Loading...
Agenda 04/12/2018 SCITI POKane Valle y Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. April 12, 2018 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mar. 22, 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: CTA-2018-0002, A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.60 and 19.65 to allow hotel/motel in and industrial zone. ii. Study Session: FEMA Floodplain Review processes X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall March 22,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 5:58 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: Commissioners in alpha order Staff in descending order of importance Michelle Rasmussen Eric Lamb,Deputy City Attorney James Johnson Jenny Nickerson,Assistant Building Official Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschmitter Micki Harnois,Planner Suzanne Stathos Matthew Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary of the Commission Mary Moore,Office Assistant Commissioner Johnson moved to excuse Commissioner Phillips from the meeting. The vote on this motion was six in favor,zero against and the motion passed. II. Agenda: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the March 22, 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 22, 2018 and March 08, 2018 minutes. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: There were no reports. V. ADMINIS I'RATIVE REPORT: Ms. Lori Barlow, Senior Planner explained that the appeal for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CPA-2018-0003 was scheduled with the Hearing Examiner on March 15,2018 but has been deferred to March 27,2018 at 9:00 a.m. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no public comments. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Study Session: Review of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Open Space requirements in mixed-useMixed Use zones. Ms.Barlow, Senior Planner stated that during the March 8,2018 meeting,the commissioners requested some additional information pertaining to the following: • Where did the 210 square feet per unit of open space come from? Ms. Barlow explained that staff could not find any information why 210 square feet per unit was selected but they did do an analysis and found that multifamily zones have an fixed area per unit that fluctuates dramatically but in mixed useMixed Use zones it is a fixed number per unit. Multi-Ffamily residential area is always the same but the area per unit goes up as the density goes down and in the mixed useMixed Use residential,the overall area goes up as the numbers go up and there is no density limit and the area goes down as the number of units go down. • Multifamily projects located in mixed useMixed Use zones and how many were providing open space?Ms. Barlow looked over the permits for the last five years and was able to find that of the 21 multifamily project's all had provided some kind of open space.Commissioner Johnson confirmed there was no requirement for open space when a project was within 1,300 Gquare feet of a public park or a trail. • The Commissioners asked for additional information on impact fees. Mr. Eric Lamb,Deputy City Attorney, shared that Spokane Valley Municipal Code SVMC 19.70.050(G)(3) provides for a fee in lieu of land in the mixed-use zoning districts. Mr. Lamb said RCW 82.02.020 provides a voluntary agreement for a payment of a fee in lieu of dedication but it must be reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development or it must require to 03-22-18 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 mediate the direct impact of the development. RCW 82.02.050-82.08.090 allows for a more generalized impact fee. A study must beis conducted,a needs assessment is produced and then a fee is assessed on each new development. This is an arduous process and fees are adopted by ordinance by the Council. These are the basis for SVMC 19.70.050(G)(3) Commissioner Walton confirmed there currently is no fee. If a developer wanted to exercise this,they would need to do their own study on the impacts,and was conditioned for a park down the street from the project that might be acceptable. Commissioner Rasmussen asked if the regulation was eliminated could it be reinstated. Mr. Lamb replied it would be more work to bring it back. It would be a new regulation,which would start at the Planning Commission if the eCity Council decided they wanted to do that. Commissioner Rasmussen confirmed if the Commission recommended to leave it as is,the Council could change it.Mr. Lamb confirmed the Council has had discussions about impact fees and the direction has been consistently to not include them. Commissioner Walton confirmed that if SVMC 19.70.050(G)(3),a fee in lieu,were eliminated the open space requirement would be required of every development in a mixed useMixed Use zone. The 210 square feet would be the requirement for all development with more than 10 dwelling units. The requirement could be waived if the development was located