Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2019, 01-10 Agenda Packet
SCIT`r OF's 10111"1\111111111%, pomne Valley Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. January 10, 2019 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Amended September 27, 2018, Amended October 11, 2018, November 15, 2018, December 13, 2018 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Election of Officers ii. Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0004, a proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 21, creating a new chapter 21.60 adopting a Planned Action Ordinance for the Centennial Business Park in the northeast industrial area. iii. Annual Training: Public Records Training, Open Public Meetings, iv. Study Session: CTA-2018-0005, a privately initiated amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 19.40.050, 19.40.060 and 19.60.050, proposing changes to duplex and townhome development standards. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER XI. ADJOURNMENT Amended Approved Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall September 27,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff were present: Michelle Rasmussen Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney James Johnson Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Timothy Kelley Marty Palaniuk,Planner Suzanne Stathos Jenny Nickerson,Building Official Danielle Kaschmitter Mike Phillips Mary Moore,Office Assistant Matthew Walton II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the September 27,2018 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 September 13, 2018 minutes. He noted Commissioner Phillips had attended the meeting. The vote to approve the amended minutes was seven in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson stated he attended Valleyfest over the weekend and attended the City Council meetings. He reported that at the September 25, 2018 council meeting Mayor Higgins appointed him to the Spokane County Human Rights Task Force. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0003 A city-initiated proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC) 19.70.050(G) Open Space requirements in Mixed Use Zones. Commissioner Rasmussen opened the public hearing at 6:05. Planner Marty Palaniuk gave a presentation regarding a proposed amendment to SVMC 19.70.050(G) open space requirements in mixed use zones. Mr. Palaniuk stated the amendment was in the public hearing stage of the process. If the amendment is recommended at this meeting, then at the next meeting staff will return with the Planning Commission's findings of fact and recommendations to City Council. Commissioner Kelley clarified there are two mixed use zones within the City's zoning districts which allow residential development, Corridor Use zone and the Mixed Use zones.Mr. Palaniuk said in the Mixed Use zone 85% of the properties and in Corridor Mixed Use 50%, are within the 1300 square foot of a public park or trail. Mr. Palaniuk also explained the use of the words"mixed use"in the sentence referred to both of the mixed use zones, MU and CMU. Mr.Palaniuk reviewed the proposed changes to SVMC 19.70.050(G)which are as follows: • Eliminate the open space exemption for multifamily or mixed use development of less than 10 new dwellings; • Include"public trail"when exempting the open space requirement for development located within 1300 feet of a public park; • Define what form of mixed used development is exempt from providing open space; • Remove "fee in lieu of land"option; • Specify that parking areas shall not be considered as non-residential uses for the purpose of classifying the project as mixed use; • Add a definition for"mixed use" to Appendix A—Definitions, "A development with two or more different land uses combined in a single development project. Mixed-use 2018-09-27 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 development can be either vertical or horizontally mixed, and could include employment uses such as office, retail, community, or cultural facilities, along with higher density residential uses." Chair Rasmussen invited the public to testify. Arthur Witten, Spokane Home Builders Association (SHBA): Mr. Whitten stated the Home Builders Association is in support of the removal of the fee in lieu regulation. He urged planning commission to reinstate the open space exemption for projects with 10 dwelling units or less. He said it builds a strong neighborhood when there are varieties of businesses and residences,whether renter or owner occupied,in mixed use zone.He said he felt the intent of that language was to allow the small-scale multifamily development to accompany these mixed use structures that are allowed in the zones. The SHBA believes the Planning Commission stepped outside of the City Council's intent when directing staff to review this provision and should keep the language. Commissioner Kelley asked if Mr.Whitten meant removing the requirement for 10 units or less in only the Mixed Use zone and not the Corridor Mixed Use zone. Mr. Witten stated he meant in both zones and it should stay in the code. Seeing no one else who wished to testify, Chair Rasmussen closed the public hearing at 6:22 p.m. Commission Johnson moved to accept CTA-2018-0003 with a change to reinstate the open space exemption for developments of 10 units or less. Commissioner Johnson agreed with all of Mr. Whitten's comments and added the exemption would apply to a very small percentage of the overall mixed use zoned lands. Commissioner Kelley asked if the discussion was about Corridor Mixed Use or Mixed Use zone.Commissioner Kelley stated we don't see sidewalks or any way for people to move back and forth safely from building to building. Corridor mixed or mixed use zones supplies that open space to have common areas to socialize. Commissioner Kelly did not support reinstating the open space exemption. Commissioner Phillips supported leave it as proposed and does not support reinstating the exemptions. He stated the open space requirement is only 210 square feet for each dwelling unit and the maximum area that would require dedication would be 2,100 square feet. He said that much area is equal to approximately half of his front