Agenda 03/22/2018 S11 'ane
Valle K
Y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave.
March 22, 2018 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Feb. 22, 2018, March 08, 2018,
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Study Session: Review of Open Space requirements in Mixed Use
zones.
ii. Study Session: CTA-2018-0001, Proposed amendments to 19.65.020
Animal raising and keeping
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
February 22,2018
I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for
the Pledge of Allegiance. Secretary Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present:
Commissioners in alpha order Staff in descending order of importance
James Johnson Cary Driskell,City Attorney
Danielle Kaschmitter Eric Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Sr. Planner
Michelle Rasmussen Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Matthew Walton Micki Harnois,Planner
Karen Kendall,Planner
Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission
Mary Moore, Office Assistant
Chair Rasmussen moved to excuse Commissioner Stathos and Commissioner Phillips from the
meeting. The vote on this motion was five in favor,zero against and the motion passed.
II. Agenda: It was moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded to approve the February 22, 2018
agenda as presented. The vote was five in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. Minutes: It was moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded to strike the February 8,2018 minutes
from tonight's agenda. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and motion passed.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no reports.
V. ADMINIS I'RATIVE REPORT: There was no report.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Findings of Fact CTA-2017-0005—Wireless Telecommunications Amendment
Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb presented the Findings of Facts specifically identifying the
modifications requested by Planning Commission for their approval as follows:
a) Maintain a requirement for a separation for 250 ft.between small cell facilities.
b) Maintain the requirement that if the separation is not possible, for applicants to make a good
faith attempt to co-locate on the same pole. If co-location is not possible,new facilities within
the 250 feet would be allowed.
c) Maintain requirement that small cell facilities be located at least 20 ft. above grade unless
technically infeasible.
d) Maintain requirement for providers to bury or integrate facilities into surrounding unless
technically unfeasible.
e) Add a requirement that the applicant provide evidence that the small cell facility design will
not impact the structural integrity of the utility pole on which it is placed
f) Add allowance for "unified design enclosure" to allow combined antenna and equipment
enclosure of up to six cubic feet in volume in lieu of separate antenna and equipment
enclosures.
g) Make such other minor grammatical and minor corrections recommended from the public
comments.
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for CTA-2017-0005. The vote on this
motion was five in favor,zero against and the motion passed.ii.Public Hearing:2018 Comprehensive
Plan Amendments.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow gave a presentation to the Commission and audience,which introduced
the 2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. She explained this meeting is for the
Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing and to take public comments on the proposals.
Ms.Barlow explained the findings of facts had been scheduled for March 8 but have been deferred
because of an appeal filed on the SEPA decision for CPA-2018-0003. She stated all
Comprehensive Plan amendments are required to submit a SEPA review, and a Determination of
Non-Significance was issued for all with a comment and appeal period. During the 14-day appeal
period, an appeal was received for CPA-2018-0003. A hearing on the CTA-2018-0003 appeal is
set for March 15,2018 in front of the Hearing Examiner and a decision is expected within a couple
weeks thereafter.
a. CPA-2018-0001 A privately Initiated Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) with a Single Family
Residential Urban District (R-3) zoning to a Multifamily Residential(MFR) designation
with a Multifamily Residential (MFR)zoning.
Chair Michelle Rasmussen read the public hearing rules and opened the public hearing at 6:28
p.m.
Planner Micki Harnois introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2018-0001.This project
site is 300 feet east of Valleyway and Pines Road. The applicant for this project is Robin Petrie
who requests to change existing land use designation from Single Family Residential to
Multifamily Residential and the zoning from R-3 to Multifamily Residential. Ms. Harnois
explained the differences between the two zones taking into consideration the land use and the
zoning that exist near the sites and in this area. Ms. Harnois said one comment had been received
from the City's traffic engineer depending on future development,it would require a trip generation
letter. The traffic engineer also stated that the capacity on the existing road would not be an issue.
No public comments were received regarding this site.
There were no questions from Commissioners
Chair Rasmussen opened the floor for public testimony:
Sarah Neelan, 12420 E Mansfield Ave. Apt 5.: Ms. Neelan said she was representing Steven
Arsey who resides at 12522 E Valleyway. She said the area is an open space for all sorts of wildlife
and to take that into account; and to please keep it rural and not urban.
Hoss Peterson 12525 E Olive Ave.: Mr. Peterson described the area as single family homes and
he feels the zoning being proposed is out of character.
There were no further public comments and Chair Rasmussen closed public hearing for CPA 2018-
0001 at 6:37 pm.
b. CPA-2018-0005 A City Initiated Amendment to expand Neighborhood Commercial(NC)
designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
and Single Family Residential (SFR) and the associated zoning of NC and Single Family
Residential Urban District(R-3)
Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.for CTA-2018-0005
Planner Karen Kendall explained CPA-2018-0005 is a City initiated Comprehensive Plan
Amendment correcting a mapping error on the land use designations and zoning maps from the
2016 Comprehensive Plan update which split the zoning.The site is located in the Northeast corner
of the City and is bordered to the north by Forker Road and Progress Road,which are both urban
minor arterials.Ms.Kendall explained that the need to correct this mapping error is to expand the
Neighborhood Commercial Designation and Zoning to eliminate the split zoning of the parcel.The
current site is in a 100 year floodplain and there is a Conditional Letter of Map Revision application
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9
in the final review stages with FEMA to modify the boundaries of the floodplain. There is an 500
foot wide easement in the corner of the property that runs north/south and a Type F stream in the
Northwest corner of the property. The correction will result in more appropriate boundaries of the
Neighborhood Commercial land use designation and zoning and Single Family Residential land
use designation and R-3 zoning.The City received comments from Public Works and the Spokane
County Environmental Services,but no public comments.
There were no questions from Commissioners
Chair Rasmussen invited public testimony; there were no comments and Chair Rasmussen closed
public testimony for CPA 2018-0005 at 6:43 p.m.
c. CPA-2016-0005 A City Initiated Amendment to expand Industrial Mixed Use (IMU)
designation and zoning to eliminate split designation of IMU and Single Family
Residential(SFR)and the associated zoning of IMU and Single Family Residential Urban
District(R-3)
Chair Rasmussen Opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m.for CPA-2018-0006
Planner Karen Kendall explained that CTA-2018-0006 corrects a mapping error that took place
during the 2016 Annual Comprehensive Plan update.This site is located east of the intersection of
Trent Ave. and Sullivan Rd. The proposal is to expand the Industrial Mixed use designation and
zoning which would eliminate the split zoning of the parcel. The area is 15 feet wide along the
easterly side of the site.The 15 feet wide area to be included in the Industrial Mixed Use designation
contains stormwater facilities that serve the existing development. The site is currently zoned
Industrial Mixed Use and R-3. The amendment will correct a mapping error and will eliminate the
split zoning of the parcel.
