Agenda 05/24/2018 SCITY OF-u 11101"11\11111111114)
POKane
Valle K
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave.
May 24, 2018 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 26, 2018
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: 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
ii. Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0001, A proposed amendment to
Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.65.020
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers—City Hall
April 26,2018
I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:02 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 Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney
Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Tim Kelley Jenny Nickerson,Assistant Building Official
Mike Phillips Marty Palaniuk,Planner
Michelle Rasmussen
Suzanne Stathos
Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary for the Commission
II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the April 26,2018 agenda as presented. The vote
on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
III. MINUTES: Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the April 12, 2018 minutes as presented. The
vote on the motion was seven in favor, zero against and the motion passed.
IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports.
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow informed the Commission the City had
received the decision on the appeal of the SEPA decision for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
CPA-2018-0003. The Hearing Examiner had upheld the City's determination and denied the
applicant's appeal. There had not been enough time for staff to prepare for the Comprehensive Plan
Amendments for the Planning Commission packet for this meeting so staff will prepare materials for
deliberations to continue on May 24,2018.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0002,A privately initiated code text amendment to the Spokane
Valley Municipal Code 19.60 and 19.65 to allow lodging in the Industrial zone.
Chair Rasmussen opened the public hearing for CTA-2018-0002 at 6:03 p.m. Planner Marty
Palaniuk presented to the Commission an overview of the privately initiated code text amendment
requesting to add hotel/motel as a supplemental use to the Industrial zone. Mr. Palaniuk explained
hotel/motel is a permitted use in the Mixed Use, Corridor Mixed Use, Regional Commercial, and
Industrial Mixed Use zones. The Industrial zone allows for all types of manufacturing and
industrial type uses. The amendment proposes to allow hotels/motels along principal arterials on
a parcel which has frontage along a principal arterial. Mr.Palaniuk said there are three areas in the
City this proposal would apply to,Broadway Avenue west of the Interstate,north of Interstate 90
along Sullivan and north of the river along Barker. Barker is not currently classified as a principal
arterial,but there are plans to reclassify it in the future. These are the areas along a principal arterial
which are zoned Industrial. Much of the area along Broadway would be restricted because it falls
under an airport hazard overlay zone (AHO) and high intensity uses like a hotel are those which
draw and concentrate people into a certain areas and are not permitted in a AHO zone. There is a
small area along Broadway which is outside of the AHO zone which would be available for this
proposal. Commissioner Phillips confirmed the AHO was because of the proximity to Felts Field,
but wanted to know why it didn't apply to the Spokane International Airport(SIA). Commissioner
Kelley offered the hotels at SIA are not in the crash zone,and are allowed to build where they based
on their location to those zones.
The applicant's proposal requests to add a `P/C' in for permitted or conditional use permit in the
supplemental language for the Industrial zone in the Permitted Use Matrix. Staff is recommending
that an `S' be placed in the Permitted Use Matrix which would reference the supplemental use
2018-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5
regulations. Staff also made some suggests instead of placing the use in the Heavy Industrial
section of the Use Matrix placing it in under the Lodging heading,along with some minor language
changes to make sure it was in line with the way the rest of our code is written. Staff discussed
requiring a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) and most of the conditions covered by a CUP would be
handled by existing regulations from the Building Code, environmental regulations, SEPA, etc.
Ms.Barlow stated although staff has made some minor changes to the language of the proposal in
order to make the proposal more consistent with City code but staff did not made a
recommendation on the proposal itself. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
amendment staff would propose accepting the minor revisions as well.
The Chair opened the hearing for public testimony
Steve Schmautz, Spokane WA: Mr. Schmautz stated he was the applicant for CTA-2018-0002
and principal on the project for the former ITRON site located on Sullivan Road. He stated they
are working to develop the 12-acre site into a higher level use with 150,000 square feet of office
space, 110,000 square feet of high cube warehouse space. The plan is to develop an extended-stay
business type hotel similar to others in the area. He said has had studies done and there is a demand
for this use. He said the product he would be offering would have a different price point,something
complimenting the area which is growing northward. What they are considering putting on their
site would be less than the footprint in their amendment, catering to sales/business people who
service the area,convenient, affordable,more suites,and larger spaces.
Commissioner Stathos inquired regarding the campus layout, and Mr. Schmautz stated it would
have a bit of everything, office, commercial,warehouse and convenience in the same place on an
arterial.Ms.Barlow reminded the Commissioners this was not a project specific,and would affect
more than this proposal. Commissioner Walton commented one arguments in the application for
the proposal was to reduce trip generation. He wondered how it would do this when many of the
other services which hotel patrons need are outside of the industrial areas. Mr. Schmautz said he
has been doing this for a while and the trips would mostly concentrate where the work was near the
offices and warehousing facilities.
Dwight Hume, Mead,WA: Mr.Hume said he represents the applicant for CTA-2018-0002. Mr.
Hume stated he remembers when the hotel currently the Industrial Park was built. He commented
the need for it was created by the tenants of the park. He believed the Industrial Park had to have
a change to the code at that time to allow the hotel,because the Industrial Park needed the facility,
and it wasn't allowed until the code was corrected. Corporate visitors could be coming to visit or
do training for businesses right in the general area and are less populated on the weekends. He said
the hotel would be a convenience to the surrounding businesses which would use it services but the
clients would use other services in the area such as restaurants and shopping. He commented that
the proposal was requested to be on an arterial so it would handle trip generations and ingress/egress
issues.
Commissioner Kelley asked Mr.Hume to share his background with the Commission. Mr.Hume
is currently a private land use consultant, but spent many years working for Spokane County as
their planning director and as a zoning adjustor, which is like a hearing examiner now.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Hume how he felt about changing the proposal to require the
project to have frontage on a principal arterial instead of the parcel being on a principal arterial.
Commissioner Johnson said he was concerned about a structure being located deep inside a parcel
where 1st responders would have trouble finding it. Mr.Hume responded the street system would
feed to the arterial,but that would be specific to this site. Each site would be different and need its
own ingress and egress onto the arterial. He felt there are enough performance standards and
development reviews to be able to discover a problem before the doors are opened. Mr.Hume also
said other jurisdictions have a CUP process when siting a hotel in an industrial area. Many times
the criteria for a CUP has already been met, so he does not know why people should have to go
through the process. Ms. Barlow commented the way the language is written a CUP would only
be necessary of the proposal was for a building footprint greater than 25,000 square feet. If they
did not want to go through the CUP process, it would require the project to be designed to go
vertical and protect the valuable industrial space. Mr.Hume stated he wasn't against them,he just
2018-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5
feels the criteria is covered in other ways. Commissioner Walton asked why the applicant did not
rezone the property to Corridor Mixed Use with all of the allowed uses which would be allowed in
the CMU zone. Mr. Hume replied the applicant is not trying to bring the CMU uses into the
industrial area, they simply want to bring a hotel use into the industrial zone. There is a demand
for it and they felt this would be an appropriate request. Ms. Barlow the intent of the Industrial
zone is to provide for industrial uses and allow for some accessory uses,so environment is created
where it thrives. The intent of the CMU zone is to allow for uses which are much less intensive.
