Agenda 05/10/2018 SCITI
POKane
Valle
y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave.
May 10, 2018 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0002, a privately initiated amendment
to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.60 and 19.65 to allow
hotel/motel in Industrial zone.
ii. Deliberations: 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendments
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: May 10, 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: PC Findings and Recommendation - Amendment to the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code(SVMC)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Privately-initiated code text amendment to SVMC 19.60.050
and SVMC 19.65.080 to allow a hotel/motel in the Industrial Zone subject to a conditional use permit
(CUP)if the building footprint exceeds 25,000 square feet.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150, and SVMC 19.30.040; and RCW
36.70A.106
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
amendment at the April 26, 2018 meeting. Testimony was provided by the applicant however
there were no other public comments. Staff provided alternative amendment language that is
more congruent with the language and organization of the SVMC.
After hearing public testimony on the proposed amendment, the Planning Commission is
required to make findings and to forward a recommendation to City Council. During
deliberation on the proposed amendment, the Planning Commission considered whether the
proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations, develop
standards and whether the amendment benefits the community.
The Planning Commission voted 5-2 in favor of recommending approval of the amendment
using the alternative language provided by staff identified as Attachment 2.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the Planning Commission Findings
and Recommendation for CTA-2018-0002 or provide staff further direction.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner/Marty Palaniuk, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report and Findings CTA-2018-0002
2. Revised Proposed Amendment SVMC 19.60 and SVMC 19.65
3. PC Findings and Recommendation CTA-2018-0002
RPCA PC Findings and Recommendation fon CTA-2018-0002 Page 1 of 1
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING&PLANNING
SpCnokane
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-2018-0002
STAFF REPORT DATE: April 18,2018
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: April 26, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A privately-initiated text amendment to SVMC 19.60.050 and SVMC
19.65.080 to allow a hotel/motel in the Industrial zone subject to a conditional use permit(CUP)only if the
building footprint exceeds 25,000 square feet.
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to SVMC 19.60.050 and
SVMC 19.65.080 are consistent with minimum criteria for review and approval, and with the
Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF CONTACT:Martin Palaniuk, Planner and Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: CTA-2018-0002 Application, attachment and proposed amendments to chapter 19.60.050
SVMC, and chapter 19.65.080 SVMC.
Exhibit 2: Staff revised proposed amendments
Exhibit 3: Presentation
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The
following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal.
Process Date
Application Submitted February 21, 2018
Determination of Completeness February 26, 2018
SEPA—DNS Issued March 23, 2018
Published Notice of Public Hearing: April 6, 2018
Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to April 18, 2018
Adopt Amendment
PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposal is to allow hotels and motels on sites with frontage on a principal
arterial in the Industrial zone. If the building footprint is greater than 25,000 square feet,the use would be
subject to a conditional use permit. The proposal modifies the SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Uses Matrix
and SVMC 19.65.080 Lodging- Supplemental Use Regulations. The intent is to allow hotels/motels in the
Industrial zone, but keep the hotel/motel location on the perimeter of the industrial areas to minimize
conflict with industrial related activities, such as truck traffic and hazardous operations. The Applicant has
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0002
noted its view that hotels are needed in the Industrial zone to provide proximal lodging for commuting
workers — an evolving trend where workers commute to the job, but maintain permanent residence
elsewhere.
Analysis:
Currently hotels and motels are allowed in four zones, (see Table 1 below) without supplemental
regulations. The proposed amendment would permit hotels and motels in the Industrial zone only if the
site has frontage on a principal arterial. This limits potential sites to Industrial zoned properties adjacent to
North Sullivan Road (in the NE corporate limits) and a limited area along Broadway Avenue (in the
westerly corporate limits)that lies outside of the Airport Hazard Overlay Zone(AHOZ). Pursuant to SVMC
19.110.030(1)(E)(1)(f),high intensity uses are prohibited.
Table 1 Current Zoning Allowances for Hotels and Motels
Parks
and
Open
Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Space
R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR MU CMU NC RC !MU I POS
Hotelfmotel P P P P
The development regulations pertaining to a hotel/motel use in the zones that currently allow hotels and
motels were compared to the Industrial zone. The only difference in the regulations was that uses located
in the Industrial zone are exempt from landscaping requirements for the site and parking areas (See Table
2). In the absence of setbacks, height requirements, etc, in the Zoning Code, the International Building
Code(IBC)and the International Fire Code(IFC)will determine any setbacks,height etc.,It was noted that
transitional regulations are called out where properties of more intensive zoning abut less intensively zoned
properties. However, a review of the areas affected by the proposal notes that these circumstances do not
exist and therefore transitional regulations would not be triggered.
Table 2
Zoning Regulations Comparison
Regulations Zones
MU/CMU/RC/IMU I
Setbacks N/A N/A
Lot size N/A N/A
Lot coverage N/A N/A
Density N/A N/A
Height N/A N/A
Landscaping Required for site and parking areas Uses in the Industrial Zone are
and Fencing pursuant to chapter 22.70 SVMC exempt from the landscaping
Fencing, Landscaping and requirement for the site and parking
Screening areas; fence regulations are the same
Signage Required to same standard—based on"Nonresidential Zones"
Parking Required to same standard-based on"Use"
The lands capacity analysis presented in the September 2015 Existing Conditions Housing and Economic
Trends Report prepared for the Comprehensive Plan update identified that the City had at that time 1250
net buildable acres of commercial and industrial lands,with the majority of the lands located in the industrial
Page 2 of 5
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0002
zones. The analysis concluded that the city had sufficient capacity for commercial,industrial and residential
development for the twenty year planning horizon.
Exhibit 3.Buildable Commercial and industrial Land
Net The intent of the Industrial zone (I) is to provide
Net Underutilized Net Buildable lands for industrial development(manufacturing,
Zone Vacant Acres Acres Acres Share
1-2 379 208 587 46 9% processing, fabrications, assembly, disassembly,
1-1 201 65 266 21.3% ' and freight-handling) - uses that could have
MUC 105 4 109 8.7% significant noise,odor,or aesthetic impacts. Non-
FtC 44 52 96 7.7 6
industrial uses should be limited to preserve
CMUC 27 47 84 6.7% ,
28 29 57 4.5% industrial land viability but ancillaryuses should
C
0 25 7 32 2.5% be permitted to serve the industrial uses.
GO 9 5 14 1.2%
NC 3 2 5 0.4% The proposed CTA-2018-0002 also includes
Total 831 419 1,250 100.0%
amended language that provides that if the
proposed hotel/motel has a building footprint
greater than 25,000 square feet, a conditional use permit is required. The proposed language would allow
a development with as many floors and rooms as the site could support without a conditional use permit
(CUP)because the total square footage is not linked to a CUP.
This language suggests that a three—story, 75,000 square foot hotel or motel with a 25,000 square foot
footprint could be constructed without a CUP,but a smaller 2 story hotel with a total area of 55,000
square feet and a footprint of 27,500 square feet could require a CUP However maintaining a footprint of
25,000 square feet or less leads to a more intense use of the land with vertical construction and results in
preserving lands for industrial uses.