There were no public comments and Chair Rasmussen closed public hearing for CPA 2016-0005
at 6:45 p.m.
d. CPA-2018-0004 A Privately Initiated Amendment request to change the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential
Urban (R-3)to Neighborhood Commercial(NC)
Chair Rasmussen Opened the public hearing at 6:46 p.m.for CPA-2018-0004
Planner Marty Palaniuk presented CPA-2018-0004, explaining this is a privately initiated
amendment to change the land use designation from Single Family Residential and R-3 zoning to
Neighborhood Commercial. The Neighborhood Commercial designation is to provide
neighborhood scale commercial development such as offices and retail that serve a neighborhood.
This site is on the southeast corner of University Road and 7tn Avenue. University is an arterial
street surrounded by Single Family Residential uses. The parcel adjacent to the proposed site was
changed in 2016 during the legislative Comprehensive Plan update to Neighborhood Commercial.
If the amendment is approved it would also be designated as Neighborhood Commercial. During
the legislative update,the City evaluated intersections along some of the arterials south of Sprague,
and various parcels were re-designated in those neighborhoods as Neighborhood Commercial.
Staff received comments from the City's Senior. Traffic Engineer who evaluated the intersections
at Stn Avenue and University Road as well as 4th Avenue and University Road and he stated if
intense development occurred, it would meet the level of service requirements. Staff received
public comments regarding traffic in and out of the site as well as traffic along 7tn and Stn Avenues
This property is part of a plat from 1954 and some of the comments received have mentioned there
were some covenants that could apply to the plat.
Mr. Lamb explained the City Attorney's office received a letter regarding the covenants. The
covenants would preclude business, commerce and industrial uses from operating on the site.
However, with regard to restricted covenants, those are privately enforceable under Washington
law. The Supreme Court has agreed that cities do not have authority to enforce private covenants.
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9
Citizens could seek a private action to preclude commercial, industrial or any other development.
We do allow single family residential under the neighborhood commercial so there is not a conflict.
Commissioner Walton Neighborhood Commercial zones are in Spokane Valley. Mr. Palaniuk
responded that staff evaluated the area of the City south of Sprague and at most of the arterial
intersections of 8th, 16th, 32nd Avenues, University, Evergreen and Sullivan Roads and designated
those as Neighborhood Commercial. This was done during the legislative update. Commissioner
Johnson asked for some examples of a commercial business that would be allowed in the
Neighborhood Commercial zone. Mr. Palaniuk responded some of the things the Permitted Use
Matrix allows include retail, gas stations, medical office, and kennels. The intent is to provide
neighborhood scale commercial uses to serve the neighborhood. Commissioner Rasmussen asked
how the City mitigates traffic problems. Mr. Palaniuk replied that any time development occurs;
the City evaluates the traffic impact and may require a traffic impact analysis to identify
improvements or restrictions to the proposed development.
Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing on CPA- 2018-0004 at 6:58 pm.
Ray Siebert, 10719 E. 8th Avenue: Mr. Siebert said that he is against
changing the land east of University on 7th Avenue from Single Family Residential to
Neighborhood Commercial. We have a protective covenant on the old Orchard Subdivision,which
has been in effect since 1954. We want to keep the covenant and keep this being a nice place to
raise a family. The City illegally changed the property east of University on 8th Avenue to
commercial when there was a protective covenant. Mr. Siebert stated the neighborhood had hired
a lawyer to protect them if this change goes into effect.
Jane Siebert, 10719 E 8th Avenue: Ms. Siebert said she is against the land change at 7th Avenue
and University Road. She said the property has a covenant and the municipal code states the City
is supposed to follow them. She said she received a letter from the City Attorney stating the City
has no authority under the Washington law to enforce or validate restricted covenants. By not
enforcing the covenant, she said the City is definitely invalidating them. The covenant is binding
unless by the majority of the residence owners agree to change them. There was a traffic analysis
from the Senior.Traffic Engineer,which showed that there would be an additional 208 trips a day
with this change. This much traffic would affect their neighborhood,property values will go down
and it will increase crime. Ms. Seibert stated she does not feel the neighborhood was informed
well enough when the change to the parcel at 8th Avenue and University Road occurred in 2016.
City Attorney Cary Driskell suggested changing the time limits from three minutes to one and one
half minutes in order accommodate everyone in the room who wished to testify this evening. The
Commissioners agreed to this change.
Mike Ermer, 10806 E 8th Avenue: Mr. Ermer shared his concern about crime, traffic and more
people;he said the covenant was important in the 1950's so please leave it alone.
Mark Conrad, 10804 E 7th Avenue: Mr. Conrad shared he is opposed to change because the
property values will decrease and traffic will increase;it does not fit the form or area.
Lacey Zieler, 10811 E 7th Avenue: Ms. Zieler shared her concerned for the children's safety and
more traffic.
William Braid, 11216 E 7th Avenue: Mr. Braid said he is concerned for the children in the area
and putting commercial in will increase traffic and crime, and he asked the Commission please do
not approve this.
Ken Hoffman, 10719 E 7th Avenue: Mr. Hoffman shared his concern about traffic,the value of
property; said he bought in under the covenants and he is opposed to this change.
Lonny Green, 10715 E 7th Avenue: Mr.Green shares his concern this will lower property values,
and increase crime and traffic.
Jim Brown,10714 E 6th Avenue:Mr.Brown shared he is opposed to the plan and concerned about
traffic. He said University is a racetrack.
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9
Andrew Wall, 10723 E 7th Avenue: Mr. Wall said he is concerned for children,more traffic and
property values.
Candice Wall, 10723 e 7th Ave.Ms.Wall said she is concerned about more crime,foot traffic and
children safety.
Sheree Tucker, 11372 E 7th Ave.Ms. Tucker said she is concerned with traffic, crime and safety
of children.
Heather Bryant, Schmautz family representative: Ms. Bryant shared in 2016 the comer of 8th
and University, was changed to Neighborhood Commercial. Currently the family has no plans to
develop the property and the site would stay the same. There is a blind spot at 8th Avenue and
University Road and by expanding onto 7th, it would eliminate the blind spot. If rezoned the
covenant would take precedence.
Al Merkel, 3927 S Sunderland Drive: Mr. Merkel shared he is opposed to this amendment
because the covenants are in place. He said he knows the amendment is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, but when you see neighbors like this coming out, the City should take note
and let the neighbors resolve these issues in a non-adversarial way.