within 1,300 square feet of a park or trail, but there would be no other option. Chair Rasmussen opened the floor for public comment. Arthur Whitten,Government Affairs Director _Spokane Homeowner Builders Association: Mr.Whitten shared there is a shortage of buildable land and people in the skilled trades encourage the development of a variety of housing options. He said we should be looking at ways to maximize the number of units and maximize development around major transit corridors, transit centers and commercial areas. His organization feels open space requirements hinder development in a higher density, urban styles that today's market seeks. Mr. Whitten observed that the Comprehensive Plan update incorporates language consistent with the proposal to remove this requirement, adopting development regulations are supportive of a variety of attainable housing options and the elimination would bring Spokane Valley, Spokane and Spokane County's development regulations some consistency. This code would not change onsite parking requirements, would not eliminate existing public open spaces and would not preclude a developer from providing innovative market driven amenities in mixed-use developments.Mr. Witten explained the Home Builders support the repeal of the open space requirement and encourage the support of the Commissioners. Ms. Barlow commented this regulation is currently in the municipal code and Council requested the Commission review it and make a recommendation to modify, eliminate or leave it is. Commissioner Kelley confirmed the City does not currently have impact fees. Commissioner Kelley also confirmed a developer could make a payment instead of having open space. Commissioner Johnson shared that prior public comments stated concerns about growth and building in mixed--use zones with offices, commercial and residential, which we the City does no°t have a lot of. here and tThe current code prohibits this. Commissioner Johnson said he would strike all of SVMC 19.70.050. Commissioner Walton said although he could agree with Commissioner Johnson, he was concerned builders would seek projects in this area to avoid some of these requirements,feeling the open spaces in the residential zones would shrink. Mr. Walton said eliminating the requirement doesn't further the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Kelly stated he would support taking the fee out and keeping the open space requirement.Commissioner Stathos wants to keep open space requirement.Commissioner Kaschmitter wants to keep green space requirement so children have places to play, and hesitates taking the fee away completely because of the process of trying to return it to the municipal code. Commissioner Rasmussen shared she is pro=green-space,supports mixed_use buildings that have a different clientele who want something walkable. She said for the sake of development of different types of affordable housing she would recommend removing the entire section. Commissioner Johnson said the lifestyle of the people moving into those residential uses is different. He said many people graduate from college and move somewhere else because the City doesn't have enough for the youth to do, for a good place to live or for jobs. There are a lot of people out there that have different needs for convenience and 03-22-18 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 affordability.He believes in people promoting change and a quality of life,not industry and it doesn't make any sense to keep the regulation. Commissioner Kelley explained when living in Boise they had impact fees which over time he hard seen them pay off and now the area is screaming with development however, he supports the open spaces. Commissioner Walton feels we have to have a vision for what our city should look like in the future but in the meantime, we have to look at what the current population desires. Ms.Barlow stated there seemed to be differing opinions on mixed_use zones versus the corridor mixed zones. Ms. Barlow said the Commissioners could separate the uses or the zones. The subject is much broader than just if it should be required or not and to consider all the options. Ms. Barlow reminded the members Liberty Lake requires open space and requires private space in the form of balconies and patios. Commissioner Stathos said she supports keeping green space requirements. Commissioner Johnson asked if Spokane and Spokane County have this stipulation. Ms. Barlow explained Spokane does not require open space in their mixed use zone because in mixed use zones there is a design element which requires layer of activities for a live/work environment. Spokane County does not require open space for multifamily in their mixed zones.The City of Liberty Lake has a requirement of open space bei that is 20% of the lot size and they require a private space requirements. Commissioner Kelley said developers could decide to develop in another jurisdiction because they will not have the restrictions