For comparison to understand the scale of such a structure the new city hall building has a total area of
43,000 square feet and three floors; a current building permit for a hotel includes a total area of 29,000
square feet and will include over 200 rooms. If the CUP process is linked to a footprint rather than the
total square footage, a CUP may never be required by virtue of design driving vertical development.
Impacts from a hotel or motel use would generally be addressed by the City's development regulations or
other agencies with jurisdiction,i.e.fire,water,sewer. The SVMC would address site development impacts
such as drainage, access, parking, signage, etc., Traffic impacts are typically addressed through the
concurrency requirement and mitigated through the SEPA review process. Large trip generators are
typically required to provide a traffic study.
Discussions with the Assistant Building Official note the following:
• The Building and Fire Codes (adopted by reference pursuant to Title 24 SVMC) generally dictate
property line setbacks and other protective measures where hazardous or dangerous uses occupy
buildings/sites. The Building and Fire Codes dictate property line setbacks due to the fact that the
development under consideration generally has no control over the existing or future development
of an adjacent site.
• If a large industrial parcel is developed with a hotel and the developer wishes to utilize the
remainder of the site for a hazardous industrial use,there could be restrictions which would dictate
no-build areas or fire lanes to provide the protection normally afforded by the property line setback
requirements.
A review of the regulations in place notes that all anticipated impacts from this use,including location and
proximity to other uses,would be addressed by existing regulations.
Page 3 of 5
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0002
The Applicant has noted that the market requires lodging uses to be proximal to the work place to provide
convenient alternatives for workers who may commute during the week and maintain a permanent residence
elsewhere,or lodging for the increased number of persons involved in routine visits that involve short term
stays and desire to be close to the site. Currently lodging is allowed in the four zones discussed above. The
analysis discussed in this report did not consider whether allowing lodging in the Industrial zone would
result in a significant shift of lodging uses to the industrial areas from the corridors based on land values,
nor consider the impacts to the industrial land capacity by allowing additional non-industrial uses. The
location of the land along arterials in the Industrial zone suggests a limited customer base with a direct
correlation to the viability of the site for hotels and motels. Requiring that lodging sites have principal
arterial frontage minimizes the opportunity for development and leads to a conclusion that the impact to
available industrial lands would be marginal.
A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT
AMENDMENT
1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
a. Findings:
SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria
i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that
(1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is supported by the Comprehensive Plan
and is consistent with the following goals and policies:
Goal ED-G1: Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane
Valley.
Goal ED-G4: Collaborate with relevant economic development stakeholders,
including the business community,to grow a strong and healthy regional economy;
Goal ED-G5: Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is
globally competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace.
Goal ED-G6: Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility,
predictability and stability.
Goal LU-G3: Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed—use
areas into accessible districts that attract economic activity;
Goal LU-G4: Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and
infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality.
Goal LU-P12: Maintain a robust supply of productive industrial land.
(2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
Staff Analysis: The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,
welfare and protection of the environment. The amendment allows hotel and motel
uses to locate proximal to concentrated work environments in specific areas that
limit conflict with industrial uses, and maintain adequate opportunities for industrial
development within the industrial zone. Further, anticipated impacts of the use
would be addressed by existing regulations.
Page 4 of 5
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0002
b. Conclusion(s):
The proposed text amendment is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC.
2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments
a. Findings:
No public comments have been received to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
In the absence of public comments, staff makes no conclusions.
3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments
a. Findings:
No substantive agency comments have been received to date.
b. Conclusion(s):
In the absence of substantive agency comments, staff makes no conclusions.
B. OVERALL CONCLUSION
The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and goals.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff makes no recommendation on the privately initiated code text amendment. However, if the
Planning Commission recommends approval of the code text amendment, staff has revised the
proposed code text amendment to be consistent with the terminology and format of the SVMC with
no substantive changes to content(see attached).
Page 5 of 5
April 18, 2018
CTA-2018-0002
Staff Revised Code Text Amendment Language
19.60.050 Permitted Uses Matrix
Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS
Agriculture and Animal
Animal processing/handling P
Animal raising and/or keeping SSS S S S
Animal shelter S P P
Beekeeping, commercial P
Beekeeping, hobby S S S
Community garden SSSSS S S
Greenhouse/nursery, commercial P P P
Kennel SS S SPP
Orchard, tree farming, commercial P P
Riding stable P P C
Communication Facilities
Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P
Repeater facility PPP P P P PP
Telecommunication wireless antenna array SSS S S S S S S S
Telecommunication wireless support tower SSS S S S S S S S
Tower, ham operator SSS S S S S S S S
Community Services
Staff Revised Code Text Amendment Language—CTA-2018-0002
Page 1
April 18, 2018
Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS
Community hall, club, or lodge PPP P P P P
Church, temple, mosque, synagogue and PPPPPP P P
house of worship
Crematory P P P P
Funeral home P P
Transitional housing C
Day Care
Day care, adult PPPPPP P P P P
Day care, child (12 children or fewer) PPPPPP P P P P
Day care, child (13 children or more) CCCPPP P P PP
Eating and Drinking Establishment PPP PPP S
Education
Schools, college or university P P P
Schools, K through 12 PPPPPP P P
Schools, professional, vocational and trade P P P P P P
schools
Schools, specialized training/studios PP P P
Entertainment
Adult entertainment and retail S
Casino P P P
Cultural facilities PP P P
Staff Revised Code Text Amendment Language—CTA-2018-0002
Page 2
April 18, 2018
Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS
Exercise facility S S S S
Off-road recreational vehicle use P P
Major event entertainment P P P
Racecourse P P P P
Racetrack P P
Recreational facility P P P P P P
Theater, indoor P P P
Group Living
Assisted living/convalescent/nursing home PPP P
Community residential facilities(6 residents or PPP P P P
less)
Community residential facilities(greater than 6 P P P
and under 25 residents)
Dwelling, congregate P P P
Industrial, Heavy
Assembly, heavy P
Hazardous waste treatment and storage S S
Manufacturing, heavy P
Processing, heavy P
Mining S
Industrial, Light
Staff Revised Code Text Amendment Language—CTA-2018-0002
Page 3
April 18, 2018
Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS
Assembly, light P P P P P
Manufacturing, light P P P
Processing, light P P
Recycling facility S S S S
Industrial service P P
Lodging
Bed and breakfast PPP P P
Hotel/motel P P P P S
Recreational vehicle park/campground S
Marijuana Uses
Marijuana club or lounge
Marijuana cooperative
Marijuana processing S S
Marijuana production S S
Marijuana sales S S S
Medical S P P P P P
Office
Animal clinic/veterinary S SS SS
Office, professional PP P P P PP
Parks and Open Space
Staff Revised Code Text Amendment Language—CTA-2018-0002