Kurt Campbell, 10714 E 8th Ave.Mr. Campbell shared his concern about more traffic.
Scott Smith,10819 E 8th Ave.Mr. Smith shared his concern about more traffic and cutting between
streets to get to the businesses.
Seeing there was no further comment on CPA-2018-0004 Chair Rasmussen closed the public
hearing for CPA 2018-0004 at 7:21 pm.
e. CPA-2018-0003 A Privately Initiated Amendment request to change the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential(SFR)to Corridor Mixed Use
(CMU) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Suburban (R-
2)to Corridor Mixed Use(CMU)
Chair Rasmussen Opened the public hearing for CPA-2018-0003 at 7:22 pm.
Mr. Palaniuk explained CPA-2018-0003 is a privately initiated amendment to change the parcel
from Single Family Residential and R-2 zoning to Corridor Mixed Use which allows commercial,
light manufacturing, retail and office uses. This site is in the Ponderosa neighborhood along
Dishman-Mica, south of the railroad tracks, along Bowdish and Sands Roads. The SEPA
determination was appealed. The majority of this site is in the 100-year floodplain. There was a
subdivision in 2010 and the entirety of this lot was designated as an easement for stormwater
treatment.A Conditional Letter of Map Revision was approved by FEMA to raise the level of lots
one through six of the short plat and remove them from the floodplain. Chester Creek runs north of
the site in a channel which is south of the railroad tracks.The stream is a Type F,which means fish
could be in the stream.It requires buffering if development should occur.This site also has alluvium
soils, which are soils deposited from water action made of granulated silt and they do not drain
well. The Comprehensive Land Use designation is Single Family Residential with a designated
density of one unit per acre up to six units per acres. The area is single family. Corridor Mix Use
allows commercial uses along transit corridors. Corridor Mixed Use is located along Sprague and
Argonne, Mullen, Evergreen, Sullivan and Dishman-Mica. The R-2 zone height limit is 35 feet.
Corridor Mixed Use has an unlimited height limit but transitional regulations would be applied to
any development and would serve to limit the height adjacent to residential uses. The site would
have a limit in height since it is next to residential uses. Staff received comments from Dept. of
Fish and Wildlife who commented they were concerned about the Type F stream and said it would
require buffering if development occurs. Staff received comments from the public regarding traffic,
access in and out of site,access for fire safety,that the development does not fit,and concerns about
the floodplain,and crowding in schools.
Commissioner Johnson asked if there was a minimum setback for access onto Bowdish and how
far off the intersection would the access have to be toward the south. Senior Traffic Engineer,Ray
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9
Wright explained at that location there would need to be a minimum of 60 feet of separation from
the intersection.Currently staff is looking at the infrastructure to see if the streets can accommodate
the growth.
Commissioner Kelley said there were concerns about escaping a forest fire in that area and traffic
issues. Mr. Wright stated he did not believe a second access is required. With the rezoning, there
would be an additional 800 trips over a 24-hour period;and peak traffic would be 10%of that. This
does not address the fire but it would handle that volume easily.
Chair Rasmussen asked about a couple of parcels which appeared to be land locked and how would
rezoning effect those Mr.Palaniuk replied they are City owned parcels and are not developed.Ms.
Barlow stated those properties are partly encumbered for drainage purposes by the City. Chair
Rasmussen asked if they are zoned R-2 and Ms. Barlow confirmed they were. Commissioner
Johnson asked does that extend all the way to University.Mr.Lamb replied that a change in zoning
would not change access because they are privately owned and would remain so. If there were any
access issues,those would be addressed at the time of development. Commissioner Johnson said
the background information stated there were 24 acres available for commercial mixed use. He
asked if this was before the nearby IGA planned project. Mr. Palaniuk responded this reference
does include the IGA project.
Chair Rasmussen invited public comment.
Mr. Todd Whipple,Whipple Consulting Engineers representing the applicant: Mr. Whipple
explained his firm looked at the zoning code and get out the Comprehensive Plan and they try to
be consistent with the existing land use and future land use and what is adjacent to the property.
The site has a railroad track and Chester Creek so from a development perspective they assume that
since Corridor Mixed Use is adjacent to the property there is no reason to not to change the land
use. As the applicant, he requested the Commission to leave the hearing open for additional
testimony after the SEPA appeal hearing and before the Commission issues its findings.
Al Merkel,2925 S. Sunderland Drive: Mr.Merkel stated the property is a flood zone and shared
concerns about wildlife.
Heidi Workman, 11406 E 44th Avenue: Ms. Workman shared concerns of fire evacuations and
the overcrowding of school.
Christian Workman, 11406 e 44th. Avenue: Mr. Workman shared that any kind of soil
contamination from a flood can contaminate the stream.
Rebecca Readiner, 11321 E 42°d Court: Ms. Readiner shared concerns about the flooding and
traffic.
Megan Williams, 11401 E Sundown Drive: Ms. Williams voiced her concern about fire, safety
and traffic.
Dave West,4007 S Forest Meadow Dr.Mr.West requested the Commission look at the letter and
attached picture he submitted as he is concerned about the flood encroaching on his property. As
more and more development occurs upstream the flood will continue to encroach more onto his
property.
Darrell Thom, 4409 S Hollow Court. Mr. Thom shared concern about access and fire
evacuations. He said he has been promised an extra access point for fire access.
Bev Thom,4409 S Hollow Court.Ms. Thom said she is concerned property values will decrease.
She said have been told there would never be any development because it is a floodplain.
John Grevner, 3907 S Sunderland Drive.Mr. Grevner shared he is a wildland fire investigator
and the last fire was a nightmare; and said he agrees with all that has been said.
Steve McNulty,4106 S Hollow Court. Mr.McNulty is concerned about reducing property values,
traffic, access to the property, traffic accidents, and that it will be harder for emergency response
and evacuation.He said he is a geologist and the semi silty sands do not drain well and then ponding
occurs. Lot 7 is platted as a blanket drainage easement. We agree with staff report.
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9
Annette Conrad, 10920 E 46th Avenue: Ms. Conrad shared concerns about t access, flooding,
bald eagles that come every year and the wildlife.
Dave Johnson,11307 E Sundown Drive:Mr.Johnson concurs that the Commission has to oppose
this. It is a single family residential and we do not want anything else.
Mark Broder, 4105 S Hollow Court: Mr. Broader shared that any time modifications are made
to the land the flooding gets worse,and said he opposed this
John Boyd,4024 S Forest Meadow Drive: Mr. Boyd expressed his thoughts for lot 7 explaining
if we planted obscuring trees,the trees would suck up the water, giving great access for the water
to drain down through the silt soil and it would make an exquisite site or riding area.