there that we are discussing. Ms. Barlow responded we have developments now on the borders of the City but in order to attract residents there has to be amenities. Ms. Barlow confirmed the mixed useMixed Use and multifamily requirements could be treated differently in the code. Commissioner Walton moved to postpone further discussion of this topic to April 12, 2018. The vote on this motion was six in favor,zero against and the motion passed. Ms.Barlow asked if there is any more information she could provide the Commissioners to help them reach a recommendation.Chair Rasmussen asked for options that they could consider and what entities can be involved in the mixed use and the commercial use zones. Commissioner Stathos asked for information on separating out multifamily from mixed use and a suggesting compromise. Ms. Barlow was requested to research other communities in Washington including,Tri-Cities,Vancouver,Yakima, and Federal Way regarding their regulations for open space in a mixed use zone. ii Study Session: CTA-2018-0001, Proposed amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)19.65.020 Animal raising and keeping. Micki Harnois, Planner, gave a presentation regarding CTA-2018-0001 to revise animal keeping and minimum lot sizes from one acre to 40,000 square feet in the SVMC Section 19.65.020. The City incorporated in 2003 and adopted the Spokane County regulations as its interim zoning code which did not allow animal keeping in residential zones. In 2004 the UR-1 residential zone was adopted and the minimum lot size was 40,000 square feet and allowed three large animals per acre. In 2007,the City adopted its own development regulations and kept the 40,000 square feet in residential zones still allowing three large animals per acre. During 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, the corresponding changes to the development regulations updated the minimum lot size to 43,560 square feet(one acre) and kept the 3-three large animals per acre. This code text amendment would return the lot size for keeping large animals to 40,000 square feet, and keep the same number of animals. It would also strike the words excluding swine and chickens,as well. Commissioner Johnson asked if there was any possibility for a litigation.Ms. Barlow interjected this was simply returning the minimum lot size to for keeping animals to what it was historically.This is the lot size which determines whether or not you can have animals on your lot. . Commissioner Rasmussen confirmed someone who has a 40,000 square feet lot is allowed 2.6 animals. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the Good of the Order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. 03-22-18 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 Name,Michelle Rasmussen,Chair Date signed INameMary Moore, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® study session ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2018-0002 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session -Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Privately-initiated code text amendment to chapters 19.60 and 19.65 SVMC to outright permit a hotel/motel with a building footprint up to 25,000 square feet in the industrial zone and to permit a hotel/motel with a footprint greater than 25,000 square feet in the industrial zone with a conditional use permit. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.60; and RCW 36.70A.106 BACKGROUND: The amendment has been initiated by a private party through the code text amendment process. SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix identifies the uses which are permitted in each of the zoning districts. Hotel/motel uses are not a permitted use in the industrial zoning district as indicated by a blank cell in the permitted use matrix. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the matrix which will permit hotel/motel uses in the industrial zoning district with the application of supplemental use regulations. The proposed amendment would also amend SVMC 19.65.080 Supplemental use regulations. Language would be added to the section to outright permit a hotel/motel use with a building footprint up 25,000 square feet in the industrial zoning district on parcels fronting on a principal arterial. A hotel/motel use with a building footprint greater than 25,000 square feet in the industrial zoning district with frontage on a principal arterial would be allowed subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Principal arterials with frontage in the industrial zoning district are limited to Sullivan Road north of Interstate 90 and Broadway Avenue West of Interstate 90. Future principal arterials with frontage in the industrial zoning district consist of Barker Road north of the Spokane River. Under the current zoning regulation, the hotel/motel use is permitted in the Mixed Use (MU), Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), Regional Commercial (RC), and Industrial Mixed Use (IMU) zones. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the code text amendment on April 26, 2018. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner/Marty Palaniuk, Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Amendment to chapters 19.60 and 19.65 SVMC 2. Presentation RPCA Study Session for CTA-2018-0002 Page 1 of 1 19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix. Parks and Open Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Space R- R- R-1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Lodging Bed and breakfast P P P P P Hotel/motel P P P P Recreational vehicle park/campground S 19.65.080 Lodging. A. Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground. 1. The maximum net units per acre shall be 15; 2. Recreational vehicle stalls shall average 1,500 square feet; 3. Accessory uses including management headquarters, recreational facilities, restrooms, dumping stations, showers, laundry facilities, and other uses and structures customarily incidental to operation of a recreational vehicle park are permitted as accessory uses; 4. A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be set aside and developed as common use areas for open or enclosed recreation facilities. Recreational vehicle stalls, private streets, storage, utility sites, and off-street parking areas shall not be counted as meeting this requirement; and 5. The recreational vehicle park shall meet all Spokane Regional Health District and City regulations regarding sewage and B. Hotel/Motel in Industrial Zone A hotel/motel use is allowed in the "I" zoning district on sites with frontage on a principal arterial. If the proposed hotel/motel use has a building footprint greater than 25,000 square feet, a conditional use permit pursuant to 19.150 SVMC shall be required. Spokane Valley Planning Commission Meeting Study Session CTA-2018-0002 Hotel/motel Use in Industrial Zones April 12, 2018 PROCESS : : •� o© •z° Study Session Administrative ct aJ o •� April 12-2018 75 Report TBD •- N a ;94) C Ost 78 W Public Hearing Ordinance 1 : • . - April 26, 2018 , Reading TBD 4.,4..' �, •- o • c..) d : Findings of Fact Ordinance 2nd C2: May 10, 2018 Reading TBD 1.4 o 40 4 1-Vr 'V 1A1 - , A A Today Proposed SVMC Amendment Title 19 SVMC — Zoning Regulations 19.60.050 SVMC Permitted use matrix Add "S" in the Industrial Zone (I) column allowing hotel motel 19.65.080 - Lodging Add supplemental use language for hotel/motel in the "I" zone Proposed m ndmAnt e e 19.60.050 Permitted Uses Matrix Parks and Mixed Open Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space R- R- R- 1 2 3 MIR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS ,Assembly, light P P P P P Manufacturing,light P P Add an "S" to the "I" Processing,light P P column indicating the use Recycling facility S S S S is permitted subject to Industrial service p p supplemental use Lodging regulations. Bed and breakfast PPP P P Hotel/motel P P P P Recreational vehicle park::campground S Proposed m ndmAnt e e 19.65.080 Lodging... A Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground. 1.The maximum net units per acre shall be 15; 2. Recreational vehicle stalls shall average 1,500 square feet; 3.Accessary uses including management headquarters, recreational facilities,restroorns, dumping stations,showers,laundry facilities, and other uses and structures customarily incidental to operation of a recreational vehide park are permitted as accessory uses: Add supplemental use language for hotel/motel in the "I" zoning district 4.A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be set aside and developed as common use areas for open or enclosed recreation facilities. Recreational vehicle stalls,private streets,storage,utility sites, and off-street parking areas shall not be counted as meeting this requirement and 5.The recreational vehicle park shall meet all Spokane Regional Health District and City regulations regarding sewage and B. Hotel/Motel in Industrial Zone 1. A hotel/motel is allowed in the"I"zoning district on sites with frontage on a Principal Arterial. ,f the proposed hotel/motel has a building footprint greater than 25,000 square feet,a conditional use permit pursuant to 19.150 SA/MC is required. Hotel /Motel Use Hotel/Motel permitted in the following zones: Mixed Use (MU) Corridor Mixed Use Regional Commercial Industrial Mixed Use Vicinity MapSample HotelsMotels A _mi._ ,11.. 811 m 4 „. e re grill TWA r4tt4�' 7-2 _ WA 299 4an'' ` 'i _ — WA 29G: 'WP.29P o 4i.. ,�.7N�.,r Rodeway ”°„ �.. aQ g La Quinta Inn Inn CX Suites 54R 249 - - '- Kaiser Alummum E R•`• _ _ —Millwood f a l s fucliA avenue parr ;•:$2 :...-4'73-r"..--- _-INA 290 '''”— ['3iT.Tdia,r�'r,ue ,. _ .---------' ,,---...N.:"'-' .-m.y �C kea6P7:ma PtefR r7 s ` S East Febtaibil AVzl a. Ea511.1its: q, ,e .es[tf as u rrt ,� s,Si_ '' �- East Miasma/warm, Spokane Valle,, c e,a,v,t.,,,u,- _ p: 1.4nt eruadway Maker ',e./A?7 Ea.,.a,C.dwa•Axe,4 2 t 4.=36,,,`, e. z 9 x ua^ --- 4/ _ ._..Easx5grag,ieAvent.e- ' 1 906., 1%1Bu - -- 999 Bun EastiPraque Aveiiur, .