Page 4
April 18, 2018
Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS
Cemetery P P P
Golf course PPP P P PP P
Golf driving range CCC C P C PP P
Parks PPP P P P P P P
Public/Quasi-Public
Community facilities PPPP P P P P P P P
Essential public facilities R RR R R R RRR
Public utility local distribution facility SSSSSS S P PP S
Public utility transmission facility SSSS S S S S S S S
Tower,wind turbine support S S SS
Residential
Dwelling, accessory units S S S SS S SS
Dwelling, caretaker's residence SS SSS
Dwelling, cottage SS S S
Dwelling, duplex PPP P
Dwelling, industrial accessory dwelling unit S S
Dwelling, multifamily P P P
Dwelling, single-family PPP P P P P
Dwelling, townhouse SS S S S
Manufactured home park S S
Staff Revised Code Text Amendment Language—CTA-2018-0002
Page 5
April 18, 2018
Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS
Retail Sales and Service P P S P P S S
Transportation
Airstrip, private P P
Battery charging stations S SS P P P P P P P S
Electric vehicle infrastructure P P P P P P P
Heliport P P
Helistop C C P
Parking facility—controlled access P P P P P
Railroad yard, repair shop and roundhouse P
Transit center P P P P P
Vehicle Services
Automobile impound yard P P
Automobile/taxi rental P P P P P
Automobile parts, accessories and tires P P P P P
Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle painting, P P P P
repair, body and fender works
Car wash P P S P P P
Farm machinery sales and repair P P P
Fueling station P P S P P P
Heavy truck and industrial vehicles sales, P P
rental, repair and maintenance
Staff Revised Code Text Amendment Language—CTA-2018-0002
Page 6
April 18, 2018
Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS
Passenger vehicle, boat, and RV sales, service P P P
and repair
Towing P P P P
Truck stop P P
Warehouse,Wholesale, and Freight
Movement
Auction house P P P
Auction yard (excluding livestock) P P
Catalog and mail order houses P P P P P
Cold storage/food locker P P
Freight forwarding P P
Grain elevator P P
Storage, general indoor P P S P P P
Storage, general outdoor S S S S P P
Storage, self-service facility P P P P P P
Tank storage, critical material above ground S S
Tank storage, critical material below ground S S S
Tank storage, LPG above ground S S S S S S
Warehouse P P P P P
Wholesale business P P P P P
Staff Revised Code Text Amendment Language—CTA-2018-0002
Page 7
April 18, 2018
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
1. 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 is required.
Staff Revised Code Text Amendment Language—CTA-2018-0002
Page 8
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-2018-0002—Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E)the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare
and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings
are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Council adopt the amendment.
Background:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and
updated development regulations on December 13,2016,with December 28,2016 as the effective date.
2. CTA-2018-0002 is a privately initiated code text amendment to SVMC 19.60.050 and SVMC
19.65.080 to allow a hotel/motel in the Industrial zone on sites with frontage on a principal arterial
subject to a conditional use permit (CUP) only if the building footprint exceeds 25,000 square feet.
Staff provided alternative proposed amendment language that is more congruent with the language and
organization of the SVMC,but that is substantively the same.
3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on April
26, 2018. The Commissioners voted 5-2 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment
using the alternative language proposed by staff
Planning Commission Findings:
1. Recommended Modifications
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments as revised by staff
and attached in Exhibit 1.
2. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F)Approval Criteria
a. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan:
Findings:
Goal ED-G1: Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley.
Goal ED-G4: Collaborate with relevant economic development stakeholders, including the
business community,to grow a strong and healthy regional economy;
Goal ED-G5: Support and encourage the development of a strong workforce that is globally
competitive and responds to the changing needs of the workplace.
Goal ED-G6: Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility,predictability
and stability.
Goal LU-G3: Support the transformation of commercial, industrial, and mixed—use areas into
accessible districts that attract economic activity;
Goal LU-G4: Ensure that land use plans,regulations,review processes, and infrastructure
improvements support economic growth and vitality.
Goal LU-P12: Maintain a robust supply of productive industrial land.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0002 Page 1 of 2
b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and
protection of the environment.
Findings:
The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection os
the environment. The hoteUmotel use in close proximity to the job locations in the industrial
area adds a level of convenience that is currently not available to the people who travel to the
area and spend the preponderance of their time working in the industrial area. Additionally
the hoteUmotel use provides a positive economic impact to businesses in the area and to the
citizens of Spokane Valley.
3. Conclusion:
The proposed text amendment is consistent with Comprehensive Plan and bears a substantial
relation to public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment.
4. Recommendation:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council approve CTA-2018-
0002 as modified.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendment CTA-2018-0002
Approved this 10th day of May, 2018
Planning Commission Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Horton, Administrative Assistant
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0002 Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: May 10, 2018
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ®new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin.report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2018 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Public Hearing
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: On February 8, 2018, the Planning Commission was briefed on the 2018
Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs), and a public hearing was conducted on February 22,
2018. The public hearing was closed at that time.
On February 16, 2018 an appeal of the Determination of Non-Significance(DNS)issued for CPA-
2018-0003 was received by the City. Pursuant to Chapter 17.90 SVMC appeals related to State
Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)decisions are heard by the Hearing Examiner(HEX)and subject
to a public hearing. Due to the SEPA appeal it was determined that the public hearing scheduled
for February 22, 2018 in front of the Planning Commission would be conducted, but that
deliberations or further action would be deferred until such time as the HEX ruled on the SEPA
appeal. On March 27, 2018 the HEX conducted the appeal hearing. On April 17, 2018 the HEX
issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal.
At this point the Planning Commission will begin review and deliberations of the proposed CPAs
and make a recommendation to City Council. City Council may choose to adopt the proposed
individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the proposed
amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to modify a proposal,they
must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for
further consideration.
2018 CPA's: The Community and Public Works Department is processing three privately initiated
requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. In addition, the City is initiating two
proposed site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments. Sites approved for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment will also be subject to a change in a zoning designation consistent with the new
land use designation.
At this meeting, the Planning Commission will conduct deliberations on each proposed
amendments and consider the public testimony, application materials, staff report and other
applicable materials which have been included in the record. No additional testimony or
information will be provided. The minutes from the study session and public hearing are attached
for your information.