Robert O'Dell, 11425 E 44th Avenue:Mr. O'Dell shared he is opposed to the development and
concerned about drainage and the disruption of the wildlife corridor.
Jerry Johnson, 4506 S Skipworth Road: Mr. Johnson said he is concerned about the property
values dropping.
Shawn Johnson, 11311 E Sundown Drive: Ms. Johnson expressed concern that property values
will drop, wildlife concerns and she will have more water in her yard. She said there was a sign,
which said there would be one home on the proposed lot,and if there is more,it will only raise the
water on her lot,which is ankle deep now.
Galen Pavliska, 11321 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Pavliska shared the property is a flood zone and
in his backyard. He is concerned his property value will drop; he said he is opposed to this.
Kent Mayer,4308 S Locust: Mr.Mayer shared the Comprehensive Plan was done less than two
years ago and he thinks we need to stick to the plan.He said this is not an improvement.He asked
if the 150 homes that are not built yet at the other end of 44th Avenue were included in the traffic
analysis.
Keith Cohen, 12216 E 37th Court: Mr. Cohen shared concern that bringing in multifamily homes
will bring in crime.
Renee Porter,3515 S Woodward Road: Ms. Porter expressed this does not fit this property and
runs along railroad tracks and a two-lane residential road. This property is over a mile away from
a transit stop. Barney's Harvest foods,just right up the road,is planning to put that exact plan into
place and not infringing on anybody's property or property values.
Paul Henderson, 11303 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Henderson explained he was the first to buy in
front of the subject parcel and his back yard is pure mush and he opposes the amendment.
Oliva Brookshire, 4520 S Skipworth Road: Ms. Brookshire is concerned when bringing in
multifamily homes that it will bring in renters,which brings in more crime.
Barbara Roads,11315 E 46th Avenue:Ms.Roads explained this is a floodplain,and on the wrong
side of the railroad tracks for commercial development and concerned for the impact on schools.
Vicki Moore,4215 S Forest Meadow Drive:Ms.Moore is concerned for the safety of her special
needs child who walks to the bus every day in front of the driveway that would be built. She has
safety,traffic and wildlife concerns.
Denise Shnaugel, 10613 E 46th Avenue: Ms. Shnaugel is concerned about dealing with Diamond
Rock. The property is a floodplain, there are only two exits-Bowdish and Schafer, and that will
limit getting out.
Megan Knolls, 11406 E 48th Avenue: Ms.Knolls is concerned about traffic accidents will occur,
and she opposes the amendment.
Heather Harvego,4015 S Forest Meadow Drive: Ms.Harvego is concerned about flooding and
traffic. More traffic noise. She said we do not want it. It will not help the neighborhood it will
only hurt the neighborhood.
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9
Caleb Collier, 11307 E 42°d Court: Mr. Collier shared he served on council and suggests a good
solution with this vacant land would be a park.He said a number of neighbors would contribute to
the cost of purchasing this land, and the City might mediate some of the costs with it.
Sandra Bright, 11024 E 43rd Avenue:Ms.Bright is concerned for the safety of the children near
the railroad,wetlands,wildlife and traffic concerns.
Patrick Miller, 11302 E Sandstone Lane:Mr.Miller shared he is not against people coming into
our neighborhood but in the right way,and he wants to keep R-2 zoning.
Debbie Plant,4318 S Forest Meadows Drive:Ms.Plant shared we are a single family residential
development and that it should stay an R-2.
Logan Crumborg, 4311 S Hollow Street: Mr. Logan explained that between fire hazards, the
railroad and wildlife,this plan is ludicrous.
John Pierce,4027 S Forest Meadow Drive: Mr. Pierce concurs.
Al Mollya,4224 S University Road:Mr.Mollya said he thought this area was a protected wetland
area. He shared there is not enough technology to protect all the water movement and he is against
it.
Troy Hoffman, 11308 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Hoffman requested we go visit the site and then
see that the development will not fit. This development is not necessary, and it will only benefit
the developer.
Rudy Worley, 11311 E Sundown Drive: Mr. Worley shared that his property abuts this project
and his home has water damage, and he is opposed. Last summer it was truck after truck of fill
material. Everyone is excited about the development at Harvest Foods. As this fill continues to go
into this spot,our homes are continuing to be damaged. He is in favor of R-2 zoning.
Wayne Gruver,11404 E Sundown Drive:Mr.Gruver shared this site is a swamp.He is concerned
for the children who ride bikes to go get ice cream. He said there are only two exits Schafer and
Bowdish and the engineer needs to have a real traffic study.
Jacques Plant, 4318 S Forest Meadow Drive: Mr. Plant shared that his home does not have
adequate water pressure and with construction and development, he will have even less water
pressure.
Les Baker,11413 E 45th Avenue:Mr.Baker is concerned about the disruption of wildlife and said
the coyotes will move into the residential areas.
Seeing no one else who wished to testif, Chair Rasmussen closed public hearing at 8:32 pm
Ms. Barlow informed the audience that public comment is closed as far as the Planning
Commission however, written comments will be provided to the City Council. She wanted to
remind the Commission about the appeal. The Hearing Examiner will be hearing the March 15,
2018 and a couple weeks later, we will have a decision on the appeal. The matter will not be in
front of the Planning Commission,until the Hearing Examiner issues a decision. It will be brought
back at a typical meeting,without further noticing to the property owners. She advised the audience
to check the City's website and/or go to the Planning Commission page and see the agenda,or sign
up for the mailing list to be notified.
VII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: The Commissioners thanked everyone for their participation.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn at 8:48 p.m. The vote on the motion
was unanimous in favor,zero against, and the motion passed.
Name, Chair Date signed
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9
Name, Secretary
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
March 8,2018
I. Vice Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience
stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant,Mary Moore took roll and the following members
and staff were present:
James Johnson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Danielle Kaschmitter, Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Michelle Rasmussen Jenny Nickerson,Assistant Building Official
Mike Phillips
Suzanne Stathos
Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
Tim Kelley,was absent,was excused Mary Moore, Office Assistant
and entered meeting at 6:43 pm.
II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the March 8,2018 agenda as presented. The vote
on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the February 8,2018 minutes as presented. The
vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Lori Barlow, Senior. Planner, shared the appeal to of
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA-2018-0003, is scheduled for March 15,2018 at 9:00 a.m. The
staff report has been forwarded to hearing examiner if there was an interest in reviewing it.The city of
Spokane Hearing Examiner will review this case in order to avoid a conflict of interest.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: Study Session —Open Space Requirements for Residential Projects
in Mixed Use Zones:
Sr. Planner, Lori Barlow gave the Commission a presentation regarding the open space requirements
for residential projects in mixed use zones. She explained the council requested the Planning
Commission review this requirement and provide a recommendation to Council.