yard. He did not feel that was too much to ask a developer. Commissioner Phillips supported the amendment as originally proposed. Commissioner Walton stated he struggled with eliminating the exemptions. He has been a proponent of eliminating this exemption. He does not believe in excessive regulations. Mr.Walton stated the purpose of the change is to support and promote true mixed-use developments and felt that the amendment,as written,does that. He did not support the motion. Commissioner Kelley asked for clarification on the motion and Chair Rasmussen said that the motion on the table was to approve the language as presented with a modification to reinstate the open space exemption for 10 dwelling units or less. Commissioner Kelley stated that those in favor of the motion are in favor of eliminating open space. Commissioner Walton said the motion is to reinstate the stricken requirement for open space for projects with 10 or less dwelling units and to reinstate the language rather than have it remain stricken. Commissioner Stathos did not have any comment. Commissioner Kaschmitter wanted to see open space required for multifamily projects. Commissioner Walton clarified the open space requirement only applies to multifamily projects and not mixed use projects. Commissioner Rasmussen shared support for both sides but feels reinstating the exemption will stimulate economic development, reduce costs, and support more affordable housing. Commissioner Kelley stated that commissioners in favor of open space should vote against the motion on the floor and those not in favor of open space should vote in favor of the motion. Commissioner Johnson stated he thought the amount of open space that would be required for a project with 10 dwelling units or less will not be a sufficiently usable area. Residents will meet their open space needs by going elsewhere. Commissioner Johnson agreed with the concept of focusing development in areas where it fits,but also wants to support infill type projects that fit. Commissioner Kelley referenced the planning goals within Washington State Growth Management Act and said not supporting the motion aligns with the Growth Management Act. Commissioner Walton restated that he supports focusing and supporting mixed-use projects in areas designated 2018-09-27 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 3 for mixed use. He pointed out that the City has designated lands for multifamily development,and there is opportunity for multifamily development in those areas. The Commission should support regulations that encourage mixed-use projects in the land designated for mixed use and feels the amendment, as written, provides that support. Commissioner Johnson asked if staff had any comment.Senior Planner Lori Barlow suggested the Commissioners make a decision and move the amendment forward. Commissioner Rasmussen ask for clarification on voting on the motion and whether a subsequent motion could be brought forward. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb provided clarification on voting on the motion and stated that subsequent motions could be made and voted on. Chair Rasmussen called the vote and the motion on the floor,which would approve the presented changes to 19.70.050 but adding back the exemption for multifamily developments of 10 units or less to provide open space. The vote on this motion was two in favor and five against with Commissioners Kelley, Kaschmitter, Phillips, Stathos, and Walton dissenting. Commissioner Walton moved to approve the amendment as it had been presented. Chair Rasmussen called for the vote with five in favor and two against, Commissioners Johnson and Rasmussen dissenting. The motion passed. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Walton congratulated Commissioner Johnson on his appointment as the City's representative on the Human Rights Commission. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:52 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen,Chair Date signed Deanna Horton for Mary Moore, Office Assistant Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall October 11,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Office Assistant Mary Moore took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson, absent-excused Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Danielle Kaschmitter Timothy Kelley Michael Phillips Michelle Rasmussen Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Suzanne Stathos, absent—excused Mary Moore,Office Assistant Matt Walton Hearing no objections, Commissioners Johnson and Stathos were excused from the meeting. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to accept the October 11, 2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: There were no minutes to approve. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had no reports. V. ADMINIS 1'RATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported staff made a presentation to the Council on October 2, 2018 regarding density and duplexes. Staff reported that in two instances the density had been exceeded,when duplexes were built following the platting process. Council stated they would like to monitor the situation and follow the County's review of their density and duplex development regulations prior to taking any action. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0003 A city-initiated proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.70.050(G)Open Space requirements in Mixed Use Zones. Ms. Barlow explained the findings of fact which reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding CTA-2018-0003 which is a proposed amendment to SVMC 19.70.050(G) amending the open space requirements in mixed use zones. Commissioner Walton moved to approve the findings of fact for CTA-2018-0003 as presented.Commissioner Rasmussen stated the reason she voted against the amendment as proposed was she believes there is a population which does not care about green space and the potential for development to be a little less costly were her concerns. The vote on the motion was. four in favor, zero one against with Commissioner Rasmussen dissenting, and the motion passed. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:12 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen, Chair Date signed 2018-10-11 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 2 Deanna Horton, Secretary Special Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall November 15,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter, absent—excused Mike Basinger,Economic Development Manager Timothy Kelley Ray Wright, Senior Traffic Engineer Michael Phillips,absent-excused Chaz Bates,Economic Development Specialist Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Hearing no objections, Commissioners Kaschmitter and Phillips were excused from the meeting. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the November 15,2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the October 11,2018 minutes as presented. The vote on the motion was five in favor,zero against and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson stated he had attended City Council meetings and the human rights task force.He had heard an interesting presentation on the Jonah Project regarding child sex trafficking in Spokane County at the human rights task force meeting. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Economic Development Manager Mike Basinger informed the Commissioners that the City Council had an administrative report November 20, 2018, regarding the docket for the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. Mr.Basinger reported on the many economic development efforts his department had been working. Some of the highlighted items were: updating the bike and pedestrian plan, adding annexation goals and policies to the Comprehensive Plan, streamlining and improving the Northeast industrial areas to foster more manufacturing business development,working on a 20-year transportation plan,updating the city newsletter, looking at social media as a way to inform citizens and more. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: Pete Miller, 18124 E Mission Avenue: Ms.Miller stated she felt developers have taken advantage of the City code by developing duplexes in the R-3 single family residential zone. Ms. Miller said there are 16 new developments currently being built or planned in her neighborhood, 14 of them are duplexes developments. Many of these developments, she stated are purchased by out of state developers for investment purposes. Ms. Miller pointed out that she felt this was not a Greenacres problem but a citywide problem,affecting the entire R-3 zone. She pointed out the R-3 zone encompasses most of the city. She said that developers are using the duplex regulations in order to increase the density beyond what is allowed in the R-3 zone. She is very concerned that many of these duplexes are not going to be owner occupied and will be left to fall into disrepair. Ms.Miller supplied a map of the Greenacres neighborhood showing the developments in her area and an article from Realtor.com which states among other things that a high concentration of renters will drag down home values. She is requesting the Commission make a change to the code to restrict duplexes in single family residential zones. Stephanie Woodruff, 17501 E Boone Avenue: Ms. Woodruff stated she had read an article that morning citing Spokane Valley as the second best place to buy instead of rent. She said the rankings were based on a 2017 census bureau ranking. She said she moved to the valley because it was peaceful but three years later all of the new development has brought many duplexes,increased traffic and drug deals to the neighborhood. She feels these duplex developments are ruining the ambiance of the valley. She asked the commissioners if they wanted to live in duplexes. She stated it would ruin the valley if these duplex developments were allowed to continue. 2018-11-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 5 Nancy Purcell, 2531 S Adams Road: Ms. Purcell stated she agreed with what Ms. Miller and Ms. Woodruff had to say however, driving around a person could see many signs saying for lease or for rent,but not a lot of for sale signs. She said this is not what we want for our valley. The R-3 zone is for single family homes and it needs to be made clear that what that means. After the public testimony,Commissioner Johnson stated home ownership was something the Planning Commission discusses often. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb said staff had made an administrative report to council October 2, 2018, regarding the duplex densities. The direction from council at that time had been to wait and see what changes Spokane County was making to its municipal code before proposing any changes to the City's code. He said he would check with staff to see if they could make the same presentation to the Planning Commission. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Study Session: CTA-2018-0004 A city-initiated amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)creating a new chapter 21.60 Centennial Business Park Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) Economic Development Specialist Chaz Bates gave a presentation to the Commission explaining the proposed amendment to SVMC Title 21 by adding a new chapter 21.60 Centennial Business Park Planned Action Ordinance (PAO). A planned action ordinance is focused environmental analysis. The City's is for the area located in the northeast industrial area of the City located primarily between Hodges Road,Euclid Avenue,Trent Avenue and Flora Road. It is a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The PAO is limited to the specific identified area for limited analyzed projects in that area. It is voluntary to participate in the PAO. This process will reduce the permitting time for applicants. The City has calculated impact fees for participating in the PAO,of$2,831.00 based on per trip basis. This number is based on peak PM hour trips. Mr. Bates covered the elements,which were updated in the supplemental EIS: air quality,surface water,water runoff,historic and cultural preservation,utility provision and supply and transportation. In summary,Mr. Bates stated the amendment applies to a limited area in the northeast portion of the City, for primarily industrial uses. The City has done a traffic study to anticipate future