STAFF CONTACT:
Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, Martin Palaniuk, Planner
Karen Kendall, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner
1 of 2
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: PowerPoint
Exhibit 2: Yellow Binder—previously provided
Exhibit 3: Meeting Minutes from the following dates: February 8, 2018 and February 22, 2018
2 of 2
01%,,
S1o14\umm4I
2018 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
Planning Commission Deliberations
May 10, 2018
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process
•O Study Session
O — V N
2-8- 1 8 Administrative
•-
E
.0 0 2 O .v Report
c CO — N c E Public Hearing c
71 .1–:7) E •_ U 2-22-18 O
a N a } a •E 0 0 DI U Ordinance 1st
< O �
O N Reading
a D .�- •u = •� Deliberations }
N C O5 4- O a
- 5-10-18 U Ordinance 2nd
Q �'-' Z
Reading
Findings of Fact
5-24- 18
® V 1,7 V
i CF
Today
SEPA Appeal — CPA- 2018 - 0003
_iiiii„in_in_
February 16, . Appeal of DNS Decision Received
2018
March 27, • Appeal Hearing Conducted by
201 $ Hearing Examiner ( HEX)
April 17, 201 $ • Decision issued by HEX — SEPA
appeal Denied
Approval Criteria — Staff Report Analysis
Required Findings Other Considerations
Supports public health, safety o Effect on Environment
welfare, and protects the ❑ Compatibility and impact on
environment existing uses and neighborhoods
Consistent with GMA and ❑ Adequacy and impact on
Comprehensive Plan services
Responds to a change in o Benefit to City and Region
conditions o Quantity, Location and Demand
Corrects an error for land
Addresses a deficiency o Projected population for area
o Other effects on Comp. Plan
2018 Amendments
s
Privately Initiated City Initiated
❑ CPA-2018-0001 i CPA-201 8-0005
❑ CPA Withdrawn 12 CPA-201 8-0006
❑ CPA-2018-0003 a CPA cifithdravol )7
CPA-2018-0004
Privately Initiated Map Amendment
CPA-201 8 -0001
Micki Harnois, Planner
C PA_2 0 1 8-000 1
7 _.IIII I t li..%;fir,MJ A. Z
z 7
c
c
i: I,
Project CPA-2018-0001 c'
€— awo_. , . ._§ .
Number: 7 2
, E •;:.
Applicant Robin Robin Petrie . I_
.. .., ,,, . .) ,. -
..
UJ Owners: Robin R & Lori A Petrie
> Audrey N Green
et ./
e E
1.1 j Proposal: Change the land use
> designation from SFR
0 pp ortu r7ity
0 to MFR and the zoning : Project Site
,
from R-3 to MFR
- ,
ii_ 11 E: L ,. .. l ':
E3i
I I I I I&—!
I I i
el 1_ .7.1_
E :.,A....
CPA-201 8-0001
EOEN-- -tie -
8 CMU
i
W Study Area
'alleyo.-a-a '
N a
ZQ 36E
W * 3
15h YAVESFR
124
VALLE 1 .2835
W Z "C E
dmVA�LLEYWAY AVE
Rilt_c_4r
Q
J = CMU MF
(1
0L ,
= MFR y
1 , iti_
M�_
V L -Eii.A. e
= SFR -- I- Nin.1._
-
CPA-2018-0001 ____I�, i�t'nYtRv��z '-I
9
Study Area
Q
.36 R_3
* ,
4515 Y AVE
0 _ 1
I . VALLE 2835
-r_
Z 6 E
Z V,'LLEYWAI'AVE
Z = CMU ' Y
M
0 ll
N = MFR '� L
MFR ��
am ye —
= R-3
Staff, Agency & Public Comment
Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment
o City's Public Works ❑ Concerns:
o Spokane Valley Fire Wildlife
Department No. 1 Character
o Sewer 0 Minutes contain
comments received at
o WSDOT public hearing
❑ STA
O
CPA-2018-0001 - _ism r _
r
11
I .0.0006,
own
. 1 _
, -1
,..
.....
, ._ . , r
•
PLANNING ,_,. . , , ,. - . , 1 i ' ...,
ia ... I I , ....
_._, , am. _ - ,
....,
I . . 00, 1 ,
yam..
COMMISSION1 4 11L-rs
DELIBERATIONS - '- - „ . .3i- , :..4;
4 it , .A._ ..4r ,“ , i_. , 1 ''''. .: 1 ,.„,, — , .4.
( F*rJ O ADDITIONAL :t 4 [i2a,_
s.
Pri lin.4V.9
pHiiiil _ ,. ter
rile
PUBLIC COMMENT) — Iii 1 .?
6
Privately Initiated Map Amendment
CPA-201 8 -0003
Martin Palaniuk, Planner
CPA-201 8_0003
, 7
13 _.111111111111._ ' ''. c F iiii11 aor,
i -
% -
S.1
Project CPA-2018-0003 7,46111 a•VP
Number
Applicant: Whipple Consulting . E Project Site
-,.
LU . . iiiho 4. ,2
Engineers
,.
>Ce Owners: & M „,.,
x 1 Dennisennis Melissa Crapo , .
.r
6"or
LU Proposal: Change the Land Use , .,.. .
tt-•'
_ .
0 Designation from SFR to
,
.f,
7
s.
c
t
ni
,
. - •C - il E T x c-R a I
CMU and the zoning '
from R-2 to CMU I
I
r —I
- „..
I — —
— ' 4 1
Nc-
q a
AW'
jt.._ .... :CPA-201 8-0003
' , -me _
- - '
•
11
' 's
,... , :- ,..,:,,. -
in Ma'orit of site is in the .��'
floodplain �-
-..-_,--. ,74
1n LII Approximate location ,, k -.Chester
❑ CLOMR in 2017 removed liP4 , ,.�4, _ ` �` -) e—
r
I- parcels south from N — '`'- *` .ICL , ,a
floodplain �i �- n ,, �i
Q Chester Creek d
E; '
Q (Type F stream) ;�� , ' -: �r '- .i' ,:.,' .
= Located north of site '4 ° '� � �
„..z.<--. -.-.. . - ._r..:
W Alluvium Soils , ' 1. �� ` i -
Entire site covered, no ' '"" ` "`�t �► - -;
N visual. ; � ..- '1, —, r ., '
C PA-2018-0003 \.,,,.. ..„._]„Ji.,\ .._ „,h_AL
,. � -44,
', CMNNJ U
is a ■
w .
,
SFR
LL
_ a t :
Cle Z j A\c'
ZQW r,_.\.,„.„.
Eli,
,X *
u N.,„4 --- I Stud
1.1.1 ,' ��0 CL � - ; ��� �� 'k �- 'Cm <
* .1 ,
r...9':''''.: '''
= CMU
::•'..--11:r1.11—'/\
0
.0.,
I FR
= SFR - N �
. I I____Li / \ /
\.,,t: _ ..-..._ ____.. ,E4Lith_A,,, . .
PA-2018-0003
CMU —
NN,
R-2 ii. ,
"Y.....%. 1 iii _
Cl.
QIC 4111
* 's ... , .'----- [ .---- .=:.-.:,.:.--:_;:l.1,.. .,, ,
Study Area
0Z
= CMU tIN y. - ;
0 WM . II pi
--,4--I
N ,= R-3 ¢ ' .
1 - R-2
I. I Illbr -,,,., : 1
11tE
b
Staff, Agency & Public Comment
Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment
❑ City's Public Works ❑ Traffic
❑ Spokane Valley Fire D Access
Department ❑ Neighborhood Character
❑ Sewer ❑ Floodplain
❑ WA St. Fish and Wildlife ° Schools
Minutes contain comments
received at public hearing
. .
CPA201 8-0003 5. 4. _ a _ _ C
-1..1,1, L17-17 -:
18 '1 1 ; - �= 1
sete
- .. , .-0„ .7 4._ i
i . i .. N.'', ... :_i.,M
PLANNING . 0 ,
....,..