Ms. Barlow explained the code requirements. In mixed use zones there is an open space requirement
for mixed use and multifamily residential projects,with certain exceptions. This requirement has been
in the code since 2007.
The regulation,Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.70.050(G),is any development in a mixed
used zoning district with 10 or more residential units is to provide 210 square feet per unit with specific
exceptions:
• If the project is less than 10 dwelling units.
• If project location is within 1,300 feet from public parks or public trails.
A developer may request a fee in lieu of land designation to be accessed rather than having
open space. Council has the authority to determine what this assessment is and review it on an
annual basis.
Ms.Barlow continued with background which included:
• Multifamily is only allowed in Multifamily Residential zones and mixed use zones.
• The locations of Mixed use zones.
• Any development of 10 or more residential units being proposed in these mixed zones would
require open space to be provided.
2018-01-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3
• Single Family Residential does not trigger this requirement.
• If a proposal is located within 1,300 feet from public parks or trails then it is not required to
provide open space since access to alternative open space is close by.
• Ninety percent of the City's mixed use zoned lands lie within 1,300 feet of a public park or
trail primarily because of the proximity to the Centennial Trail.It is estimated over half of the
Corridor Mixed Use zones lands properties lie within 1,300 feet of public parks or trails. This
is primarily because the Appleway Trail runs east from University Road and once
constructed will extend to Liberty Lake.
Commissioner Johnson confirmed projects along Flora Road between Broadway and Mission would
qualify for the exemption because part of the project was within the 1,300 foot distance of a public
park,then those projects are not required to provide open space.
Ms.Barlow discussed when a developer could request a fee in lieu of providing open space.The SVMC
infers the City Council could determine a public project in a mixed use zone could request a contribution
instead of providing open space. This caused concern to this council. This regulation has it ever been
used, it is unclear what the City would do if the exception were requested. A comparison in the
neighboring jurisdictions found that Spokane and Spokane County do not require any open space for
residential projects with residential components within their mixed use zones because their Mixed Use
Zones. However, Spokane County incentivizes the development to provide different amenities by
offering a density increase if various amenities are provided. Liberty Lake does require open space for
every project in their mixed use zones that has four or more residential units. Their minimum open
space requirement is 20%of the site. They also have private open space requirements for ground level
balconies or patios.
Planning Commission has been directed to discuss the regulation and send a recommendation to the
City Council either to leaving it as is,modify it or deleted it.
Commissioner Phillips confirmed the definition of`unit' meant dwelling unit as it is in the Appendix
A of the SVMC and the regulation does not apply to single family residential projects. Commissioner
Phillips stated he was concerned about what happens to the 210 square feet per unit,what is considered
open space and who maintains it?Ms. Barlow responded that the open space requirement is the same
as that of an apartment complex. Open space that is required to be on site is not public open space. It
is open space that is private for that building. Commissioner Phillips asked does this open space have
to be green or can it be asphalt? Can it be a secondary parking lot for the apartment complex or grass
or a playground? Ms. Barlow explained SVMC 19.070.050 identifies what can and can't be used as
open space,but generally it shall be accessible to all residential units and suitable for active and passive
recreational purposes.
Commissioner Walton confirmed the regulation allows for an extra 25% reduction if providing extra
amenities. For example two swimming pools,a gazebo and a clubhouse. Commissioner Walton asked
how the 210 square feet of open space of per dwelling was arrived at. Ms. Barlow responded it has
been in the code since 2006 but she would try and research an answer. Commissioner Walton asked do
we know how many of these are mixed use or commercial mixed use areas that are within that 1,300
square feet of public parks that have accessible sidewalks. Ms. Barlow responded when a proposal is
brought in front of us for a multi-family project there would be improvements that would be required.
Commissioner Walton asked if we are giving an exemption for developments within 1,300 square feet
of a public park or trail and they put a sidewalk in and the sidewalk goes nowhere and doesn't link up
within that 1,300 square feet to the park does it serve a purpose in getting people that 'At of a mile to
that destination?Ms.Barlow responded this code only speaks to providing the requirement to provide
open space on the site for the projects that are being proposed.This doesn't exempt them from providing
frontage improvements that are related to their project. Those are two separate issues.
Commissioner Johnson asked if rooftop improvements considered open space.Ms.Barlow responded
if they designed the rooftop to satisfy the intent, it would apply on a case by case basis. Further
discussion regarding the intent for not requiring open space in mixed use zones continued. The intent
behind mixed use zones is having a more livable environment with pedestrian oriented environment.
Commissioner Johnson, asked how would the City come up with for an appropriate fee? Ms Barlow
2018-01-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3
responded parks would identify future parks projects,develop costs and define a service area. It would
not be started with us. Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb stated RCW 82.02.020 also proscribes how
this is handled. The city went through a citywide park planning process to establish park needs and
developed a fee per dwelling basis.
Commissioner Phillips confirmed if this regulation were eliminated an apartment complex proposed in
a mixed use zone would not be required to provide open space.
Commissioner Phillips asked what the open space requirement is in the Multifamily zone versus the
mixed use zones.Ms.Barlow responded a multifamily project in the Multifamily Residential zone must
provide open space equal to 10% of gross project area. The open space must be suitable for active or
passive recreation and cannot be used for parking, setbacks or stormwater, etc. If the project was 10
acres,then 1 acre would be required to be open space.However,if a pool and a gazebo were constructed
as part of the project this requirement could be reduced to 75% of an acre. Commissioner Phillips
calculated that the 10% of total area based on the density results in approximately 210 square feet per
unit that is applied in the mixed use zones. Ms. Barlow stated that intent appears to be to equalize the
requirement in the mixed use and multifamily zone. Ms. Barlow suggested that the Planning
Commission look at whether or not the requirement is appropriate in a zone where it is not
predominantly focused on providing land for residential uses. Is it appropriate to require a project to
provide the same amount of open space as for a multifamily residential project in lands that are
designated for residential use? The residential uses in the mixed use zones are intended to be higher
density uses.
Commissioner Walton wanted to know the number of applications or units that would meet the 210
square foot/10 new dwelling units or more in the mixed use areas. Ms.Barlow replied she could bring
back some information regarding how many projects have used regulation. She said even though a
project might be proposed in a mixed use zone,they might fall into a criteria where they don't have to
provide open space,there is nothing that prevents them from providing it. If the project is large enough
they would have to have some amenities in order to make it marketable.