If it was rezoned,it would be stripped of one of the amenities the property offers. It could also be
argued the property was spot zoned and surrounding properties have not been given the same rights
to the uses allowed in the CMU zone. The proposal brings forward the hotel as an accessory to the
Industrial zone instead of stripping those uses and adding uses which might not be compatible with
the surrounding area.
Chair Rasmussen seeing no one else who wished to testify closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m.
Commissioner Walton asked Commissioner Johnson about his expressed concern regarding not
having a hotel which fronted on a principal arterial. Commissioner Johnson said it might be better,
as Mr.Hume had stated,to have the access on a side road. The customers might be going out once
or twice a day to somewhere up and down the arterial,but he feels the language should change in
order to keep the project out on the arterial so first responders are not having to drive around in the
Industrial Park. Commissioner Walton stated he was a bit concerned that this could amount to
telling someone how to develop their property. Commissioner Phillips stated he felt having a
having hotel in the industrial area was a good idea. He commented developers will build a hotel
where it would be most advantageous to them and would not put it off the arterial unless they were
catering to a select few clients. He is content with the language the way it is.
Commissioner Kelley commented generating more trips are what we want because it means that
people are coming to the City and spending money. There would revenue from the rooms, food
and beverage,payroll, federal, state and local taxes, sales taxes,payroll taxes, lodging taxes,jobs
would be created from the construction, from the new business,more suppliers in the area would
spend more money and the employees themselves there by increasing economic development.
Commissioner Kelley said he was concerned about making the hotel right on the arterial because
it could be a security concern if it was too easy to get to from the street.
Commissioner Rasmussen said previously she traveled for work and she appreciated having the
hotel next door to where she was going to work in the morning so she did not have to deal with the
traffic. She said she felt this amendment would fit the needs of the of the specific business people
who visit the area and she supported the amendment. She would leave it to the developers to
determine where to put the structure based on their needs. Commissioner Stathos stated the area is
adding conveniences for the businesses in the area. She would like to protect the industrial areas
for those industrial uses but this is a need which would be beneficial to many businesses in this
zone. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated she would support the amendment because she felt it
would be good for business and the visitors to have the option. Commissioner Johnson also feels
the change would be good for the City. He felt it would be a good addition to the industrial zone,
he wanted to make sure there was sufficient protection of the industrial land. He said he was not
in favor of a CUP. He wanted to protect staff from having to make any interpretations of the code.
He wants the language to be specific so there is no misunderstanding. Commissioner Walton said
he agreed and specific language allows for less interpretation and would be important to him. He
is concerned that allowing an expansion of a use to this zone when there are hotels in the
surrounding area which are not at capacity. He wanted to make sure that the industrial land is
protected.
Commissioner Walton stated his concern with the CUP process and how the hotels could be
allowed with little control except for the amount of square footage. Commissioner Rasmussen and
Kelley talked about their experiences in being in a hotel in more industrial areas and how they
found them beneficial and how the users of the hotels would benefit the area. Commissioner Kelley
is in favor of allowing the hotels, but is not necessarily in favor of a larger hotel, 25,000 square
2018-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5
feet,in the area. Commissioner Phillips said he was fine with a CUP for a hotel over 25,000 square
feet footprint.
Ms.Barlow wanted to remind the Commission when they made a recommendation,staff had made
some suggested language to the amendment to make it more consistent with the way the Municipal
Code is written. Commissioner Walton said his preference would be to eliminate a hotel greater
than 25,000 would not be allowed in the industrial zone,so that it would preserve the most amount
of land for those purposes. If someone wanted a larger hotel,then they would need to go vertical
instead of horizontal in order to increase the amount of rooms they could offer. This would
eliminate the CUP process.
Commissioner Walton moved to recommend approval of CTA-2018-0002 to the City Council with
the proposed changes from staff,but modifying the language in SVMC 19.65.080(B)(1)to read 'A
hotel/motel is allowed in the "I" zoning district on sites with frontage on a principal arterial
provided hotel/motel use has a building footprint of 25,000 square feet or less.' Motion died for
lack of a second.
Commissioner Kelly moved to recommend approval of CTA-2018-0002 to the City Council as
revised by staff. This motion was seconded. The vote on the motion by show of hands was five in
favor, two against with Commissioners Johnson and Walton dissenting.
ii. Study Session: Open Space Requirements in Mixed Use Zones.
Ms. Barlow gave a quick presentation to remind the Commission the subject for discussion of the
open space requirements in the mixed use zones. She also discussed that projects in mixed use
zones which had been developed and stated all had provided some kind of open space. She also
reviewed the requirements of other jurisdictions and most have some form open space
requirements. She also shared several examples of mixed use development. The code currently
requires any development,multifamily or mixed use,in a mixed use zone would require open space
to be provided at a rate of 210 square feet per unit for any development which has more than 10
units.
Options which could be considered are:
• Separate vertical and horizontal developments
• Separate Multifamily and mixed use
• Separate Mixed Use zone from Corridor Mixed Use
• Increase the distance from a public park or trail
• Increase the unit threshold
• Increase the amount of open space required per unit
• Increase the amount of units required before the open space is required
• Leave the requirements as they are currently written
• Eliminate the requirements completely
Commissioner Phillips confirmed the latest update to the development regulations there are no
setback requirements in the mixed use zones. Commissioner Johnson confirmed Spokane does not
have any open space requirements in a mixed use zone. Spokane County does not have a
requirement but offers incentives if they are added to a mixed use development.
Commissioner Johnson pointed out that about 90% of the areas being discussed would be except,
but the rest of the areas he would want to have some kind of open space requirements. Most of the
areas are close to transit,places we want there to be vertical growth, and people who live in these
places have a different lifestyle. He said he didn't think there should be a requirement in those
cases. Commissioner Phillips' concern has been someone trying to build a multifamily project in
the MU or CMU zone so they could get out of the open space requirement. After listening to some
of the conversations,he thinks maybe this requirement would not be necessary in these zones and
would make us more equal with the County and Spokane. Commissioner Walton feels that a
dedicated multifamily development in these zones should have different requirements than a mixed
use development. There was considerable discussion about why the City does not have mixed use
development. Ms. Barlow shared a consultant for the City, at the time of the Comprehensive Plan
2018-04-26 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5
Update,said there is not enough density in the City to drive it right now. Discussion of how much
commercial there should be required in order to consider the project as mixed use. Commissioner
Rasmussen said she did not want to stand in the way of any mixed-use project which would want
to build here. Commissioner Kelley said he supports no open space for a vertical environment,but
for multifamily,open space should be required.
At the end of the discussion the consensus was to have staff separate the mixed use development
from the multifamily, to define what would be a mixed-use development, look at whether or not
the 1,300 foot requirement from a park or trail would still need to be included and remove the
language regarding the "fee in lieu' altogether.
VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Walton discussed when a motion is actually made,
especially when the subject has had a bit of discussion back and forth and everyone might not be in
agreement with the solution, there should be some extra discussion on the merits of the motion itself
before taking a vote.
IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:36 p.m. The vote on
the motion was unanimous in favor, the motion passed.
Michelle Rasmussen,Chair Date signed
Deanna Horton, Secretary
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: May 24, 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 — Findings of
Fact
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: On February 8, 2018, the Planning Commission held a study
session followed by a public hearing on February 22, 2018. On May 10, 2018 the Planning
Commission deliberated on each request and voted on a recommendation to Council.
