — Small Residential Dwellings
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: On June 9, 2016 staff presented to the Spokane Valley Planning Commission
an overview of the various housing alternatives, pertinent regulations, and a discussion of tiny
houses. At the October 20, 2016 Planning Commission meeting staff presented the Draft
Development Regulations that included housing alternatives. At that time the Planning
Commission recommended to remove SVMC 19.40.100 (Small residential dwellings-supportive
housing) from the Draft Development Regulations to be reviewed as a separate future code text
amendment. City Council at a later date, agreed since this was is a new type of residential use
for the City, more information is needed.
Staff will present a recap of the June 9, 2016 tiny house overview and discuss the draft
development regulations proposed for supportive housing development. At this time the
Planning Commission should discuss the issue and determine if additional information is
needed, if the regulations should be modified, or other courses of action.
OPTIONS: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: The Planning Commission should discuss the issue
and determine the next course of action.
STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois, Planner
ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation
1. Presentation
j�� COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ! PLANNING'
Planning Commission Meeting
December 8, 2016
Supportive Housing and Draft
Regulations Review
Si �� COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � PLANNING
N
Purpose
• Review Tiny House Discussion — June 9, 2016
• Review Draft Small Residential Housing -
Supportive Housing Development Regulations
• Solicit PC input on next steps
Si �� COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � ��NNoN
NG
Background
• June 9, 2016 — Tiny Homes Presentation
• Draft Development Regulations
— Small Residential Dwellings (tiny homes and
supportive housing development)
— Cottages, ADU's, etc.
• Planning Commission Recommendation
— Remove Supportive Housing from Development
Regulations for further study
j�� COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ! ��NNoNG
VISIN
June 9, 2016
TINY HOMES PRESENTATION i
A
RePee �'•
11W:
COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT µ PLANNIN
DIVISION
Em r in tr nalternatives o
Demographics Types of Alternative Housing
• Empty nesters • "Tiny House"
• Those who want a simple lifestyle • Park model homes
• First time home buyers • Accessory dwelling units
• Elderly who can't maintain home • Cottages
and yard but are still independent
• Nonprofits who are finding a
solution for the homeless
Planning Commission Presentation June 2016
Si �� COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT � PLANNING ".
N
What is a tiny house ?
• The most common type of tiny house is similar
to an RV in that it is a vehicle structure, with
electricity, water tanks and sewage tanks and
usually on an axle and wheels
Planning Commission Presentation June 2016
' COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
..W DIVISION
Tiny Houses
lb' 5k_4,._+
F '-.
— ;b ' 7 .u. 20505N
. .1.._.: 7• ...' ' I. . e.-.-._ •••. .' xee, rir)
.,,.
M .'Y 1 �-,_Jm
sem,.
__ _
. 26EF
111 11 � snawrrN. �rr�a
env..
e .
_____,___.._
t L
im_
r4 a 71 1
.,.. 1
7 ��' °r .. • --
•.• __ 3N3023 = , ,
_ Fes.
I.
16.90D14o-= 4
,1 ' . VMS ? ` — — '• . I LIVING AREA
_It th _ r 4 133 sq it 6,
- rr`�� „v.-444...
'1,
�'4'•;,y.+ � •. • .'��� ...°-';.:"L %. FULLER SINGLE LEVEL 8LI.”WIDE x T6'•0"LONG TINY NOME PLAN
je 1 , I . °. `s .. OPTION#2 PE516NED BY: LEGACY DESIGN HOMES LLC
MICHAEL R.T1N5LEY: OWNER 5 DESIGNER 02-15-16
Planning Commission Presentation June 2016
COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .411W ��►NNING
DIVISION
Current SVMC regulations — tiny houses
• Allowed in RV parks
• Allowed in manufactured home parks
• Treated as a recreational vehicle
• Not allowed on a single-family residential lot for
more than 30 days
Planning Commission Presentation June 2016
Si �� COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT N
� PLANNING
Other emerging Alternatives
• Park model homes
• Accessory dwellings (ADUs)
— Currently allowed
• Cottages
— Addressed in the Draft Development Regulations
Planning Commission Presentation June 2016
kae COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING `
.Walley DIVISION
Quixote Villagey a out
I .
3ti + it. €" ;. a .a.
y . r If' '`'0` 1 Located in Olympia, WA
moi. :Jr-- � r ..-
r
'` r'"- , r- -, r • 144 Sf in size
46* 1 -..'
,,� : + • Built for homeless adults
; .„ fi'Ithr_' , • a - •
At a
4 Owned by a nonprofit
" - , - organization
- 4 �y- ° - • Residents pay a minimum
'
-
_ rent and there is no
,..: r.,.....: - 1 I ifit .1‘III Pir; option to buy dwelling
7
_-,_ -__ mow.
Planning Commission Presentation June 2016
spo�car `Valley COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ,
DIVISION
Village - OlympiaQuixote
. it
,.„.
.t , ... ,
t,.
, ., .',:If t, x.
lir , , ---
11►, y k
, _ ! '
_. 1-
J! IJH1F !..