Chair Rasmussen asked if we don't have a process in place to assign a fee, then why we have the
regulation. Mr. Lamb replied there was a significant amount of case law regarding fees in lieu of
dedication in early 2000's,and he offered to provide more information. Ms.Rasmussen clarified if this
requirement was removed it could also be brought back at a later date. .
Mr. Lamb suggested the Planning Commission could open the subject up for public comment if they
so desired to gather responses from industry partners and the public at the next meeting. He noted if
the Commission then considered a code text amendment, there would be a formal public hearing
involved in the process. There was consensus among the Commissioners to have public input.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:54 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed.
Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: March 22, 2018
Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business Fl new business
n public hearing n information Fl admin. report n pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: N/A
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Comment - Admin Report - Open Space Requirement for
Residential Projects in Mixed Use Zones
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: N/A
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.70.050(g)
BACKGROUND: At the March 8th meeting, the Planning Commission discussed SVMC
19.70.050(g) which stipulates that residential projects with more than 10 units located in mixed
use zones must provide open space at a rate of 210 square feet per unit with specific exceptions
noted in the SVMC. During the discussion the Planning Commission asked for the following
additional information:
1. What is the basis for requiring 210 square feet per unit of open space?
Staff could not find any historical reference to identify why the 210 square feet per unit
was selected. However, mathematical analysis of the 210 square foot per unit requirement
compared to the 10% of the lot size required in the MFR zones notes that the requirement
is essentially the same for developments at a density of 21 units per acre in either zone.
Significant differences are noted when the density increases or decreases in either zone.
Table 1 (see attached) highlights the changes on a unit by unit comparison in the zones.
The table compares two MFR scenarios which occur on a 1 acre site with varying number
of units.
2. How many developments proposed in the Mixed Use Zones have utilized the
exemption?
Staff reviewed the multifamily projects approved over the last five year period (2013 to
2017) and found that 21 multifamily projects have been proposed and or completed. Of
the 21 projects 11 were in the mixed use zones, 8 in the MFR zone, and 2 were in other
zones. In all cases open space was provided regardless if it were required or not. All
projects were multifamily, not mixed use. Table 2 (see attached) identifies specific
developments, addresses, number of units and whether open space was required and/or
provided.
3. Additional information on impact fees and RCW 82.02.020.
Information will be provided by the Deputy City Attorney at the meeting for discussion.
RPCA SVMC 19.70.050(g)Discussion
Page 1 of 2
Also, during the meeting the Planning Commission determined that public comment would be
appropriate at this stage of review. However, since the item was only advertised as a study
session item,public comment was not allowed. The item has been appropriately advertised, and
the Planning Commission may take comment during this meeting. Following comment, the
Planning Commission should discuss the regulation and provide further direction to staff.
OPTIONS: Discussion
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. SVMC 19.70.050
2. Open Space Requirement Comparison Tables and Charts
3. Multifamily Development Location Map
RPCA SVMC 19.70.050(g)Discussion
Page 2 of 2
19.70.050 Additional standards.
A. Structure intrusions into setbacks are prohibited except:
1.The ordinary projections of window sills,belt courses,cornices,and other architectural features projecting
not more than 12 inches and roof eaves projecting not more than 24 inches.
2.Minor features of a structure,such as chimneys,fire escapes,bay windows no more than 12 feet long and
which cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure,uncovered stairways,wheelchair ramps,and
uncovered decks or balconies,may extend into a required setback up to 20 percent of the depth of the setback.
However,these features may not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback is required.
3.Attached mechanical equipment such as heat pumps,air conditioners,emergency generators,and water
pumps are allowed to project not more than 24 inches into the side or rear setback only.
4.Fences that meet the requirements set forth in SVMC 22.70.020.
5.Walkways and driveways,including parking in the driveway,are allowed in the front yard setback of R-1,R-
2,and R-3 zones only.
6.Canopies,marquees,awnings,and similar features in mixed-use or nonresidential zones may fully extend
into a front yard setback subject to the requirements of SVMC Title 24.
B. Supporting member of any garage,carport,portable carport,or other automobile storage structure shall not be
located within the required front yard.
C.Accessory structures shall not be erected within five feet of any rear or side property line,or be located within the
front yard or any public or private easement.
D. Where applicable,structures shall not be erected to a height in excess of that permitted by SVMC 19.110.030,
Airport hazard overlay.
E.In R-1,R-2,and R-3 zones,cooling towers,roof gables,chimneys,and vent stacks may extend for an additional
height,not to exceed 40 feet,above the average finished grade of the building.Water stand pipes and tanks,church
steeples,domes and spires,and school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected to exceed maximum
height requirements;provided,that one additional foot shall be added to the width and depth of front,side,and rear
yards for each foot that such structures exceed the required height.
F.Open space required pursuant to Table 19.70-1 shall be accessible to all residential units and shall be suitable for
active and passive recreational purposes,subject to the following:
1.The required open space area shall not include required yards,parking areas,required landscaped areas,
stormwater facilities,or required spacing between structures;
2.The amount of open space may be reduced by up to 25 percent where at least two of the following amenities
are provided:
a.Play or sports courts;
b.Playgrounds with equipment;
c.Trails or pedestrian walkways not required for access to residential units or parking areas;
d. Swimming pools;
e.Gazebos;or
f.Clubhouses;
3.The required open space shall not be reduced by more than 50 percent.
Attachment A—SVMC 19.70.050 Additional Standards
G.In mixed-use zoning districts,projects with residential components shall provide 210 square feet of open space
per dwelling unit conforming to the requirements of SVMC 19.70.050(F)and eligible for reduction for
improvements on the same basis;provided,that:
1.The requirement does not apply to the development of less than 10 new dwelling units;
2.Additional open space is not required for residential development located within 1,300 feet of a public park;
and
3.A fee in lieu of land dedication may be assessed for the development of public parks and open spaces to meet
the needs of the residents of the mixed-use zoning districts.Council will determine this assessment and review
it on an annual basis.
H.Residential development in nonresidential zones shall comply with the density and dimensional standards of the
MFR zone in Table 19.70-1,except single-family development in the NC zone,which shall comply with the density
and dimensional standards of the adjacent single-family residential zone.Where the NC zone abuts multiple single-
family residential zones,the zone with the higher density shall apply.Where there are no single-family residential
adjacencies to the NC zone,the density and dimensional standards of the R-2 zone shall apply.
I.New development exceeding three stories in height shall be served by paved service lanes that are at least 16 feet
in width.