BACKGROUND:
At the May 10, 2018 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission reviewed and
deliberated on each of the proposed CPAs. The following recommendations to the City Council
were voted on:
CPA-2018-0001 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council
a recommendation of approval of CPA-2018-0001.
CPA-2018-0003 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council
a recommendation of denial of CPA-2018-0003.
CPA-2018-0004 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council
a recommendation of approval of CPA-2018-0004.
CPA-2018-0005 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council
a recommendation of approval of CPA-2018-0005.
CPA-2018-0006 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council
a recommendation of approval of CPA-2018-0006.
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.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to approve Planning Commission Findings and
Recommendations to City Council.
STAFF CONTACT:
Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner, Martin Palaniuk, Planner
Karen Kendall, Planner Micki Harnois, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Findings and Recommendation for CPA-2018-0001 through CPA-2018-0006
Exhibit 2: Findings and Recommendation for CPA-2018-0001
1 of 2
Exhibit 3: Findings and Recommendation for CPA-2018-0003
Exhibit 4: Findings and Recommendation for CPA-2018-0004
Exhibit 5: Findings and Recommendation for CPA-2018-0005
Exhibit 6: Findings and Recommendation for CPA-2018-0006
2 of 2
2:a7-Z,71;fT.L.
2.--1-Efftlf-t7;.17
......
_
•
T:,;t-zgf4.1..EozgLff,_
05,31,176M
_
- -
s�.�_---
__
__
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA-2018-0003
May 24, 2018
A. Background:
1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan(Comprehensive Plan)includes an annual
amendment cycle that runs from November 2nd to November 1St of the following year.
The Planning Commission considers applications received prior to November 1St,
typically in late winter/early spring of the following year,with a decision by City Council
typically in late spring/early summer.
2. For the 2018 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle,the City received four
privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment, designated
as CPA-2018-0001, CPA-2018-0002, CPA-2018-0003, and CPA-2018-0004. Sites
approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent
with the new land use designation. The City initiated two Comprehensive Plan site-
specific amendments. The proposed amendments are considered concurrently and
cumulatively regarding potential impacts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b).
B. Findings: Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140(H),the Planning
Commission makes the following findings with regard to CPA-2018-0003:
1. The site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a privately
initiated request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from SFR to
CMU and to change the Zoning District from R-2 to CMU.
The site is a vacant parcel located southwest of Chester Creek and Dishman Mica-Road
in the Forest Meadows neighborhood. The Union Pacific Railroad runs adjacent to the
parcel along the northeast boundary. A commercial use consisting of a self-service
storage facility is located on the northeast side of the railroad right-of-way. The self-
service storage facility is situated between the railroad right-of-way and Dishman-Mica
Road. Bowdish/Sands Road crosses over Dishman-Mica Road on the east side and
adjacent to the site area and provides access to the site along the east boundary. Single-
family homes in the Forest Meadows 1St Addition subdivision are located along the west
boundary of the parcel. Single-family homes in the short plat SHP-09-10 have been
recently constructed along the south boundary of the site. The subject parcel is Lot 7 of
this short plat.
According to the National Wetlands Inventory(NWI)Map,the project site included
wetlands. Biology, Soil& Water, Inc., (BSW)conducted a comprehensive Critical Areas
study as part of SHP-09-10 and submitted a report, dated August 12, 2010. The BSW
study conducted numerous test holes to determine soil type and hydrologic characteristics
of the site. The study concluded that wetlands do not exist on the site.
A"Type F" stream is located along the north boundary of the property within the Union
Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)Flood Insurance
Rate Maps,dated July 6, 2010,a significant portion of the site lies within the 100-year
floodplain. A narrow strip of land running along the north boundary of the property is
located within the floodway and would preclude development.
The final plat of SHP-09-10 designated the entire project site as a blanket drainage
easement to be used for storing and treating stormwater. The plat dedication language
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0003 Page 1 of 4
states that no modifications can be made to the boundaries of the drainage easements
without the approval of the City.
2. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, chapter 43.21C RCW(SEPA), an
environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan map
amendment.
3. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist, and a threshold determination was made for
the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. A Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS)was issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment on February 2,
2018.
4. On February 20,2018,the Depaitnient of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to
adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and Title
21SVMC have been fulfilled.
6. SVMC 17.80.140 provides the requirements for the Comprehensive Plan amendment
process, including public participation,notice and public hearing requirements.
7. On February 2,2018 and February 9, 2018,notice for the proposed amendment was
published in the Spokane Valley News Herald.
8. On February 2,2018 individual notice of the site-specific map amendment was mailed to
all property owners within 800 feet of the subject sites.
9. On February 2,2018 the subject sites were posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign
and a description of the proposal.
10. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to evaluate the cumulative
impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the
annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW
(Growth Management Act).
11. On February 16,2018 Al Merkel submitted a timely appeal of the SEPA DNS for CPA-
2018-0003 on behalf of Galen Pavliska. APP-2018-0001 was forwarded to the City's
Hearing Examiner.
12. On February 22,2018 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on CPA-2018-
0003. After receiving public testimony,the Planning Commission closed the public
hearing and informed the public that no further action would occur on the Comprehensive
Plan amendments until the Hearing Examiner conducted the appeal hearing and issued a
decision.
13. On March 27,2018 the Hearing Examiner conducted an appeal hearing on the SEPA
appeal.
14. On April 17, 2018 the Hearing Examiner issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal.
15. On May 10, 2018 the Planning Commission deliberated on each of the Comprehensive
Plan amendments.
16. The public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment is generally not
served by the proposed amendment. Land use and the regulation of land uses are
inherently related to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment.
The City is required by the GMA to identify and protect Critical Areas. The majority of
the site is located within a floodplain. A Type F stream is located north of the site in the
railroad right-of-way and would require buffering for protection. The soil on the site is
classified as an alluvium soil made up of finely granulated silt and clay deposits from
water flow.
17. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth
Management Act(GMA)chapter 36.70A RCW. The request generally does not conflict
with the goals. The request allows development in urban areas where adequate public
facilities and services are available. Environmental regulations ensure that critical areas
are adequately protected while balancing the land owners right to develop the property.
With regard to the portion of the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan not affected by the
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0003 Page 2 of 4
amendment,the request is not consistent with the intent of the CMU land use designation
as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
18. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond
the property owner's control. The amendment does not respond to any substantial
changes since the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. Growth has been continuous in the
area,with the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way serving as a dividing line between
residential and commercial land use designations.
19. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error.
20. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive
Plan. A thorough analysis of land use quantity and needs was completed during the
City's 2016 legislative update to the Comprehensive Plan. Deficiencies in the plan were
addressed as part of the update and land use changes were implemented in this area that
addressed those deficiencies. There is adequate commercial and industrial property to
accommodate future growth.
C. Factors:
1. The effect upon the physical environment:
The change in land use would allow a more intense development of the property. The
CMU designation is the most versatile of the commercial/mixed use designations,
allowing uses ranging from light manufacturing to single-family dwellings. If
commercial development occurs,the site could transition from open field of grasses,trees
and shrubs to asphalt parking areas, stormwater treatment areas,and buildings with
commercial landscaping. The maximum building height in the CMU zone is regulated
through the application of transitional setbacks and would be limited by the proximity of
the surrounding residential uses. A residential density standard does not exist in the
CMU zone and multi-family development would be limited by the physical factors
imposed by the site.