___.
4 1 T
r ii
i iill 1 r 1.1111H1 Ildio' 1'1- PHI I I . 4 . 1
1 ,. . ) . . ,ii. I!: i 1 / , 1),-
,_ It
y L F
wyy" ' t y s.
Planning Commission Presentation June 2016
ka PLANNIN
........valley COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 4 DIVISION
Fuller Center TinHouseVillage Concept
,i;.., ,,or <1 er 4
Re:; tb0h1eatio f
I k(11 -:- 1 9
e_.
_ +{+ j � •
. , i
t4
w .-1 .v' .1 , '
f 'Lk Center
' ..4.
ig i,�? -:
y yW
to
1
ffr i 4,. . . y:. _1' ',..:. lb fe,
lila' '
i . F
# l t f
1 1 . I lir ,
Church or `_` '`'`
I
Ranch ._ . . �°m7 . ., r4,-eLLT I '4; Aquaponic
Property 1 °-' Farm
ijOit ,,-:
lam'
1 r-
Planning Commission Presentation June 2016
� PLANNING
� e COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 4
DIVISION
Fuller Center TinHouse Concept
:NANO_ ., .. , . A _ ... ,io.1. — '
0- , •......„„-= .• 258 sf three bedrooms
t1. tk, i VNik ; • Units are available to
- M: : }� ` .„ rent —then own
1 0- ` 7
a � 3 p IP
i • Homeowner can remain
, , 0. in village or move the
II
''u: 11111, II house off-site
C.
Planning Commission Presentation June 2016
�� PLANNING
� e COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 4 r
DIVISION
tiny h villOthero u se
' .,. , .. .,-,:., -.},.il... .•','• . ''z...,"!.. .Ac I.j".'''Y. - . , . Ili...;00," - • ...
AI
I -� r j �lllllllllll�
1010.044444' A
11I11I x
i = _
SII i .c 1 '� ri;'r. 1
I F I -, �' I
•
,Ai_fl- 117fiti f - p ii Pi
lit,rl 1
,
x, s
I
Portland Seattle
(from recycled material)
Planning Commission Presentation June 2016
sPokan COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
Valley DIVISION
Comprehensive Plan Update — Small Residential Dwellings
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Draft Development Regulations
sPokane COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANNIN �`-
jValley DIVISION
Draft Small Residential Dwelling Regs .
• 19.40.090 Development standards — Small
residential dwellings.
• Supportive housing development
Draft Development Regulations
ley Seacan COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ,!)W ��NNoNG "� -�
VISIN
Small Residential Dwellings Definition
• Any structure built on a lot for dwelling
purposes, with access to water, sewer, and
electricity, is considered as a "small residential
dwelling". Small residential dwellings on
wheels are prohibited .
Draft Development Regulations
COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT µ PLANNIN
Valley ,!)WDIVISION
Small Resiential Supportive Housing
• Requirements :
— Maximum density is 15 dwellings per acre;
— Structure size maximum : 200 sq . ft. excluding porches;
— Building permit required; (Consistent with Title 24 SVMC)
— 1.5 Off-street parking space provided per dwelling;
— Located within a half mile of a bus stop or other transit
service;
Continued
Draft Development Regulations
COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT µ PLANNIN
Valley ,!)WDIVISION
Small Resiential Supportive Housing
• Requirements :
— On-site community facilities i .e kitchens, dining, shower,
laundry...
— Rec. areas, garden areas, etc. designed as shared community
facilities;
— Buffered and screened from adjacent ROW and surrounding
properties
— Must have a sponsoring agency and operations and security
plan
Draft Development Regulations
U COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNING
DIVISION
DraftZoning Districts that Allow the Use
R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I PO
S
Dwelling, s s s s s s S
small
residential
Comprehsneive Plan Amendments 20
stiokan COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT — PLANNING' -
„o a 1 DIVISION
1111116-_ l ' R. - 0
Iv W . c 2 zn C „,
t/) Dwelling, accessory units S S S S S S S S
VDwelling, caretaker's residence S S S S S
L. Dwelling, cottage S S S S
( ) Dwelling, duplex P PPP
Q Dwelling, industrial accessory S S
dwelling unit
C
CDwelling, multifamily PPP
'- Dwelling, single-family PPP PPPP
O Dwelling, small residential S S S S S S S
ISI Dwellin : , townhouse S S S S S
Manufactured home park S S
Dratt Development Regulations
Si �� COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ;W: PLANNING'
N
Review Process
• Conditional Use Permit Required
— NOA
— NOPH
— SEPA Review
— HEX Decision
— Appeal Period
Draft Development Regulations
can PLANNING
�lv COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 041W,
DIVISION
Discussion: Next Steps:
• Are these housing types
• Bring back additional
consistent with focus?
information if requested;
• Are there other housing •
Modify the draft
types that should be
development regulations to
considered ? reflect PC direction and
• Is more information other options to be
needed ? determined;
Draft Development Regulations