41.--, r . - Nt -4.„ ---,,„,,,,,N.0,,,, f, . , :f
nr�
_ ,, a 4P1'7 friir
141: '..Al?ir;" 4.i r k.4 "..,-, IC
` 111
~) ,
CoMMIssIoN iIMO i,,,'''''',.,,,,,,!
. .'
DELIBERATIONS ..,,. 1111:1. vs. . ,,,
.., r- i!-- = _ . lir'
( No ADDITIONAL _ . - _ !p 1 . : . F
‘' . '� - Y• '"4.-.1! "„,„ . ,, ,_ .
PUBLIC COMMENT) > . 9 , ;f_, r #.
Privately Initiated Map Amendment
CPA-201 8 -0004
Martin Palaniuk, Planner
i 1 1-11-1
T ..
...
'S. c
— -1. H • -rii--- —
I MHIINI
CPA-201 8_0004 i 1_11
T 1_4 1_1
*City Htll —
20
I ] J
1
_
eswav Blvd --.1 __
N, ulyu
r "..-,,t-''-.4 '_ I III 1 [1
Project CPA-2018-0004 - LLI 1 1- ------ ' ' .t- F‘"1 A"::—r1 -1 1 ..71/--/1 1 I
._- I . I
Number
Applicant Heather Bryant
I _I
I tri iiI,ki _
U
III- Hi[ I I
- --"---mi--- . - ,,,-
Owners: - — I -II A_I-11,-,.._—_!. BINE, 1.
Steve & Tresa ..-..,:[ I I 4 11
-PI I I-InrWrnil I 111 1.11 III 6 Ay, 1-1 a
I
Cle Schmautz 1 .0111 ,, . „
LI-kith Au.:. - -
1 i 1 1-.. 1 Project Site 7---
LU _ _ ,=1-1- a . 1. -I
, , ,,
_ , ..,
,
Proposal: Change Land Use
r r
! FI7 '. II .11- I. I
III -
- r_
-M-= '' _.JILL, :E. !
T
±U! LL
0 Designation SFR to c -.,
,:= ..4 ,
,, . ,
0 . .L 1 Ht.Ave u ..
-
Z: 41 '2' l'"4—
i--- - :;E c ij —
F -i-EF
=
NC and the zoning .
, •,- , ,.
E .c
a --..--
L —
i 1 ,
•E
--- In - -4
..;!.. _j j.LUL117,,,P111 Flk—I 1
from R-3 to NC ._ ••:•• ..- ,
F TITER-Iil 119ff is
I ._
i
l
Ili.' MF iii - V-5,t1Ct
CPA201 8-0004
liiii, _ k>
21 ■
1
L
; /- _ ift
W _ E thAve •c S F
VI CL —_ - 7th Avenue
Z Q
ZLIJ Study Areap. —
9 _�
of ui
Y Rd
Z 'r L-E•atia AW--' ____,j17__________
Ce 1 8'" Avenue y —
CIL a = SFR
CL
O = MFR SF i 1
1 Fath:h 4e r
LIII
E.9th Ave
A
= NC1
a 7.1 , p
= 1,.1 tin L.
t.
CPA-201_8-OOO4TJJHL--
F.
22 _Ill 0
cc
S.
A >. E76-1hV -
i
R-3 I
nth th Ave ,
a
* -
Study Aria ._ _ . 7th Avenue
r
. w
0I, 9 f 0
� NC
Z . Rd
Z
L'Stlil2
= R-3 H8th Avenue 1----'
— -_-_______Li __.--
0 I '
N = MFR
E PE Are i
= NC
.1 1
Staff, Agency & Public Comment
a — in-
Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment
o City's Public Works ❑ Traffic
o Spokane Valley Fire o Access
❑ Neighborhood Character
Department
❑ Covenants
o Sewer Minutes contain comments
received at public
hearing
PA-201 8-0004
., 711 , , g ,__sa A QIN ' 1 ' in
a ,.... r� - - ` "'E,1_,, a.
CANNING IV _ _
191111;i 1'1
�_ , ® �
Y
a *IPill ,.5 " E? -Av s
COMMISSION - 1111 _ _
DELIBERATIONSit I
_ ^ r!7 i IIIIII ' _ _min_
Fill,�.
Ear� w if
;, r_I�_ 1_- Tnis—lik.
ill I
( No ADDITIONAL ` . ~ aili *LAI — 1 .
PUBLIC COMMENT ;. , _ Pil
14.61...-4"MA'''' , '-:".. 7 --. _w . iii!. Awl
. 915E so
pa " .
Pr
M � ' _ d o! 0 a ._--
City Initiated Map Amendment
CPA-201 8 -0005
Karen Kendall, Planner
_ .1,7-- , •
C PA-20 1 8_
Project Site
0005
26 .1111111. jillit ,
Project CPA-2018-0005
--: 7
Number
, .
Applicant:
City of Spokane ••
,.. . ,..,
x . ,
LU Valley
..
...
Owners:
Five Fifty,,ive r.
1
Proposal: LLC
., „.
Expand the NC
_... _
., „. I.i ,
. ,
-
f, 3 ,,, :..
ir
1
.3
iI a
:-.
.! East
LU designation & zoning . I High School
to 1 ,:.—H' - - EE NA.yis-,
1.0 riAnd lir c.id '
>
eliminate split zoning N.;
, •n - ;,,, . ......
_ . ... . -4, .z
. r...- .
- '..
...._ .
ID the ,H,,,Ln
SFRand
of ' - ' -. . ... :. ' -
.0.1_: E
, :•
,,..
-,,
parcels csuFr El:',-.._-_----m.,/'i-II ,.-- i mi
:, Iirentwood
. i !,
,
E-.:.: L .:,..,:.,,-,',.11-1-4 .- ! - :; --- -
designated -
and zoned R-3 and NC
and NC. 1-ii i 1----I .
M1, —_,...„---- - _
E Industrial
'- --
I -----
------- cr ,
Z
-: IrA'16*:11 . ell' 111:77: -
Nip
I
cpA-2018-0005 ° k ---.. ..-,-•_-_1..1:::'-°::-
L 8
.. .."..,,. ., __
2711 1 y.
r - a
N Majority of site is in theta) k ' • \Nil .. 11:41,..!, :I"
1— floodplaina
N Approximate location •
11
W CLOMR currentlLLIy under F '
I— review. 1. ° .
V
Q N E Easement ` '
❑ 500 feet wide11 '
Q
_ ❑ Bonneville Power Adminisp_,Th.„ .,. . ..... r . ..
• - 1 L .i. .
c.) ❑ Type F stream .r k �SP4.-I. . : ' it i e - . /,'
ti
Located corner f i
1-- oca ed NW co e o _!� r'
,„....-4,..;:\4 .
ti) site .MmilM. . J�7.eeifP.4l'.� _ -4.--',.'.1.--
fir`'.1..
_ IIS ap1111 igim }r .