2. The effect on open space, streams,rivers,and lakes:
The site is currently dedicated and utilized as a drainage easement for the stormwater
associated with Sundown Drive. Any development that would occur on the site would
require compliance with Title 21 SVMC Environmental Controls to limit the impact to
both the floodplain and to the riparian area along Chester Creek. Modifications to the
floodplain may be undertaken through a floodplain map revision process with FEMA.
Chester Creek is considered a type"F" Stream in the location of the proposed CPA. The
stream would require the necessary buffers and protection.
3. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods:
The areas south and west of the site are residential neighborhoods comprised of single
family homes. The density of the homes ranges from one single family home per acre to
four single family homes per acre. The lot sizes are generally between 10,000 and
40,000 square feet. The neighborhood is separated from the CMU land uses along
Dishman-Mica Road by the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and tracks. The change
would not be compatible with the low-density single family residential neighborhood that
exists adjacent to the site.
4. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public
transportation,parks,recreation, and schools:
The City of Spokane Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a city-wide
basis through capital facilities planning. The City determined that there is adequate
transportation infrastructure to meet transportation concurrency in this area. The site is
located within the service area for Spokane County Water District#3 and is currently
served with water. Spokane County Environmental Services serves the site with sewer.
5. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region:
The City of Spokane Valley updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2016 with considerable
public outreach. Analysis and public input with regard to the land use needs and
requirements of the Ponderosa neighborhood, Dishman-Mica corridor, and the City in
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0003 Page 3 of 4
general were considered at that time. Appropriate changes in land use designations and
zoning were undertaken at that time to address any needs or deficiencies identified in the
update process.
6. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and
the demand for such land:
The Comprehensive Plan underwent a legislative update in 2016. As part of the 2016
update, CMU land use was designated along the Dishman-Mica corridor in the vicinity of
the proposed amendment. In the south Dishman-Mica area,near the proposed
amendment site,there is over 24 acres of undeveloped CMU zoned property.
7 .The current and projected population density in the area: and
Spokane Valley has experienced steady,but modest population growth since its
incorporation, growing at a rate of about 1%per year. It is assumed that the site
characteristics will limit the number of dwelling units to below the maximum density.
Light manufacturing, office or retail development would not add to the population
density. The development of the property will not have a significant impact on the
population density.
8. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan:
Overall the amendment would have no substantive effect on other aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan.
D. Conclusion:
For the reasons outlined above,the Planning Commission does not find compliance with SVMC
17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2018-0003.
Proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2018-0003 is not consistent with the goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and will not promote the public health, safety,welfare,
and protection of the environment.
E. Recommendation:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council not approve proposed
2018 Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2018-0003.
Approved this 24th day of May, 2018.
Michelle Rasmussen, Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0003 Page 4 of 4
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA-2018-0004
May 24, 2018
A. Background:
1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan(Comprehensive Plan)includes an annual
amendment cycle that runs from November 2nd to November 1St of the following year.
The Planning Commission considers applications received prior to November 1St,
typically in late winter/early spring of the following year,with a decision by City Council
typically in late spring/early summer.
2. For the 2018 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle,the City received four
privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment, designated
as CPA-2018-0001, CPA-2018-0002, CPA-2018-0003, and CPA-2018-0004. Sites
approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent
with the new land use designation. The City initiated two Comprehensive Plan site-
specific amendments. The proposed amendments are considered concurrently and
cumulatively regarding potential impacts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b).
B. Findings: Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140(H),the Planning
Commission makes the following findings with regard to CPA-2018-0004:
1. The site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment is a privately-
initiated request to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation of parcel
45212.1348 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).
2. The contiguous parcel to the south is also owned by the Schmautz Family and is zoned
NC. During the 2016 update of the Comprehensive Plan,both parcels owned by the
Schmautz Family Trust were re-designated and rezoned. Parcel 45212.1348 was
designated SFR,with an R-3 zoning district, and parcel 45212.1349 was designated NC,
with an NC zoning district. The underlying plat contains restrictive covenants that
preclude commercial development on the site,however,the City does not enforce
covenants.
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW
(SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan
map amendment.
4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist, and a threshold determination was made for
the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. A Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS)was issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment on February 2,
2018.
5. On February 20,2018,the Depaitnient of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to
adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
6. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and Title
21SVMC have been fulfilled.
7. SVMC 17.80.140 provides the requirements for the Comprehensive Plan amendment
process, including public participation,notice and public hearing requirements.
8. On February 2,2018 and February 9, 2018,notice for the proposed amendment was
published in the Spokane Valley News Herald.
9. On February 2,2018 individual notice of the site-specific map amendment was mailed to
all property owners within 800 feet of the subject sites.
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0004 Page 1 of 3
10. On February 2,2018 the subject sites were posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign
and a description of the proposal.
11. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to evaluate the cumulative
impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the
annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW
(Growth Management Act).
12. The public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by
the proposed amendment. Infrastructure in the form of roadways,parking, sewer,water,
schools, and fire protection, is built through the course of development that will protect
and serve the public health, safety, and welfare. The site has no environmentally
sensitive areas.
13. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth
Management Act(GMA)chapter 36.70A RCW. The amendment allows opportunity for
growth in a centralized area with adequate public facilities, and creates opportunity for
small scale businesses to develop in a neighborhood oriented commercial area within
walking distance of residential neighborhoods. The request does not conflict with any
other GMA goals.
14. The proposed amendment does not respond to a substantial change in conditions beyond
the property owner's control. This property and the property located adjacent to the
south are under the same ownership. The southern property was zoned NC during the
2016 update however site characteristics constrain its development. Access to any
neighborhood commercial development would be more easily accommodated if access
can be gained from the amendment site.
15. The proposed amendment does not correct a mapping error.
16. The proposed amendment does address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive
Plan. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update specifically sought to identify areas into
which NC zoning could be clustered. The Comprehensive Plan identifies neighborhood
areas served by arterial roadways. The parcel located adjacent and south of the subject
parcel was identified and zoned as NC as part of the 2016 update. The amendment would
allow the full use of this parcel and expand the NC zone.
C. Factors:
1. The effect upon the physical environment:
The site will likely transition from a residential use with residential driveways,trees,
lawn, and buildings to a commercial building with parking structures, commercial
landscaping, and stormwater treatment areas. The transition would have some impact on
the physical environment.
2. The effect on open space, streams,rivers, and lakes:
The site does not contain any streams,rivers or lakes. There will be negligible impact on
the open space areas.
3. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding
neighborhoods:
The commercial uses allowed in the NC zone are limited and are intended to be of a scale
that is compatible with a neighborhood. A Neighborhood Commercial development is
purposefully limited to reduce impacts to neighboring residential uses. Development
standards will limit the height and location of any new commercial use. A positive
impact would be created if the property is developed with a use that serves the
surrounding residential uses.
4. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities,roads,public
transportation,parks,recreation, and schools:
Neighborhood commercial use will likely have minimal impact on parks,recreation or
schools. No impacts are anticipated.