J.The following design standards apply to all outdoor lighting in residential zones:
1.All new development shall provide lighting within parking lots,along pedestrian walkways,and accessible
routes of travel.
2.Lighting fixtures shall be limited to heights of no more than 24 feet for parking lots and no more than 16 feet
for pedestrian walkways.
3.All lighting shall be shielded from producing off-site glare,either through exterior shields or through optical
design inside the fixture,and shall not emit light above 90 degrees.
4. Street lighting installed by the City or other public utilities is exempt from SVMC 19.70.050(J).
K.Principal or accessory structures shall not be located within the clearview triangle pursuant to Chapter 22.70
SVMC.(Ord. 16-018 §6(Att.B),2016).
Attachment A—SVMC 19.70.050 Additional Standards
Multifamily Development Location within , \%„
67oo0000000
Zoning Districts and Proximity to Public Parks It:FE E��; oma e,,
IN
1ellesley Ave ° en 0' , e
and Public Trails (2013 - 2017) —, , w u)w -E- �' J o
`�� a :z.,
al u �° ° r o
n 'Pi /��G ���I o :ler
•
7. uclid .� — �A
j�/ �� ��/J���. �` Euclid e< Ave ❑�❑ ., _.—�/�4I4 Buc%%d AveEuc�.L Avee Buckeye o ��•0� " � � � ���
,..1 .‘e,,.1
� Ave �c�° g�merY °��' ‘I . �� �� :4
m ° ° �° °' Ave �t9.. ����fr 4,-
1,
���
w c l Mansfield �� 17.7•A,
❑ -Knox Ave o �
o,
Mission Ave / �% i u.ca,c';.Ave �.�� 4/".1011/ / 1 ��..Lfr�si: Ave ao
spy,. , ' // •i�1�., i , �
i/ 1164
r.7:,/
Broaiihiva
n a H 0-G ox c a B•oadwa aMa 8 s^ iliolP
— ` A - Y
// le
° 3rd Ave rril:■
° �� l4r Ar� f / ' / ❑
0 8th Ave '• - f ��Jr °ao a _ 'v 8th Ave a E ❑�^ 8t Ave°
° Y r o w Q moo; r�-
V16th Im■� n
❑ Ave il
x 16th Ave
EITIEEMITIEdCE173EMEELv.. OE yaw, eir
CtnEEERi
-a 25th e
• ,,,,„
0� 2 h Ave Ave F� th Ave 63717117117177P�4
0 91
, y
u
r7 ce
: .t00000d Legend
H m .o
�P y� :c . -5+ Multi Family Units Zoning
°°❑c 44th Ave a E.= Arterials MF
ID o T ? `d Appleway Trail MU
o oo / Centennial Trail CMU
Soo �� J E E7 1 Municipal Boundaries i Parks
v°�o��, 4nn
7 Lakes/Rivers
o %/� 1300ft Buffer
Table 1
Comparison of Amount of Open Space Provided Per Unit by Zone
Based On 22/Unit Acre Density
MFR SF provided MU open space MFR Zone Area Mixed Use Area
Units/Acre per unit requirement Provided (10%of Area) Provided
22 198 210 4356 4620
21 207 210 4356 4410
20 218 210 4356 4200
19 229 210 4356 3990
18 242 210 4356 3780
17 256 210 4356 3570
16 272 210 4356 3360
15 290 210 4356 3150
14 311 210 4356 2940
13 335 210 4356 2730
12 363 210 4356 2520
11 396 210 4356 2310
10 436 210 4356 2100
Open Space Area Provided Per Unit by Zone
500
450
400
350
300 -
250
200
:0500 -
50 — - I , II
0
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
•MFR SF per unit MU open space requirement
Total Open Space Area Required by Zones Comparing the Amount
Per Site and By Unit
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
MFR Area Provided Mixed Use Area Provided
Table 2
Open Space Survey of Multifamily Projects
Constructed Between 2013 - 2017
Project Name Address Number Zone Open Open
of Units Space Space
Required Provided
Appleway Court II 223 S Farr Road 24 CMU Yes Yes
Granite Point II 12925 E Mansfield 230 MU No Yes
Mirabolante Apt. 16102 E Broadway 233 MFR Yes Yes
Homestead Apt. 15720 E 4th Ave. 128 MFR Yes Yes
Barker Ridge 18517 E Boone 16 MFR Yes Yes
Riverhouse II 16801 E Mission 108 MU No Yes
Somerset meadows 4216 N McDonald 30 IMU Outside of study area
Broadway Villas 13420 E Broadway 25 MFR Not Yes
(Previously required
zoned R-4) in R-4
zone
4th and Blake 13313E 4th 88 MFR Yes Yes
Pence 6325E 6th Ave. 15 MFR Yes Yes
Whispering Pines 19106 E Sprague 31 R-3 Outside of study area
(previously
R-4)
Riverhouse II Senior 16807 E Mission Parkway 132 MU No Yes
Apt.
Bella Tess 17016 E Indiana Parkway 396 MU No _ Yes
Spokane Valley Villas 13420 E Broadway 11 MFR Yes Yes
Evergreen Fountains 1024 N Mamer 15 MFR No Yes
(Assisted
Living
Expansion)
Riverside Place at 12007 E Coyote Rock Dr. 18 MU No Yes
Coyote Rock
Sprague Apartments 16511 E Sprague 126 CMU Yes Yes
Valley Point 304 S Felts 8 CMU N/A
Townhomes
Granite Point III 12930 E Mansfield 184 MU No Yes
Pope Francis Haven 16412 E Sprague 52 CMU Yes Yes
4th Ave.Apt. 15913 E 4th Ave. 114 CMU Yes Yes
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: March 22, 2018
Item: Check all that apply nold business Fl new business n public hearing
n information Fl study session n pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: CTA-2018-0001
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session - Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A City initiated code text amendment to revise Section
19.65.020 Agriculture and Animal Keeping minimum lot area requirement from one acre to 40,000
square feet for the keeping of poultry and livestock (excluding chickens and beekeeping) and other
housekeeping items.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; and RCW 36.70A.106
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: The COSV incorporated in 2003 and utilized the Spokane County Development Regulation
as the City's Interim regulations. The residential zoning in place at that time did not allow animal raising and/or
keeping in any residential zones in the COSV.In 2004,the regulations were changed to allow animal keeping in
the Urban Residential Estate (UR-1)Zone. The minimum lot area for residential units was 40,000 square feet.