4 y
CPA-2018-0005
-06352. 52 - -
� oars NC
diric
28 _ ^ r Study Area
4S352291.52 46351.9049
ADDRESS 0ADDRESS
W
UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
W
4004.9127
0 UNKNOWN
-C'EveFxl+r
SFR ADDRESS
W Z �
= SFR 11-
0.
Ta Q1111111G 6111111111111#
-I
111111brAh_ lift"
0 Oggi
fLGGl�iS
0
rex , .4
PA-20C 1 8-000 5
.A.-----------____.
dsz,D2.9U92. StudyArea
z:.�`A. 6hh6RESS' V 0 X37
n PJkk NOkYN G'a4 �P �' - Jf�°
29 4 yr$ ff
4s- r _ ,
'47 is
d£: 46551.90-05
O ADCSDR Odi ESS 9AaDR ESS /\iiiii....
UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
,,,,,, 1:7
C
Q 111
fir,
I- 4054.9127 'i
0n,� Oi.f i.s R UNKNOW r4 I
RESS
Z SFR Z73
i I
= R-3
Z IN
0 ,
Il 1 _1._ 1 ii,. 1 ,Iiiiiiiii grab
-.. 410* li ,
N Jf
i-Jerr4ve) t
161111111111111111.111m.e
Y r �^ ks _ .f -W111r#
= N C 4 loll -- 1.-- ‘ #,., • _
t!i.VrrxLR 144
I I, 0
T.
4. . .
F aCPA-201 8-0005 1,410it 0 ,i,t
{�. , ���` 4•. ,..,,, ?
lim
is i
30
11.14rtsw y i
t
S 4 0
PARCEL CONFIGURATION - �
* f
,
4 r
AM
i
CORRECTING ERROR
,j0
- .
Comprehensive Plan Zoning EA
= SFR = R-3ill
i i x.,11• a� -54 5 R`
MI ikim-V
di K 1 IMF ' s —_ , — f
IL
f - .. •tit
Staff, Agency & Public Comment
Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment
o City's Public Works o Minutes include
o Sewer comments received at
the public hearing
N 0 4• -
CPA-2018-0005 b. -I.. w
32 „,,r4i iCillkr:iiiii'v. oh.,,,_ _ ______
_
P • ” .:-.....:‘,, 4.7,001 . e
PLANNING poi .••. 4.is, 1
0
COMMISSION .7if
1
DELIBERATIONS
1 ,
, , . *kr
____
-,.
_ I ,,..
.... .. , _
•
.,.
N ADDITIONAL 1g11IRdJ1I?
� : ..
._ /4„
PUBLIC COMMENT
City Initiated Map Amendment
CPA-201 8 -0006
Karen Kendall, Planner
C PA_2 0 1 8_000 6
34 IIII._ 1 ..
_-
E/
East Valley. .. _
i-f ' --'1 1 Project
High a hool i L I.SifU'h- fr..,t, .:• S ite
Project CPA-2018-0006 ,E.E.,,,,ovev,sa,. :p. '''D .: :.E. T.7.n.ri'..au 9
aCqr,;! E
Number
„
2. ..-
i .. .-
Applicant: City of Spokane Valley , L. .E.
a
v "
rsrl Dr •), . - —
. Z 2 ,••
•}- _ .
ILI Owner: MPR Spokane, LLC F Er^,rs[:a hs ii rw,is.'..
Trentwood
> Proposal: Expand the IMU . ,
_
- 1 if....,...
•.....
et -,
!e - - ' _ —a • ,:.,.. .,,-t Troll 14.ve
-,—.0.-0 ---- — =
LU designation & zoning to _ = „.......------, _z___, _ _ _
; - ________
__
eliminate split zoning of the
,, _ -----
,
0 parcels currently .:
L L hiduirial Park:A!St;t
to' ,
designated SFR and IMU . .
_.--
0,
and zoned R-3 and NU. 0,._ , ,-„.,,, ....-s,...aE;Inul Pr t
,,. d .,triaS -7a
_F k(IPrn al'iAye, , ,,
Z'
in
I --- ---- -, , •
C_ -, -
, ;TT
1, Study Area
•
1
C PA_2 0 1 8_00 0 6 ., 1 . : -,-;,0°."-.`i,N V, - .,-,- '4'-- --.. - . ° -- "I
35
CL 1
1 . _
' 4 -• .
'' likr I
V - ;
•,. .
4 , -II"'I•,.,.iiik'• .
4u1514')
lir
tria_ar
IN
,
16-
ef.
•4 -)tig Alk' *
il
MI MI
I
_ -411704417
oimierfr.1,-'
" --,4gONINOMBI
PM .
Ce bk 1 01
wellIWII - ,,
< .
Trent Avenue (SR. 290)
I_ i 1 / — i
a:
CPA-2018-0006 11 Rich Ave
r�
36
SFR
W
, '
47 0-
Z Q 1 i '
IC
5O15. i4 '
= IMU
u� Z I 6051E
oc
0. Q = SFR TRENTA '
iv_
0 = IMU — _ - _,, i.�i_�,n. .\ . .� � -,
V
CPA-2018-0006 1 1 .1 . 11% i'r¢
i
37 1":" I
ti R-3
O.
Q iii
* r . /
7
C, 4.5O15 . i4O )
Z = R-3 IMU 17205E I
0 Z
TRENTAV-E A\01—
N
= IMU —, - iiimimmimg-mamk — - - - --
_,--1::....4„
Staff, Agency & Public Comment
IL
Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment
❑ City's Public Works ❑ No public comments
❑ Sewer to date
CPA-201 8-0006
39
PLANNING
COMMISSION
DELIBERATIONS - . :
mon
( NO ADDITIONAL is • • - 'I
PUBLIC COMMENT)
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
NEXT STEPS
APPROVED Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
February 8, 2018
I. Vice Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m. Commissioners, staff and audience stood
for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff
were present:
James Johnson Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Danielle Kaschmitter Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Tim Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Mike Phillips Karen Kendall, Planner
Michelle Rasmussen,absent—excused Micki Harnois, Planner
Suzanne Stathos Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Matt Walton
Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
Commissioner Walton moved to excuse Commissioner Rasmussen from the meeting. The vote on
this motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
II. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to accept the February 08, 2018 agenda as presented. The
vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. MINUTES:Commissioner Walton moved to approve the January 11,2018 minutes as presented. The
vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Commission Walton moved
to approve the January 25, 2018 minutes as presented. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero
against and this motion passed.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Continued Public Hearing, CTA-2017-2005, A proposed amendment to Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 22, SVMC 19.60.050, SVMC 17.80.030 and Appendix A to
update wireless facility regulations to address siting of small cell wireless facilities within the
public rights-of-way.
Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb stated the Commission continued the hearing from January 25,2018.
Mr.Lamb answered some of the questions raised at that meeting:
• Can the City require a specific distance between new poles? Mr. Lamb said this was
feasible.The industry suggested this could prove problematic the more people who entered
the market. The industry said the distance requirement could make it difficult to find a
location which worked with the technology.