__ _._ 19tiMy Space aus . 19C8us • 0d5 .. E996us 7 p ('''''i Extended Stay Fast Etti+wende .. �'. '!1A'LJ - `--`'t, 9- Urshrnan` Y. HOS Nnrurof L Resources y . Canservatrnn. 1 Arco ' E2st'16th Avenue, Easr,6.,Aye^Ve KA 77 Eas[95tri AYenue: - - I 11 mn I Existing Hotel /Motel — Recent Development My Place Extended Stay Hotel — 16106 E Indiana Ave r 7._ - - �YP�8� 6,e�s • Constructed in 2014 "�"``"' Ie ti•.• • Only hotel constructed in the City y • � ; " within last 5 years • Building Footprint = 28,594 sf • Site = 55,717 sf J - =� ,�. , jam- = r, • Features 64 quest rooms .x Existing Hotel /Motel — in industrial " area " La Quinta Inn — 15520 E Kiernan Avenue ' �f • Constructed in 1997 "' • SC Zoning Light Industrial when built _ ►La4uA4a1nrn&� • Current zoning CMU Suites Spokane alley -_ • Building Footprint = Approximately r-lie— , � ,__ 15,000 sf �„_ _; l'-kms.. Site = Approximately 63,500 sf . 1 +� Features 65 guest rooms a , ExistingHotel Motel — in industrial district zoning Rodeway Inn & Suites — 6309 E Broadway Avenue iii. _ . _,. : ` � , ' ;;; _ - .L • Constructed in 1955 — Remodeled in • � 1998 a..,,,.,a. Irii II."' it, - 1998 Zoned B-3 ir it6;::. ' � 0. • Current zoning Industrial `'"`' i °,` •- ` • Building Footprint = 2 buildings each ,..-.)„, ,4 ,,. r _ approximately 10,000 sf r • Site = Approximately 86,000 sf e - i Features 65 guest rooms Y +- « - _ ice. '� _ I� i'� a - r ZoningAllowed �.-..�-. . ."1...p. ®µ ..� .. elle sley Ave L. aye 4.1. LL r4edi li. cliEuclid d nuc ✓ud,Ave EuldpeAvli � ® i Buckeye - *A=Fm IWO rjS Knox Av p8�pn,Ma [eltl Ave 16-..-• - Indiana Anne s 1 .��� Mja [sen A I Mission Bea qM'I'� Mission Ave I C II ¢4 g.g iti c �� LL Ave B * ir,. q Broadway Ave y `[ _ (Prppl iiili a A a• `I• . S a II ��te'' ,re 6th Are 2 dth Ave o 1_a MI BM Ave¢ _- Z m nth Ave b0'M f _sp 81 Ave• E v 4 rI rj 76lh F • �4. Avu i � 16th Ave J I L....—.•-.14 oRa =d_ 2 h Ave 2me 9�a 3Q 24th Ave _ 9�3 a mp •�� ,4! ...A� 32nd Ave I g& 1 II ¢b n I w ffi Legend I q ft Zoning FederalFanUionaEClassUesc 44th Ave _ - T'' d Mll Urban Major Collector a MI CMU-Urban Mlnor Arterial ......1 -RC Urban Other Principal Arterial Sys• -WU Industrial Zone ❑ Allow all types of industrial uses ® Examples: manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly, disassembly, and freight handling , .. . _ .... .. . . _ : • -.„-..... ,:_•.- ,„,_-. ,-- ,, . _, . - _.....:. _ „ ., ..,:.,,,,,i,,,p.,1,--..i.,1 1 -,/ -V , i ., ' ".....T. ' '1111011 a . . -,.,„„ _,..,4,Z _ ;�"I ,,� -ri d= �t 1 1 ' 1 4. , �; . { = 1J I ►fit, �'a' �a 4 i - tr. " • ,ao;�.1 ” : i f� { w �. .- I A 5. Broadway Avenue Industrial Area Sullivan Road Industrial Area Industrial Zoning Street Classification ; . . t r -III IeygAve • z, Principal Arterial Future Principal Broadway Avenue ,,, .•y'',f� r t_. - 2 Arterial \ r„.1:71i a�l,tl � A is „q Euclid.1111 Barker Road row u. Buckeye qy Ave _.ylSirw[Yµ* -. - _F l' Knox Aver rha7,-4 altl Ave Intlfarta Ara •� e i „,,,__., Sit Mission AVe Maslen Avo pK Mission Ave I[ peva _ — ABroave eraadlaa 1. n g Broadway Ave _ 1I! w (Proal A . i spraaireAra — A, Alli ll'MR.. g it a 3rd AVO 4th Are L.4th Ars fflen C 4th Av ..1 3 1 a p Bili Ave E �, F i•■ alh Ave y ' va , r L._. 46th Are d_ Principal Arterial L.E•••El. 4 ;� 2AhAre 12<thAre Sullivan Road et,� 1� - ia m1 � �_ •yap II � j /•••X% 32Ad Ave 1 I i r _ a% W Legend 44th AveAre T d Zoning Federa lFunctionalClass Desc 1. _` I _Urban Major Collector Urban Muer-Arterial •• 7r.•114, ir —-Urban Cther Principal Arterial Airport • Much of the industrial area along the Principal ,, Arterial portion of Broadway Avenue is in the \ Airport Hazard Overlay. High Intensity \ r uses are not ', i permitted in til the AHOAve 15 e' Bucks s ii ie.' 2222.' ' a 1II 1 mismit I mi sake, -- � M� iar� 4v m�rm= m art \• 11111111M11 -141 13 : KIM +o `a a . — • . - — Applevo '! 3rd A�vo 1-u Pro osed ZoningMap HotelMotel Use Allowed r._..„-F--,, LI 31agai,i, .i 1 n ellesley Aver 33 ��,� o —CIS �'r,. -•� ara • e —,...i -• ' � SWIM' ms•¢1 Ave - - t'rrof Elfdltl Ave `pse Buckeye �a �r q d� Ave ) fk gv^'ary'rq Are 3 'Ik i �. waw S Knox ao+e MarsReta,Ave r Intl iarm A i 1' .. Mission Ave I Mission irate p'47'q Mission Ave Ii sa /, G @o- .7 '14 .+ Broadway - p 2 Broadway Mc, 1L.T. lPrep} 6 > 5 a A • x e = II 110. a • ir. a 41h Ave - h l"�e n i Blh Ave �, e� A l a OM Ave ir,_. m .e M Ave• a . .w 1fih kr .-. ml m Ave • • lath Ave $alteg _1 'L_...y. 4 *ad en 24th Awe peps c 24th Ave 4, •% .