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0004 Page 2 of 3
5. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region:
2016 Comprehensive Plan Update sought to increase the neighborhood commercial
nodes. Providing a neighborhood commercial use within a residential neighborhood will
provide both economic opportunity and a neighborhood amenity.
6. The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and
the demand for such land:
As part of the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update, areas with the densities to support
neighborhood scale retail were identified. The parcel adjacent and south of the subject
parcel was identified as a suitable site and designated for neighborhood commercial land
use and zoning as part of the 2016 update. Sloping terrain limits this site however.
7. The current and projected population density in the area: and
The addition of a neighborhood retail development is not anticipated to increase or
decrease the population or density in the area. The change will have no impact on
population density.
8. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan:
The NC designation would support many of the Economic Development, Land Use,
Transportation, and Housing goals. It would have little effect on the Capital Facilities
and Public Services, Public and Private Utilities, Parks and Open Space and Natural
Resources elements of the Comprehensive plan.
D. Conclusion:
The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2018-0004. Proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan
amendment CPA-2018-0004 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
and will promote the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment.
E. Recommendation:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve proposed 2018
Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2018-0004.
Approved this 24th day of May, 2018.
Michelle Rasmussen, Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0004 Page 3 of 3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA-2018-0005
May 24, 2018
A. Background:
1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan(Comprehensive Plan)includes an annual
amendment cycle that runs from November 2nd to November 1St of the following year.
The Planning Commission considers applications received prior to November 1St,
typically in late winter/early spring of the following year,with a decision by City Council
typically in late spring/early summer.
2. For the 2018 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle,the City received four
privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment, designated
as CPA-2018-0001, CPA-2018-0002, CPA-2018-0003, and CPA-2018-0004. Sites
approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent
with the new land use designation. The City initiated two Comprehensive Plan site-
specific amendments. The proposed amendments are considered concurrently and
cumulatively regarding potential impacts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b).
B. Findings: Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140(H),the Planning
Commission makes the following findings with regard to CPA-2018-0005:
1. The City proposes to expand the NC designation and zoning to eliminate the 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).
2. The subject parcels are 45355.9035,46355.9038,46352.9039,46351.9037 and
46354.9036; and located south of the intersection of Progress Road and Forker Road;
and further located in Section 35 of Township 26, Range 44, Willamette Meridian,
Spokane County, Washington
3. To alleviate the bisection of the irrigation canal and correct lot lines the parcel numbers
were updated by the Spokane County Assessor's Office since the application process
started.
4. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW
(SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan
map amendment.
5. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist, and a threshold determination was made for
the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. A Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS)was issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment on February 2,
2018.
6. On February 20,2018,the Depaitinent of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to
adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
7. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and Title 21
SVMC have been fulfilled.
8. SVMC 17.80.140 provides the requirements for the Comprehensive Plan amendment
process, including public participation,notice and public hearing requirements.
9. On February 2,2018 and February 9, 2018,notice for the proposed amendment was
published in the Spokane Valley News Herald.
10. On February 2,2018 individual notice of the site-specific map amendment was mailed to
all property owners within 800 feet of the subject sites.
11. On February 2,2018 the subject sites were posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign
and a description of the proposal.
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0005 Page 1 of 3
12. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to evaluate the cumulative
impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the
annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW
(Growth Management Act).
13. The public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by
the proposed amendment. The affected parcels are inappropriately and erroneously
burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence
by the mapping error. The public health, safety,welfare and protection of the
environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the
property to develop consistent with other properties in the area.
14. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth
Management Act(GMA)chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning
goals would be met:
a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant
Comprehensive Plan.
15. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning.
The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting
in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the
City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes,properties designated NC
were expanded and designated on portions of parcels associated with CPA-2018-0005.
16. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected
parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
Update. This created parcels burdened by two different sets of development regulations.
17. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive
Plan.
C. Factors:
1. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing
the property under the proposed designation. This is a non-project action and future
development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements.
2. The site contains designated critical areas that include a Type F stream on the northwest corner
of parcel 46351.9049,and parcels are located within a 100-year floodplain. FEMA has accepted
the conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR) to modify the boundaries and remove the
floodplain from the majority of the site. SVMC 21.40 Critical Areas will ensure that adequate
protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are addressed.
3. The existing land use designation of NC for the proposed amendment was evaluated and placed
on the property through the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The amendment corrects the
minor mapping error and eliminates split zoned parcels. The corrections are minimal in size and
would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods by significantly
increasing the area available for development. CPA-2018-0005 parcels are vacant and future
development will be evaluated for compliance with all applicable City and State requirements as
it relates to adjacent uses.
4. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City addresses
adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities planning. Capital
facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update. The minor
adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. At the time of development, an additional
SEPA review may be required to evaluate the impacts of the use(s) and proposed structure(s)on
the physical environment and transportation.
5. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood.
The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error.
6. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each
designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed
in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density.As discussed in the Land Use chapter
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0005 Page 2 of 3
of the Comprehensive Plan the neighborhood-scale commercial development is limited in the
City. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan update designated a portion of parcels NC associated with
CTA-2018-0005.
7. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences.
The amendment have an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand
population analysis since no increase in density is anticipated.
8. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive
Plan. The amendment is correcting a mapping error.
D. Conclusion:
The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2018-0005. Proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan
amendment CPA-2018-0005 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
and will promote the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment.
E. Recommendation:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve proposed 2018
Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2018-0005.
Approved this 24th day of May, 2018.
Michelle Rasmussen, Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0005 Page 3 of 3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CPA-2018-0006
May 24, 2018
A. Background:
1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan(Comprehensive Plan)includes an annual
amendment cycle that runs from November 2nd to November 1St of the following year.
The Planning Commission considers applications received prior to November 1St,
typically in late winter/early spring of the following year,with a decision by City Council
typically in late spring/early summer.
2. For the 2018 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle,the City received four
privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendment, designated
as CPA-2018-0001, CPA-2018-0002, CPA-2018-0003, and CPA-2018-0004. Sites
approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment receive a zoning classification consistent
with the new land use designation. The City initiated two Comprehensive Plan site-
specific amendments. The proposed amendments are considered concurrently and
cumulatively regarding potential impacts pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b).
B. Findings: Pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140(H),the Planning
Commission makes the following findings with regard to CPA-2018-0006:
1. The City proposes to expand the Industrial Mixed Use(IMU)designation and zoning to
eliminate the split designation of IMU and Single Family Residential(SFR,and the
associated zoning of IMU and Single Family Residential Urban District(R-3).
2. The subject parcel is 45015.1409, and addressed as 16205 East Trent Avenue;the parcel
is located 490 feet west of the intersection of Trent Avenue (SR 290)and Lillian Road;
and further located in the north half of Section 1,Township 25, Range 44, Willamette
Meridian, Spokane County, Washington
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in chapter 43.21C RCW
(SEPA), an environmental checklist was required for the proposed Comprehensive Plan
map amendment.
4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist, and a threshold determination was made for
the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. A Determination of Non-Significance
(DNS)was issued for the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment on February 2,
2018.
5. On February 20,2018,the Depaitnient of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to
adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
6. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and Title 21
SVMC have been fulfilled.