The number of animals allowed to be kept varied depending on the animal and size and was regulated as the
maximum number of animals allowed per acre. In 2007,the City adopted its own development regulations and
allowed animal keeping in all residential zones subject to a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.The number
of animals allowed per acre remained the same. The Code was amended to allow animal keeping associated with
residential uses in the mixed use zones subject to the same restrictions
During the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update,the minimum lot area required for
animal keeping in the residential and mixed use zones was increased to one acre,which inadvertently established
all lots below 43,560 sq. ft.,or one acre, as non-conforming uses. No changes were made to the number of
animals allowed. The code text amendment will return the minimum lot size to 40,000 square feet utilized from
2004 to 2016. The number of animals allowed,measured as an animal unit per acre,will not be changed.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The
Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the code text amendment
tentatively scheduled for April 26, 2018.
STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft revised SVMC 19.65.010
2. Presentation
RPCA Study Session for CTA-2018-0001 Page 1 of 1
Draft
19.65.020 SVMC
Agriculture and Animal Keeping Provisions
March 22, 2018
19.65.020 Agriculture and animal.
A.Animal Raising and/or Keeping.Where permitted, the keeping of poultry and livestock, excluding swine and
chickens,_is subject to the following conditions:
1. Minimum Lot Requirements.
a. In residential zones, the lot shall equal or exceed 40,000 square feet one gross acrc in
area, except as set forth in SVMC 19.65.020(A)(7)and (9).
b. In mixed-use zones with legally established residential uses, the lot shall equal or
exceed 40,000 square feet one gross acrc in area.
2. The keeping of swine is prohibited.
3.Any permanent or temporary structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited
to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, coop, hutch, or enclosure, or any manure pile, shall
not be located within 75 feet from any dwelling.
4. Permanent or temporary structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited to,
any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, coop, hutch, or enclosure, or any manure pile, shall not
be located within the front yard setback or be closer than 10 feet from any side property line.
5. The keeping of animals and livestock is limited as follows:
a. Not more than three horses, mules, donkeys, bovines, llamas, or alpacas shall be
permitted per gross acre; or
b. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acre; or
c.Any equivalent combination of SVMC 19.65.020(A)(5)(a)or(b).
6. Small Animals/Fowl.A maximum of one small animal or fowl (excluding chickens), including
duck, turkey, goose, or similar domesticated fowl, or rabbit, mink, chinchilla, or similar animal,
may be raised or kept per 3,000 square feet of gross lot area. In addition, a pen, shed, coop,
hutch, or similar containment structure shall be constructed prior to the acquisition of any small
animal/fowl and shall be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line and five feet from
side and rear property lines.
7. In residential areas, the keeping of chickens is subject to the following conditions:
a.A maximum of one chicken may be raised or kept per 2,000 gross square feet of lot
area,with a maximum of 25 birds allowed;
b. The keeping of roosters is prohibited;
CTA-2018-0001 Animal Raising and Keeping Min. Lot Size Page 1
c. Pens, coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall be kept a minimum of 20
feet from the front property line and five feet from side and rear property lines;
d. Pens, coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall be kept a minimum of 25
feet from dwellings on neighboring properties; and
e.All chickens shall be contained within the subject property.
8. Stables, paddocks, yards, runways, pens, coops, hutches, enclosures, structures, pastures,
and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
9. In residential areas, hobby beekeeping is subject to the following conditions:
a. The number of beehives shall be limited to one beehive per 4,356 gross square feet of
lot area;
b. Beehives shall be set back a minimum of five feet from a side or rear property line and
20 feet from the front property line;
c.A flyaway barrier shall be provided that is at least six feet high and consists of a solid
wall,solid fencing material, dense vegetation,or combination thereof, that is parallel to the
side or rear property line(s)and extends beyond the beehive(s) in each direction that bees
are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six feet above ground level over the property
lines in the vicinity of the beehives;
d. Beekeepers shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to the
hives; and
e. The beekeeper shall be certified by the Washington State Beekeeper's Association.
CTA-2018-0001 Animal Raising and Keeping Min. Lot Size Page 2
3/16/2018
Planning Commission Meeting
March 22, 2018
CTA-2018-0001 Animal Keeping Minimum Lot Size
Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.65.020.(A)(1)
Study Session
Purpose of Presentation
• Background Information
Comparison of one acre to 40,000 sf lots
• Overview of revisions to existing Animal Keeping
regulations(SVMC 19.65.020)
Historical Zoning and Lot Size (2003 -2016)
❑ 2003 No Animal Keeping Allowed in Residential Zones
❑ 2004 UR-1 Zone Adopted
▪Allowed animal keeping on 40,000 sf min lot area
■3 large animals/acre
❑ 2007—2016 COSY Adopted Development Regulations
o Established 40,000 sf as min lot area for animal keeping in
Residential Zones
■3 large animals/acre
1
3/16/2018
INTERIM ZONING MAP 2004
',V...:417, , , . de
j:;:.:.;: ::,,,10.,: } ,..,._yam - -
r.ll- I r —
UR- -, Y.
* -UR3f15 , 1 UR 7* .
Gr I �: 1 y
_
}`i Lv_ , - '')
Ponderosa UR-3.5 and UR_7*zoning Rofchford Acres UR_7*zoning
Historical Zoning and Lot Size (2016—present)
I
❑ Comp Plan/ Development Regulation Update
®Established 43,560 sf min lot area for animal keeping
• 3 large animals/acre
❑ Issue
®Update inadvertently increased the min. lot size
•Intent:Make the lot size consistent with animal keeping ratio
®Creates nonconforming animal keeping uses
Parcels o=40.00sg1[within Residential and Mixed Use Zones.'
_yI'y-{:r f t IQ` •
lL sF 1 ,e.,i��
Perini Ccunl-1301
j
._
,7. Leased
+ �._ zamng
A 5e'. , A.e..e.. n i mu
..-......_ .m
2
3/16/2018
�� -- ;" ..:�'°" ,' =rimes
o i i-
PafOli count >ID3&
��- rr j...,_,•.%
y� le�n9
/ -1 .14x ...wars :: :
Draft Regulations
19.65.020 Agriculture and animal.
A.Animal Raising and/or Keeping.Where permitted,the keeping
of poultry and livestock,cxcluding cwinc and chickcns,_is subject
to the following conditions:
1.Minimum Lot Requirements.
a.In residential zones,the lot shall equal or exceed 40,000
square feet one grocr acrc in area,except as set forth in SVMC
19.65.020(A)(7)and(9).
b.In mixed-use zones with legally established residential uses,
the lot shall equal or exceed 40,000 square feet one gro c acrc in
area.
Next Step
0
❑ Discussion - No action at this time
❑ Public Hearing April 26, 2018
O Date tentative - based on Comprehensive Plan
Amendments schedule
3