*S L .4 ��A 32nd Ave 1 { i Legend 'r i Zoning FederalFunction a IC lassDesc ti .jF MU -Urban Major Collector 94th Ave T'. d 11.1 CMU Urban Minor Arterial 5 -RC -Urban Other Prin crow ArterisI r....1 -IMU t . En Jurisdictional Survey Allows Hotels in Industrial Zones Limitations Spokane Yes / Conditional Light Industrial > 60,000 sf — CUP Heavy Industrial > 20,000 sf - CUP Spokane County Yes / No Light Industrial - Permitted Heavy Industrial — Not Permitted Richland Yes / No Medium Industrial — Not Permitted Heavy Manufacturing - Permitted Kennewick No Not Permitted in any industrial zone Permitted in "Business Park" zone Pasco Yes Permitted in light, medium & heavy industrial zones Yakima No Not permitted in light or heavy industrial zones Federal Way Yes "Commercial Enterprise" zone Liberty Lake No Not permitted in Light Industrial Conditional Use Permit Criteria ❑ Consistent with Comp Plan, character and appearance of existing uses ID Shall not hinder or discourage permitted development or use of neighboring properties ❑ Modification to standards must mitigate impacts in a manner equal to or greater than Title 19 SVMC Conditional Use Permit Criteria o Use does not conflict with health and safety u Proposed location does not result in an over- concentration of the use u Pedestrian and vehicular traffic will not be hazardous or conflict with existing traffic u Adequate public facilities/services exist to support the use. Conditional Use Permit Conditions � Control of the use u Greater setbacks ❑ Special landscaping, screening, fencing, signing, parking, other general development standards ❑ ROW/easements, street and drainage improvements ❑ Limited vehicular ingress and egress Conditional Use Permit Conditions ❑ Control of noise, vibration, odor, glare, other environmental consideration u Restricted hours of operation ID Duration or time limitations for certain activities u Other reasonable restrictions, conditions, safeguards 21 QUESTIONS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: April 12, 2018 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: N.A. AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Overview of FEMA Floodplain Revision Process DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: N.A. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: • Chapter 21.30 Spokane Valley Municipal Code; • Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44: Emergency Management and Assistance: o Ch. 1, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security • Part 60: Criteria for Land Management and Use • Part 65: Identification and Mapping of Special Hazard Areas • Part 70: Procedure for Map Correction, and • Part 72: Procedures and Fees for Processing Map Changes BACKGROUND: Within the City are six Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) also known as 100-year floodplains. Four of these floodplains are in some phase of being studied and revised. The purpose of this discussion is to provide a high-level overview of the steps involved in revising a SFHA. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion/Information only. No action is required. STAFF CONTACT: Henry Allen, Senior Engineer; Deanna Horton, Admin Assistant, Certified Floodplain Manager(CFM) ATTACHMENTS: 1. Table of Revisions Requests 2. PowerPoint Presentation RPCA Public Meeting for CTA-2017-0004 Page 1 of 1 Floodplain Revision Requests: (Information compiled from www.fema.gov) Applicability Map Change Request Letters(applies to everyone—citizens,gov't,etc.) Fee Response Time Insurance Reg's Single/ 6 "Small"Revisions = multiple lots These requests can only be used for Letters of Map Amendment(LOMA)- Free FEMA will notify the Although DHS-FEMA may 44 CFR Ch. situations where: • For property owners that think their structure or property was incorrectly mapped in a flood zone requester of the issue a LOMA or LOMR-F 1,Parts 65 • Just change floodplain limits • A letter from DHS-FEMA stating that an existing structure or portion of land or entire property that has not been determination in removing a structure(s) and 70 • No change in Base Flood Elevations elevated by fill(so is at natural grade)would not be inundated by the base flood and so removes the structure or land writing within 60 days from the SFHA and (BFEs), from the SFHA of the date of receipt eliminate the federal • No change in floodway boundary Conditional Letters of Map Amendment(CLOMA)— $500/$700 of all required data flood insurance purchase delineations, • A letter from DHS-FEMA stating that a proposed structure that is not to be elevated by fill(so on natural grade)would (Online) requirement as a • Property is not in an alluvial fan not be inundated by the base flood if built as proposed May involve a couple condition of federal or area, • Does not officially say item is outside SFHA,LOMA does that rounds of reviews federally backed • Property and/or structures have • Once the project built then submit another application with the as-built conditions to receive a LOMA financing,it is the lending not been elevated by fill placed Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill(LOMR-F)— $425/$800 institution's prerogative within the regulatory floodway, • A letter from DHS-FEMA stating that an existing structure or portion of land or entire property that has been elevated (Online) to require flood • Project is not a flood control by fill(usually during construction)would not be inundated by the base flood and so removes the structure or land insurance,as a condition improvement such as from