7. SVMC 17.80.140 provides the requirements for the Comprehensive Plan amendment
process, including public participation,notice and public hearing requirements.
8. On February 2,2018 and February 9, 2018,notice for the proposed amendment was
published in the Spokane Valley News Herald.
9. On February 2,2018 individual notice of the site-specific map amendment was mailed to
all property owners within 800 feet of the subject sites.
10. On February 2,2018 the subject sites were posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign
and a description of the proposal.
11. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment to evaluate the cumulative
impacts consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b). The review was consistent with the
annual amendment process outlined in SVMC 17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW
(Growth Management Act).
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0006 Page 1 of 3
12. The public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment will be served by
the proposed amendment. The affected parcel is inappropriately and erroneously
burdened by two different sets of development regulations as an unintended consequence
by the mapping error. The public health, safety,welfare and protection of the
environment benefit is eliminating the bisected zoning condition which allows the
property to develop consistent with other properties in the area.
13. The proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Growth
Management Act(GMA)chapter 36.70A RCW. Specifically the following planning
goals would be met:
a. Provides a suitable land use designation consistent with the City's GMA compliant
Comprehensive Plan.
14. The amendment does respond to a substantial change of land use designation and zoning.
The City underwent an extensive legislative comprehensive plan update in 2016 resulting
in a land use designation that was not intended to bisect property. This amendment is the
City's first opportunity to respond. As part of the changes,the land use designation
IMU was created and applied to parcel associated with CPA-2018-0006 to capture the
existing diverse uses and focus future infill development along Trent Avenue.
15. The City initiated amendment corrects a mapping error. The City inadvertently bisected
parcels with the land use designations/zoning during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
Update. This created a parcel burdened by two different sets of development regulations.
16. The proposed amendment does not address an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive
Plan.
C. Factors:
1. There are no known physical characteristics that would create difficulties in developing
the property under the proposed designation. This is a non-project action and future
development will be evaluated for compliance with all environmental requirements.
2. There are no known critical areas associated with the site, such as wetlands, fish and
wildlife habitat areas,frequently flooded areas or geologically hazardous areas associated
with CPA-2018-0006. The parcel is not located within shoreline jurisdiction,nor are
there known surface water quality or quantity issues. The City's critical areas ordinance
will ensure that adequate protection of the critical areas and adjacent land use are
addressed.
3. The City initiated amendment corrects a minor mapping error to eliminate a split zoned parcel.
The correction is both minimal in size and would not create an impact to adjacent land uses and
surrounding neighborhoods by significantly increasing the area available for development. CPA-
2018-0006 parcel is fully developed and a swale is constructed within the split zoned portion of
land designated SFR.
4. The map correction will have no impact on community facilities or utilities. The City of Spokane
Valley addresses adequacy of community facilities on a citywide basis through capital facilities
planning. Capital facilities and utilities were analyzed in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update.
The minor adjustment to land use amounts will have no impact. Currently the site is served with
all utilities and public streets.
5. The proposed amendment will not affect the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood.
The land use designation exists and the City is correcting a mapping error.
6. The mapping error will have an insignificant effect on the amount of land associated with each
designation as this corrects an error. The adjustments will not affect the density currently allowed
in the vicinity and will have no effect on population density.Residential uses allowed in the IMU
designation are incidental and subservient to any commercial or industrial uses.
7. The amendment corrects a mapping error. This will not result in displacement of residences.
The amendment has an insignificant effect on population density and does not demand population
analysis since no increase in density is anticipated.
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0006 Page 2 of 3
8. The insignificant adjustment to land quantities will not affect any portion of the Comprehensive
Plan. The amendment corrects a mapping error.
D. Conclusion:
The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H)—Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2018-0006. Proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan
amendment CPA-2018-0006 is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
and will promote the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment.
E. Recommendation:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve proposed 2018
Comprehensive Plan amendment CPA-2018-0006.
Approved this 24th day of May, 2018.
Michelle Rasmussen, Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Horton, Planning Commission Secretary
Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation CPA-2018-0006 Page 3 of 3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENTS 2018-0001 THROUGH 2018-0006
MAY 24, 2018
A. Background:
1. The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan(Comprehensive Plan)includes an annual amendment cycle
that runs from November 2nd to November 1st of the following year. The Planning Commission
considers applications received prior to November 1st in late winter/early spring of the following year,
with a decision by City Council in late spring/early summer.
B. For the 2018 Comprehensive Plan annual amendment cycle, the Community and Public Works
Depaitnient received four privately initiated requests for site-specific Comprehensive Plan amendments,
designated as CPA-2018-0001, CPA-2018-0002, CPA-2018-0003 and CPA-2018-0004. Sites approved
for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will receive a zoning classification consistent with the new land use
designation. The City initiated two Comprehensive Plan map amendments designated as CPA-2018-0005
and CPA-2018-0006.
C. Findings:
1. Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.80.140 provides the framework for the public to
participate throughout the Comprehensive Plan amendment process, including notice and public
hearing requirements.
2. On February 20, 2018, the Depaitnient of Commerce was provided a notice of intent to adopt
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act set forth in RCW 43.21C (SEPA), environmental
checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan map and text amendment.
4. Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment. Determinations of Non-Significance(DNS)were issued for each of
the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments on February 2, 2018.
5. The Planning Commission finds the procedural requirements of SEPA and SVMC Title 21 have been
fulfilled.
6. On February 2, 2018, notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News
Herald and each site subject to a site-specific amendment was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing"
sign,with a description of the proposal.
7. Individual notice of the site-specific map amendment proposals were mailed to all property owners
within 800 feet of each affected site.
8. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments concurrently to evaluate the
cumulative impacts. The review was consistent with the annual amendment process outlined in SVMC
17.80.140 and chapter 36.70A RCW(Growth Management Act).
9. On February 16,2018 Al Merkel submitted a timely appeal of the SEPA DNS for CPA-2018-0003 on
behalf of Galen Pavliska. APP-2018-0001 was forwarded to the Hearing Examiner.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission
for proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Page 1 of 3
10. On February 22, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on each of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments. After receiving public testimony,the Planning Commission closed
the public hearing and informed the public that no further action would occur on the Comprehensive
Plan amendments until the Hearing Examiner conducted the Appeal hearing and issued a decision.
11. On March 27,2018 the Hearing Examiner conducted an Appeal Hearing on the SEPA appeal.
12. On April 17, 2018 the Hearing Examiner issued a decision that denied the SEPA appeal.
13. On May 10, 2018 the Planning Commission deliberated on each of the Comprehensive Plan
amendments and voted to forward to City Council with the following recommendations:
CPA-2018-0001 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council a recommendation
of approval of CPA-2018-0001.
CPA-2018-0002 On December 20,2017 the applicant withdrew the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and the Planning Commission did not take action on the request.
CPA-2018-0003 The Planning Commission voted 6-1 to forward to City Council a recommendation
of denial of CPA-2018-0003.
CPA-2018-0004 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation
of approval of CPA-2018-0004.
CPA-2018-0005 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation
of approval of CPA-2018-0005.
CPA-2018-0006 The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to forward to City Council a recommendation
of approval of CPA-2018-0006.