• Can the City require the providers to co-locate? Mr. Lamb said legally the City could
require co-location however some of the utility companies do not allow it. He noted some
of the technology doesn't work if there is more than one provider on the same pole
• Can the City require a minimum height for equipment location? Mr. Lamb said to the
extent that it doesn't interfere with the technology.A minimum height of 20 feet would not
pose a problem, but a higher level, above 60-80 feet, may cause issues from a technology
standpoint.
• Can the City require the ground base facilities to be buried? Mr. Lamb stated legally the
City could require it, although there a practical considerations. The industry provided a
significant number of comments regarding how detrimental to the equipment ungrounding
can be.
2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5
• Can the City require providers to transmit from the small cell to the macro cell via fiber?
Mr. Lamb said the City cannot regulate the technology. By requiring the method of
transmission,we would be regulating their technology.
• There were questions regarding radiation levels, type of bandwidth, possible impacts on
people.Mr.Lamb said under federal aw we cannot regulate based on type of signal,which
would be regulating the technology. He said these items are regulated by the Federal
Communication Commission(FCC) and as long as the equipment meets FCC criteria the
City cannot regulate them.
• The Commission requested crime statistics on ground based facilities. Mr. Lamb said
according to the industry comments these structures do not have an impact on crime.
• Could the City tax wireless facilities? Mr. Lamb said the City already has a tax on
telephone/wireless. He said cities can do this under federal law, however we cannot tax
the data.
• Could the City require the provider to submit an engineering certification of the pole
structures? Mr. Lamb said the City could require this. He said this relates to the public
safety of facilities placed in the right-of-way. While the City does not have any pole
standards, the utility companies do. The providers would already be supplying this
information to the utility providers so it would not hurt to ask for a copy of it with the
application.
• Who is responsible for the cost of relocation of poles with small cell facilities on them?
Mr. Lamb stated the cost of relocation is the responsibility of the party making the request.
Relocation costs are the responsibility of the utility company if it a capital project.
Relocations cost are the responsibility of the developer when it is a private development,
• Is line of site a problem? Mr. Lamb said according to testimony at the last meeting, line
of site was not an issue. He said in Spokane Valley the topography does not pose a problem
because of the nature of the valley. The City does not have issues similar to downtown
Seattle with all the hillsides and buildings. Industry has representatives who can provide
more clarification.
Mr. Lamb said staff and the Commission received comments at the last meeting from the
industry providers. He has reviewed them and offered comments on some of the topics which
were brought up.
• The industry requested to have the undergrounding facilities requirement removed. Mr.
Lamb said legally the City can require it. However,there are considerations due to the size
of the vaults,vault safety and location, as pictures supplied by the vendors showed.
• The industry requested removing the requirement for co-location or a minimum distance
between new poles. Mr. Lamb said staff does not see an issue with those requirements.
The industry commented it would hinder the last company into the market. The
Commissioners expressed concern someone's house may have 3, 4 or 5 poles placed in
front of it. Mr. Lamb offered that in front of city hall there is a pole on the edge of City
Hall property and another existing pole 20-30 feet away.
• The industry requested shortening the permit processing time from 60 to 30 days. Mr.
Lamb said 60 days is required under state and federal law. The City's permit processing
time is much shorter than that,however he recommends keeping 60 days.
• T-Mobile requested the City allow a unified camouflage design. Mr.Lamb said this would
be facility that houses both the antenna and control equipment in one enclosure. T-Mobile
has suggested a unit which would not be bigger than six cubic feet. This is smaller in size
than the size of the antenna and control box together. Mr. Lamb said this was a reasonable
request and the Commission could consider this, however staff suggested a name change
to limit confusion.
• The industry requested allowing small cell facilities within city parks. Mr.Lamb said given
the size of our parks and their proximity the right-of-way there is no need for a facility in
the park. The City has been working to clean up the overhead in its parks. It would be
inappropriate to allow small cell facilities within the boundaries of the park.
2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5
• The industry requested increasing the height of the electric transmissions structure from 50
to 60 feet. Mr. Lamb stated this related to the large macro-poles and he recommended not
making this change.
• The industry requested increasing the allowable deviation before an action is viewed as a
substantial change. Mr. Lamb said this is the amount of deviation allowed before a
Conditional Use Permit is required. He said the City regulations are relatively flexible and
open,he would not recommend this change.
Commissioner Johnson and Phillips expressed concerns regarding the requirement for private
developer paying to move of the utility pole when there is a private development. Commissioner
Johnson shared his fear that line of site could pose a problem when a new building is erected. Mr.
Lamb said it is the responsibility the carriers to determine if their equipment was able to
communicate.
Vice-chair Johnson asked for public comment
Joel Aro, Links Consulting for Verizon: Mr. Aro said he was addressing a couple of questions
which arose. He stated there are naturally occurring gases in an underground vault. The equipment
contained in the vault does not emit any kind of gas. He commented how damaged the equipment
becomes if it is required to be buried. He requests the City eliminate this requirement.
Commissioner Walton asked for the size of the ground cabinet Verizon uses. Mr. Aro said he did
not have the specifications with him. Mr. Aro said it would be the responsibility of the carrier for
making sure that they have communication with their own facilities. Commissioner Johnson
confirmed Verizon prefers fiber and that extensive damage, as shown in Verizon's comment is
caused by putting the equipment underground.
Steven Burke, Mobilitie, Coeur d'Alene ID: Mr. Burke said he felt the legal department had
done a good job with the regulations and he wanted to encourage the Planning Commission to
forward them to the City Council. He stated Mobilitie has a contained antenna and control
equipment in one unit. He said crime will be difficult stating that Avista and CenturyLink require
equipment to be ten feet off the ground. Mr. Burke said with enough notice his company would
move their own equipment.
City Attorney Cary Driskell clarified how Washington state statutes regulates who pays to move a
utility pole located in the right-of-way. He said under the statute if the City is doing a capital
project and utility pole needs to be moved,the cost is on the utility company. It is being moved for
the public benefit. The Utility Trade Commission(UTC)has imposed tariff on utility rates which
pays for these moves. The UTC determined that the person making the request pays for the
movement. If it is a private development,then the developer pays.
Commissioner Walton asked how many sites each of the carriers present were looking to deploy,
Steven Burke for Mobilitie stated they had six,Mr. Aro stated Verizon was looking at three at this
time.
Commissioner Stathos confirmed the equipment would be labeled for safety as required
Dennis Crapo, Spokane Valley: Mr. Crapo stated he wanted the Commission to be aware of the
unintended consequences of allowing more poles in the right-of-way. He said it would set a
precedence, and could keep someone from being able to develop a property.
Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Vice-Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:54
p.m.
Mr. Lamb suggested the Commission begin with the proposed amendments which were presented
at the January 25 meeting. Then move to the proposed changes to that proposal:
• the 20 foot minimum height requirement,
• the facilities must be buried in the ground unless technically infeasible,
2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5
• not located within a certain number of feet (currently bracketed with 250 in this holding
spot) of other small cell facilities unless the applicant demonstrates that no other location
can accommodate or is sufficient to meet the wireless service needs,
• if the provider cannot meet the 250-foot distance, then they must make an attempt to co-
locate unless they demonstrate a reason why it is not possible.