the SFHA of a loan regardless of channelization project or Conditional Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill(CLOMR-F)— $500/$800 the location of a bridge/culvert replacement project • A letter from DHS-FEMA stating that a proposed structure or portion of land or entire property that will be elevated by (Online) structure,if it deems fill would not be inundated by the base flood if the structure is built as proposed or fill is placed on the parcel as such action appropriate. Use MT-EZ(one structure or lot)or MT- proposed 1 Form • Does not put item outside SFHA,LOMR-F does • Must include documentation of Endangered Species Act compliance • Once the project built then submit another application with the as built conditions to receive a LOMR-F "Big"Revisions These requests are used for situations Letters of Map Revision(LOMR)- $7000-$9000* FEMA will respond Structures in SFHA 44 CFR Ch. where changes are happening to • Revisions limited to a single map (Online) generally within 90 receiving federally 1,Parts 60, floodplain widths,floodways,flood • A letter from DHS-FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show changes to floodplains,floodways,or flood days of the date all backed financing are 65,and 72 elevations or zone designations elevations required data,forms required to be covered • Revises flood hazard information on a flood map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the paper map and processing fees by flood insurance Requires engineering analysis by panel though the electronic online map may be updated are received Professional Engineer Conditional Letters of Map Revision(CLOMR)- $6500-$7000 Structures receiving • A letter from DHS-FEMA commenting on whether a proposed revision(CLOMR)project,if built as proposed,would (Online) May involve several federally backed Use MT-2 Form meet minimum NFIP standards for map revision rounds of reviews financing that are outside • Does not change floodplains,LOMR does SFHA but in properties • Must include documentation of Endangered Species Act compliance Basic process can with SFHA may still be Physical Map Revisions(PMRs) $7000- easily take 18 months required to have flood • One or more map panels are physically revised and republished $9000* insurance by Lender • Includes public outreach,a community comment period and a 6-month compliance period to update ordinances (Online) Notes: *Cost is free if change is based solely on submission of more detailed data Base Flood—the 1-percent-annual-chance flood a.k.a.the 100-year flood/SFHA—Special Flood Hazard Area—the 100-year floodplain / BFE—Base Flood Elevation in the SFHA Amendment—for structures or property that are on natural high ground above the BFE and so are actually outside of the SFHA;Revision-for structures or property that,due to implementation of physical measures,end up above the BFE and so outside of the SFHA J u � FEMA FLOODPLAIN REVISION PROCESS OVERVIEW HENRY ALLEN, SENIOR ENGINEER DEANNA HORTON, CERTIFIED FLOODPLAIN MANAGER, AA 1 v FOR THE RECORD • UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES: • FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARIES CAN BE CHANGED • STRUCTURES/HOUSES CAN BE BUILT IN FLOODPLAINS • OUR CODE ALLOWS THE ABOVE 2 Parker Draw* .�1 Spokane River SPOKANE 6- 100 year floodplains with 4 in some phase of revision VALLEY GIenrose* Shelley Lake/Saitese geek"' Central Park* FLOODPLAINS Dishman Hills *in some phase of revision Chester Creek -1. • 1 3 GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION • IN 1968, THE U.S. CONGRESS PASSED THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE ACT WHICH CREATED THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP). THE NFIP WAS DESIGNED TO REDUCE FUTURE FLOOD LOSSES THROUGH LOCAL FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR PROPERTY OWNERS AGAINST POTENTIAL LOSSES VIA INSURANCE. THE FLOOD DISASTER PROTECTION ACT OF 1973 AND THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM ACT OF 1994 MANDATED THAT FEDERALLY REGULATED, SUPERVISED, OR INSURED FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND FEDERAL AGENCY LENDERS REQUIRE FLOOD INSURANCE FOR BUILDINGS LOCATED IN A PARTICIPATING NFIP COMMUNITY AND IN AN SFHA (A.K.A. THE 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN). • TO RECEIVE FLOOD INSURANCE THE NFIP REQUIRES THE COMMUNITY TO ADOPT FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCES THAT MEET CERTAIN MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS INTENDED TO REDUCE FUTURE FLOOD LOSSES. • SPOKANE VALLEY IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE NFIP. WE HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES TO REGULATE DEVELOPMENT IN FLOODPLAINS. 