The Planning Commission hereby adopts and incorporates findings for each Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(See Attachments).
Conclusions:
The Planning Commission finds compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Approval Criteria for CPA-2018-0001, CPA-2108-0004, CPA-2018-0005, and CPA-2018-0006. The
proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the Spokane
Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will promote the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the
environment.
The Planning Commission does not find compliance with SVMC 17.80.140(H) — Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Approval Criteria for CPA-2018-0003. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the goals
and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and will not promote the public health, safety,
welfare, or protection of the environment.
Recommendations:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the 2018 Comprehensive
Plan amendments CPA-2018-0001, CPA-2018-0004,CPA-2018-0005 and CPA-2018-0006. CPA-2018-0002
was withdrawn and the Planning Commission did not take action on the request. CPA-2018-0003 is forwarded
with a recommendation to deny the request from the Planning Commission.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission
for proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Page 2 of 3
Approved this 24th day of May,2018
Michelle Rasmussen, Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Horton,Planning Commission Secretary
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission
for proposed 2018 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: May 24, 2018
Item: Check all that apply n old business I1new business I1 public hearing
n information n study session n pending legislation
FILE NUMBER: CTA-2018-0001
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing - Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: A City initiated code text amendment to Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) Section 19.65.020(1) Agriculture and Animal Keeping to change the minimum
lot size requirement from one acre to 40,000 square feet for the keeping of poultry and livestock in
residential and mixed use zones and other associated housekeeping items.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150 and 19.30.040; and RCW 36.70A.106
PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND:
During the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation Update,the minimum lot area required for
animal keeping in the residential and mixed use zones was increased from 40,000 square feet to one acre,which
inadvertently established all lots below 43,560 sq. ft.,or one acre, as non-conforming uses. No changes were
made to the number of animals allowed. The code text amendment will return the minimum lot size to 40,000
square feet utilized from 2004 to 2016. The number of animals allowed, measured as an animal unit per acre,will
not be changed.
The Planning Commission conducted a study session on March 22,2018 and discussed the current and proposed
regulations.
At this time the Planning Commission will consider to the proposed amendment to revise the Animal Keeping
minimum lot area requirement from one acre to 40,000 square feet in the residential and mixed use zones. The
text revisions regarding swine and chickens are intended to clean up the code as the language is extraneous. Swine
keeping is prohibited and chicken keeping regulations are addressed in SVMC Section 19.65.020(7). The text
deletion will not change the associated swine prohibition or chicken keeping regulations.
The Planning Commission should conduct the public hearing on the proposed amendment and consider public
input. Following deliberations a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff recommends approval of CTA-2018-0001
STAFF CONTACT: Micki Harnois, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report and Findings CTA-2018-0001
2. Proposed amendments to SVMC 19.65.010
3. Presentation
RPCA Public Hearing for CTA-2018-0001 Page 1 of 1
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Sia041\ftft
pot BUILDING AND PLANNING DIVISION
ne
Valley STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-2018-0001
STAFF REPORT DATE:May 17,2018
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: May 24, 2018, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall
Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A City initiated Code Text Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC)to revise Section 19.65.020 Agriculture and Animal Keeping minimum lot area requirement from
one acre to 40,000 square feet for the keeping of poultry and livestock(excluding chickens).
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Title 17 General Provisions, and SVMC 19.30.040 Development regulation text amendments.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of CTA-2018-0001.
STAFF PLANNER:Micki Harnois, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Proposed code text amendments to SVMC 19.65.020
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The
following summarizes application procedures for the proposal.
Process Date
Published Notice of Public Hearing: May 4,2018 and May 11,2018
Sent Notice of Public Hearing to staff/agencies: May 9,2018
SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance issued March 30, 2018
Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to March 15, 2018
Adopt Amendment
2. PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley incorporated in 2003 and utilized the
Spokane County Development Regulations as the City's interim regulations. The residential
zoning in place at that time did not allow animal raising and/or keeping in any residential zones in
the City. In 2004,the regulations were changed to allow animal keeping in the Urban Residential
Estate(UR-1)zone. The minimum lot area for residential units was 40,000 square feet. The
number of animals allowed to be kept varied depending on the animal and size and was regulated
as the maximum number of animals allowed per acre. In 2007,the City adopted its own
regulations and allowed animal keeping in all residential zones subject to a minimum lot size of
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0001
40,000 square feet. The number of animals allowed per acre remained the same. The Code was
amended to allow animal keeping associated with residential uses in the mixed use zones subject
to the same restrictions.
During the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Update,the minimum lot
area required for animal keeping in the residential and mixed use zones was increased to one acre,
which inadvertently established all lots below 43,560 square feet, or one acre, as non-conforming
uses.No changes were made to the number of animals allowed. The code text amendment will
return the minimum lot size to 40,000 square feet utilized from 2004-to 2016. The number of
animals allowed, measured as an animal unit per acre,will not be changed.
The proposal is to modify Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Chapter 19.65.020. The
change to the existing animal raising and keeping regulations include:
• Allowing poultry and livestock only on 40,000 square feet or greater lots; and
• Associated clean-up revisions.
These proposed revisions align with the City's former animal raising and keeping standards.
B. 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 consistent with the applicable goals and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.The amendment will allow reasonable opportunity
for animal keeping and raising activities while protecting adjacent property owners
from adverse impact, and does not affect the character of the neighborhood..
Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are shown below:
Land Use Goal-1 Maintain and enhance the character and quality of life in Spokane
Valley.
(2) Staff Analysis: Historically, animal keeping has been allowed in Spokane Valley
area,before and after incorporation on lots with 40,000 square feet or more. The
standard was increased up to 43,560 square feet during the 2016 Comprehensive Plan
and Development Regulation Update. The proposed amendment returns the standard
to its historical 40,000 square feet and leaves all other associated animal keeping
regulations in place that reasonably protect adjacent property owners from adverse
impacts of animal raising and keeping activities. Since the code text amendment
returns the minimum lot area to its previous 40,000 square foot minimum
requirement,which has been implemented in the City for the last 15 years,it does not
result in any change that may affect neighborhood character. 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 change returns the minimum lot size
Page 2 of 3
Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0001
to its historical 40,000 square feet, and leaves all health and safety regulations intact.
The change inadvertently created legal non-conforming uses for any residential lot
with animals that was between 43,560 square feet and 40,000 square feet. The change
corrects this unintended consequence and eliminates the legal nonconforming use
status attributed to those properties.
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):
Adequate public noticing was completed for CTA-2018-0001 consistent with adopted public
noticing procedures.
3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments
a. Findings:
The draft regulations were sent to staff for their review. No substantive comments were
received.
b. Conclusion(s):
No concerns are noted.
C. OVERALL CONCLUSION
The proposed code text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans policies and goals.
D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the code text amendment
to City Council with or without changes.
Page 3 of 3
Draft
19.65.020 SVMC
Agriculture and Animal Keeping Provisions
March 22, 2018
19.65.020 Agriculture and animal.
A.Animal Raising and/or Keeping.Where permitted, the keeping of poultry and livestock, excluding swine and
chickens,_is subject to the following conditions:
1. Minimum Lot Requirements.
a. In residential zones, the lot shall equal or exceed 40,000 square feet one gross acrc in
area, except as set forth in SVMC 19.65.020(A)(7)and (9).
b. In mixed-use zones with legally established residential uses, the lot shall equal or
exceed 40,000 square feet one gros acrc in area.