Mr.Lamb addressed the public comment which said that this could set a precedence. He said cities,
under state and federal law, are required to allow facilities to locate within the right-of-way. The
City cannot preclude them, which was the reason for the amendment. Mr. Lamb confirmed
facilities can locate on private property, but it requires an agreement with that private property
owner allowing a recorded easement.
The Commission began deliberations of the issues which had been presented for change to the
proposed amendment. Commissioners agreed to add a 250-foot distance requirement between
facilities. They felt if the industry could demonstrate the problem of locating at this distance,they
can change it. The Commissioners agreed to add the requirement for co-location, if it was at all
feasible. The Commissioners discussed requiring a 20-foot height minimum and agreed to this
addition. Then the Commissioners moved to the requirement of undergrounding the control
equipment. After their discussion the Commissioners agreed to adding this language as well. There
was a consensus that requiring transmission by fiber would not be added, because the City cannot
regulate the technology. Commissioners agreed to adding the requirement of engineering
certification for the pole. Commissioner Johnson felt parcels with a 50-foot frontage should be
exempt from new poles. Commissioner Phillips said he feels the carrier should have to pay to move
any utilities. Mr. Lamb said from practical standpoint he was not sure how the City would be able
to enforce it. Commissioner Walton confirmed there is no public comment or noticing regarding
installation of a new utility pole. Mr. Lamb asked how the Commission felt about reducing the
permit processing timeline from 60-days.The Commissioners agreed to leave the 60-day time line.
The Commissioners agreed to allow for a combined enclosure which might be a bit bigger than the
allowable size for the antenna alone. The Commissioners agreed they did not want to allow small
cell facilities in City parks. The Commissioners agreed not to change the height limitations on
electrical transmission towers. The Commissioners agreed to not change the deviation standards.
Mr.Lamb said the Commission should make a motion to approve the changes presented on January
25 along with the changes which were discussed tonight which include: a 250-foot separation along
with the co-location requirement, a minimum height of 20-feet,retain the existing language on the
ground vaults, addition of a structural engineer certification with the application, and allowing
unified camouflage facility with a different term as part of those changes.
Commissioner Walton moved to recommend to the City Council the proposed amendment with the
changes which had been had been recorded by the Deputy City Attorney. The vote on the motion
was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow suggested changing the agenda to move the Comprehensive Plan study
session ahead of the Open Space discussion due to the number of people in attendance who were
interested in the topics. Commission gave consensus to proceed.
ii. Study Session— 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments:
Ms. Barlow presented an overview of the Comprehensive Plan process. She explained there were
originally four privately initiated requests and three City initiated amendments. She explained after the
docket was approved, one of the privately initiated amendments was withdrawn. One City initiated
amendments was also withdrawn. After conversations with the property owner they requested the City
hold off making the proposed change while they develop their plan for the property.
Planner Micki Harnois explained CPA-2018-0001. The property is located approximately 300 feet east
of Pines Road on Valleyway Ave. The request is the change three parcels of approximately two acres
from Single Family Residential and R-3 zoning to Multifamily Comprehensive Plan designation and
zoning. The site is surrounded by multifamily designation to the north and south and Corridor Mixed
Use to the west of the property. There have been no comments received for this amendment.
2018-02-08 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5
Ms. Harnois reminded the Commissioners that CPA-2018-0002 had been withdrawn by the property
owner.
Planner Marty Palaniuk explained CPA-2018-0003 is located at Bowdish and Sands Roads. The request
is to change the Single Family designation and R-2 zoning to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU). CMU
designation located across the railroad tracks and Dishman Mica Road. He said the lot was created after
a subdivision of the property in 2010, which divided the property for several single family lots on the
south side of the original lot. This lot was created as a drainage easement which has been dedicated to
the City. The property is surrounded on three sides by a single family residential and the railroad tracks
to the north. The property borders Chester Creek, is located in a floodplain, has a Type F stream, a
biologist has reported there are no wetlands on the site. Commissioner Walton asked if the property
would have been allowed to be divided if the drainage easement had not been a part of it. Mr.Palaniuk
stated he would have to defer to engineers an answer. Mr. Palaniuk stated the Commissioners already
had any comment which was provided up to the time of mailing the packet. Any comments received
since then had been provided to the Commissioners that evening.
Mr. Palaniuk discussed CPA-2018-0004 is located at the corner of 7th Avenue and University Road.
The request is to change the designation from Single Family Residential and R-3 zoning to
Neighborhood Commercial. He explained the subject parcel abutted another property owned by the
same property owner, which was changed to Neighborhood Commercial during the 2016
Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Palaniuk said the property was surrounded on other sides by single
family. The site is bordered by University Road which is a minor arterial. Mr. Palaniuk said the
Commissioners had any comments staff have received.
Planner Karen Kendall was beginning her discussion of CPA-2018-0005,when Commissioner Phillips
recused himself regarding this amendment, and left the council chambers. The City initiated
amendments are both correcting mapping errors. The property for CPA-2018-0005 is located at the
corner of Progress and Forker Road. The parcels are split between Neighborhood Commercial and
Single Family Residential. The amendment is to designate the north and east edge of one parcel as
Neighborhood Commercial and another along the BPA easement. Commissioner Stathos commented
the area could not handle any more traffic if it was developed.
Ms. Kendall explained the change proposed for CPA-2018-0006. The property is located on Trent
Avenue approximately one and one half mile east of Sullivan. The parcel is developed and there is a
stormwater swale along the 15 feet to be rezoned. The parcel is split zoned with the 15 feet on the east
side of this parcel is zoned Single Family Residential while the rest is Industrial Mixed Use. The
proposed change is to zone the easterly side Industrial Mixed Use.
The next step is the public hearing which is scheduled for February 22,2018.
iii. Study Session,Open Space requirements in Mixed Use zones.
The Commission agreed to postpone the discussion of open space requirements to another meeting.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. The vote on the
motion was unanimous in favor, the motion passed.
Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
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:
James Johnson Cary Driskell, City Attorney
Danielle Kaschmitter Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Timothy Kelley Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Michelle Rasmussen Marty Palaniuk, Planner
Matthew Walton Micki Harnois, Planner
Suzanne Stathos, absent Karen Kendall, Planner
Mike Phillips, absent
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. ADMINISTRATIVE 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.
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.
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8
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
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
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8
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.
b. CPA-2018-0005 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.
c. 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.
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 8t1i, 16th, 32nd Avenues, University, Evergreen and Sullivan Roads and designated
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8
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.
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.
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8
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 corner 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.
d. 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
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.
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8
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 42nd• 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.
Annette Conrad, 10920 E 46th Avenue: Ms. Conrad shared concerns about t access, flooding,
bald eagles that come every year and the wildlife.
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8
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.
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.
02-22-2018 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8
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 testify, 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.
Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed
Mary Moore, Secretary