4 `� FEMA approves flood studies and then s: JA L ^ U publishes flood hazard maps, called Flood i `�': ° 5` Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), based on the • `�_: studies which show the areas that are ;,;, i F y H subject to flooding and the risk associated : : :\FN.:a.. \ with these flood hazards. IMF __ t < . \ t, FLOODPI Some areas shown on the FIRM: r • Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is the area that has a 1 -percent-annual or HAZARD WIT �i ` { < t 1 ` greater chance of floodingin anygiven MAPSl i\ `i year; this area is also referred to as the 100-year floodplain. r • Floodway is the channel area and ZONE AE- , ., % adjacent overbanks that must be reserved in order to discharge the 100- year flood without cumulatively `` t ° increasingthe water surface elevation � by more than a designated height. 5 Apr- 1 Percent Annual Chance Floodplain Floodway Floodway ,� Floodway Fringe �" Fringe FLOODPLAIN/ 9 F LOO DWAYwok HIM RELATIONSHIPniALSurcharge n UI n nup to 1 foot v H ti i li_ ui 5 —.__________________H . Stream First determine Base Flood Channel Elevation then Floodway 6 .11 di WHY REVISE FLOODPLAINS? BENEFIT: ACCURATE RISK AWARENESS AND INSURANCE COVERAGE TRIGGERS FOR REVISIONS: • SOME AREAS DON'T HAVE FLOOD ELEVATIONS (ZONE A - DETAILED STUDY HAS NOT BEEN DONE) • SOMETIMES FLOOD BOUNDARIES ARE INCORRECT • CHANGES IN LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT • NEW BRIDGES, CULVERTS • UPDATED TOPOGRAPHY, HYDROLOGY (REVISED RAINFALL DEPTHS) In Spokane Valley the two primary ways map updates happen are 1 ) FEMA initiated or 2) Community initiated. 7 FEMA INITIATED MAP REVISIONS Tapo&Flood Hazard Data Development Preliminary Mapping Needs Project S 9 Post-PreliIunary Assessntient Process'rig Report& Pry 4 steps: 1 . Mapping Needs Assessment: collect info (e.g. claims) and evaluate need for map revision, meet with public 2. Project Scoping: research data needs and flood areas to be mapped, costs 3. Topo and Flood Data Dev/Report and Map Prod: obtain topographic data > performing engineering analyses > delineate floodplain boundaries > prepare flood insurance study (FIS) reports > meet with community officials to get feedback > revise the FIRM > prepare news release 4. Processing: • FEMA issues the new or updated FIRM and FIS report for review and comment > hold public meetings > start a 90-day appeal period (submit scientific or technical data) > FEMA will consider and evaluate all comments and issue a letter of final determination • Initiate compliance period with Community (usually lasting 6 months) during which Community makes any necessary changes in their floodplain management ordinances • Printing and distributing the final FIRM and FIS report. 8 * Process time typically more than 5 years, Example: Chester Creek — started in 1990's, finished in 2010 COMMUNITY INITIATED MAP REVISIONS - "SMALL" 1 ) REVISION BASED ON CURRENT CONDITION: LOMA, LOMR-F (SEE TABLE) Prepare materials FEMA comments or FEMA issues LOMA, LOMR-F and -00 and send to FEMA accepts materials map is amended/ revised * PROCESS TIME: TWO-THREE MONTHS 2) REVISION DUE TO PROPOSED CONDITION: CLOMA, CLOMR-F (SEE TABLE) Prepare materials ,-_ FEMA comments or Construct project FEMA FEMA issues showing proposal accepts materials and send as-built comments or LOMA, LOMR-F and send to FEMA and sends CLOMA, info to FEMA for accepts and map is CLOMR-F review materials amended/ revised * PROCESS TIME FOR CLOMA/ CLOMR-F: A FEW MONTHS LOMA: Letter Of Map Amendment; LOMR-F: Letter Of Map Revision based on Fill n CLOMA: Conditional Letter Of Map Amendment; CLOMR-F: Conditional Letter Of Map Revision based on Fill 7 COMMUNITY INITIATED MAP REVISIONS - "BIG" 3) REVISION BASED ON CURRENT CONDITIONS: LOMR (SEE TABLE) Prepare materials FEMA comments or FEMA issues LOMR and and send to FEMA accepts materials map is revised * PROCESS TIME: 1 YEAR FOR SMALL SCALE AND YEARS FOR WATERSHED SCALE, EXAMPLE — SALTESE CREEK STARTED SUMMER 2011 AND WAS SENT TO FEMA FOR FIRST REVIEW ON MARCH 8, 2018 4) REVISION DUE TO PROPOSED CONDITION: CLOMR (SEE TABLE) Prepare materials FEMA comments or Construct project FEMA comments FEMA issues showing proposal accepts materials and send as-built or accepts LOMR and and send to FEMA and sends CLOMR info to FEMA for materials map is review revised * PROCESS TIME: YEARS FOR LARGE SCALE REQUESTS, EXAMPLE — FORKER DRAW STARTED SCOPING 2010 AND RECEIVED CLOMR MARCH 15, 2018 LOMR: Letter Of Map Revision; CLOMR: Conditional Letter Of Map Revision 1 0 LOMR: PAPER MAP NOT CHANGED, ELECTRONIC MAP MAY BE CHANGED 23 5 F 9TH AVENl1F .~---, - ZONE X �' _, - - ;r' • 4 4 — at, - s ' 1 .. _...----__,_--r—�_ F , •t 4 ft—ffri . CITY OI', SP H r _� _ 20 1wE 5; lam. _ f3TH w AVENUE ', �d7242 �.j + a. IS 11 °-5'fY(� 1 s e Y i + s ' E `n 14TH AVENUE p i w - o ff „se,' �$ �,. - .4 1 yY,.,i,q, J'. 4 A )(7 z E 15TH AVENUE iE TET11 ROAD h � i` _ �i �.i' -��11 * Y i. ( !r'ltl ' . .1- �/'. :'f+�... ' * ate— si .� r�Ik '4t -f, , .a .4.. ft: ' 12 999 x _c } � • . Uy EGANE'A I ti ZONEX P� _ Okii.- iLr' w ` k r t,. r y r ► Kipi / w a + 'i CIO a = - =11. -'. _ a QUESTIONS? a a - _, .., . A„. ._... ,. -1.04.-:- . -... ..- 4..- - "Illif'4 A �Q tr � _ -- Jr-- - _ -fir ^ - - - — : _- �µ - - - - _ � f.�- _,. - -s: 7I7 00177 � -® s - 4