2. The keeping of swine is prohibited.
3.Any permanent or temporary structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited
to, any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, coop, hutch, or enclosure, or any manure pile, shall
not be located within 75 feet from any dwelling.
4. Permanent or temporary structure housing poultry or livestock including, but not limited to,
any stable, paddock, yard, runway, pen, coop, hutch, or enclosure, or any manure pile, shall not
be located within the front yard setback or be closer than 10 feet from any side property line.
5. The keeping of animals and livestock is limited as follows:
a. Not more than three horses, mules, donkeys, bovines, llamas, or alpacas shall be
permitted per gross acre; or
b. Not more than six sheep or goats shall be permitted per gross acre; or
c.Any equivalent combination of SVMC 19.65.020(A)(5)(a)or(b).
6. Small Animals/Fowl.A maximum of one small animal or fowl (excluding chickens), including
duck, turkey, goose, or similar domesticated fowl, or rabbit, mink, chinchilla, or similar animal,
may be raised or kept per 3,000 square feet of gross lot area. In addition, a pen, shed, coop,
hutch, or similar containment structure shall be constructed prior to the acquisition of any small
animal/fowl and shall be kept a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line and five feet from
side and rear property lines.
7. In residential areas, the keeping of chickens is subject to the following conditions:
a.A maximum of one chicken may be raised or kept per 2,000 gross square feet of lot
area,with a maximum of 25 birds allowed;
b. The keeping of roosters is prohibited;
CTA-2018-0001 Animal Raising and Keeping Min. Lot Size Page 1
c. Pens, coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall be kept a minimum of 20
feet from the front property line and five feet from side and rear property lines;
d. Pens, coops, hutches, or similar containment structures shall be kept a minimum of 25
feet from dwellings on neighboring properties; and
e.All chickens shall be contained within the subject property.
8. Stables, paddocks, yards, runways, pens, coops, hutches, enclosures, structures, pastures,
and grazing areas shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition.
9. In residential areas, hobby beekeeping is subject to the following conditions:
a. The number of beehives shall be limited to one beehive per 4,356 gross square feet of
lot area;
b. Beehives shall be set back a minimum of five feet from a side or rear property line and
20 feet from the front property line;
c.A flyaway barrier shall be provided that is at least six feet high and consists of a solid
wall, solid fencing material, dense vegetation, or combination thereof, that is parallel to the
side or rear property line(s)and extends beyond the beehive(s) in each direction that bees
are forced to fly at an elevation of at least six feet above ground level over the property
lines in the vicinity of the beehives;
d. Beekeepers shall maintain an adequate supply of water for bees located close to the
hives; and
e. The beekeeper shall be certified by the Washington State Beekeeper's Association.
CTA-2018-0001 Animal Raising and Keeping Min. Lot Size Page 2
sioi >r��n
jUalley
Planning Commission Meeting
May 24, 2018
CTA-2018-0001 A City Initiated Code Text Amendment
Public Hearing
Purpose of Presentation
Background Information
Historical zoning and lot size
Overview of revisions to existing Animal Keeping
regulations (SVMC 19.65.020)
PROCESS
ta
oe
•- -• a oe •° Study Session Administrative
ct
14 N o •� March 22-2018 c Report TBD
,-1 Ao C ci.O
W M Public Hearing Ordinance 1st
a : : May 24, 2018 Reading TBD
o � 11 •~ L)
14 41. : Findings of Fact Ordinance 2nd
CJ
1▪.4 c 14 June 14, 2018 Reading TBD
O 4.1
4I
' AI
1 A
A Today
Proposed Amendment Overview
9
City initiated 0 Title 19 SVMC — Zoning
amendment to return Regulations
the minimum lot size
to 40,000 s.f. to be ❑ SVMC 19.65.020(A)( 1 ) Agriculture
consistent with the and Animal
minimum lot size in the
R-1 zone and eliminate Reduce the minimum lot size from one
the inadvertent gross acre (43,560 s.f.) to 40,000 s.f.
creation of non-
conforming uses Applies to Residential and Mixed Use
Zones
Historical Zoning and Lot Size (2003 -2016)
0 2003 No Animal Keeping Allowed in Residential Zones
❑ 2004 UR- 1 Zone Adopted
Allowed animal keeping on 40,000 sf min lot area
3 large animals/acre
❑ 2007 — 2016 COSV Adopted Development Regulations
Established 40,000 sf as min lot area for animal keeping in
Residential Zones
3 large animals acre
HISTORICAL ZONING: INTERIM ZONING MAP 2004
_,Iii_ An_
, ,,,,,,..., : : , I J.,
. ?. ice 1_�, -.aril
I• „ea%rlfJl dilik
M �% jUUIj �i niI ��
�� lik i v . F ' ■rilfII iUu r,, 7H.111.]=1
..J.] 1 41111+ - -
r't L. - ..15.A.':e'7[4010.;;;'.!.;*_41--.1.-1PAlt
�� � s / `r` 'i �riILI d 11=g:. tililli_zl�L
ill
�, pp IIkk
�i'e: G e !La,]®III s 1 i i , f
a ry�!� i — r 1. . le$Ill_' .1., 1111. _Y�e�lt � H: ...:111111111110/111r111111
� � N��e. - -ter � L. i _ -.:' �vs� :4 i -• II`'lll"� mi,
II 1 iiiivEn a-�.
VI a � A` w� s o H!# ms c In ■4NM
, •• I
ih, Ifti!
1111111 ,1, III .��1lllliin i rs iling n1 �'. i, y i�'- 1I��ar� k 4. . r � `l
III f•: 1 "�" i 1■Ii roll_ a ] ■L i'r —I' 7 r• - .10••,ir Mr —
laskiiii.,
■ -I UR-7 �.r;'sa. •—` �y1F11 oe ' IN Lila.
—
._= !
71 • -•,,.--
�� r 11112 ml t,.a r� •
MI 7
■ _a ,..,1. L.� L, "t�+:i,!-. �__ E'er A"`•'J iit.
IMMI
1 nm
„,,„......,„
! I* !
�5 ..
Afiligiiie 11
Ponderosa UR-3.5 and UR-7* zoning Rotchford Acres UR-7* zoning
Historical Zoning and Lot Size (201 6 — present)
■
� Comp Plan Development Regulation Update
Established 43,560 sf min lot area for animal keeping
3 large animals acre
❑ Issue
Update inadvertently increased the min. lot size
Intent: Make the lot size consistent with animal keeping ratio
Created nonconforming animal keeping uses
Draft Regulations
19 .65.020 Agriculture and animal .
A. Animal Raising and/or Keeping. Where permitted, the keeping
of poultry and livestock, excluding swine and chickens, _is subject
to the following conditions:
1 . Minimum Lot Requirements.
a. In residential zones, the lot shall equal or exceed 40,000
square feet in area, except as set forth in SVMC
19.65.020(A)(7) and (9).
b. In mixed-use zones with legally established residential uses,
the lot shall equal or exceed 40,000 square feet in
area.
Next Steps
9
❑ Deliberate and make recommendation to City
Council
ID Approval of Findings — June 14, 2018