traffic impacts. Participation is voluntary,participants will pay a proportionate share of off-site traffic impacts, it will reduce permit processing times, City has worked with Spokane County to extend sewer to the area, and impacts have been addressed in the supplemental EIS. Commissioner Kelley asked what plans were for the I-90-Barker interchange. Senior Traffic engineer Ray Wright explained the I-90 Barker interchange was a Washington Department of Transportation project,which is not part of the PAO. The bridge over the freeway is not expected to be replaced until 2027. An interim solution is being developed with a single lane roundabout for the east and westbound on and off ramps. WSDOT believes this would allow seven to eight years lead time,in order to find a funding solution for the bridge replacement. Commissioner Walton clarified the agency commenting time in the presentation. He asked how streamlining the process would allow the agencies to comment in a timely manner. Mr. Basinger stated this process would eliminate the SEPA process for participants.The City would have already completed it ahead of time for the applicant. Agencies would have already commented on future development. However,in 21.60.030(C)(1)(c)(ii)allows for the notification of all utility providers and Spokane Clean Air at the time of development. Commissioner Johnson asked about any other future improvements. Mr. Basinger stated the City would improve Garland Avenue to Barker Road. He also commented the City worked with Centennial properties regarding Boundary Line Adjustments to create 10-acres parcels,but did not see any other future road improvements. Mr. Bates said any other improvements, which are identified in the infrastructure plan, are projects the City is currently perusing grant funding for especially along Barker, because it has been identified as a critical component. Commissioner Rasmussen confirmed the public transportation in the area is virtually non-existent. Commissioner Kelley asked about the classification of the jobs that would be added to the work force. He was thinking the job classification would be entry level positions which would be hired. 2018-11-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Walton noted he had several questions regarding the documents and would like to discuss them. They are as follows: • He did not see any additional projections for housing or population as it relates to additional manufacturing jobs. Mr. Bates noted the Final EIS which was done for the update of the Comprehensive Plan had addressed impacts to housing and population. • Chapter 21.60.030(A)(4) and (5) discuss PM peak trips but other areas discuss AM trips. When discussing impacts why are only the PM trips taken into account? Mr.Wright stated standards use peak PM trips, which usually come in as a higher number. Some people might arrive for work at a different time of day,but generally they leave at the same time. • There is a discussion of AM peak trips impacting schools. Mission would have significant school impact,from the new school. What impacts did school or future schools in the area have on the traffic analysis? Mr. Wright stated the traffic analysis firm Fehr& Peers did an growth projection to the year 2040 to establish a trip count in order to design the mitigation. In the modeling they have projected what the traffic would be for the schools up to 2040. They have accounted for the impacts to the surrounding schools. Mr. Bates offered this analysis is not projecting any new growth, or new development. This is development which had already been analyzed during the Comprehensive Plan horizon. This is simply allowing people to have a more streamlined permitting process within the existing bounds that we have analyzed. • 21.60.060 states the decision for qualifications shall be final. He commented that in other places in the code there is an appeal process. Why was none offered here? Mr. Lamb stated this is a specific area, with specific criteria and the participation in this process is voluntary. If participation is voluntary,there is no appeal to consider. The appeal for the PAO would be when the PAO was adopted. If an applicant did not like the qualification requirements,then they can choose to not participate in the process. • The draft Northeast Industrial Area report,page 8, 6.1. It states it would improve traffic to an acceptable level. He wanted to know what was an acceptable level and how is that defined. Mr.Bates stated in the adopted Comprehensive Plan there stated level of service for traffic intersections. • On page 12 of the same report, it states Spokane Clean Air maintains a list of uses which require permits. He asked if there was going to be a way for people to get the list other than reaching out to Clean Air. Mr. Bates said he would reach out to Clean Air and find out. • On page 15 of the same report, it talks about hydrologic impacts and best management practices that a stormwater facility must be able to treat up to a 10-year 24-hour storm event. He asked why something more catastrophic event was not used. Mr. Bates commented he was not aware, but the information was supplied by one the City's senior hydrologic engineers. The requirement more than likely met the standards in the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual. Ms.Horton,Certified Floodplain Manager for the City,also commented this area was not located in a FEMA floodplain, so would not be required to meet the standards of a larger event. • On page 19 of the same report,talks about the water system plan and not meeting fire flow in the northeast industrial area. What is being done to address this issue? Mr.Bates stated staff coordinated with Consolidated Water District's water system plan and have spoken to them regarding this issue. He commented on the next page there are improvements necessary to support the growth in this area. Mr. Walton stated there is a mitigation plan and • Please walk through the methodology of the traffic study. Mr. Wright stated the traffic impact analysis was done by the City's traffic consultant Fehr&Peers. It performed based on American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards looking at the intersections,crash data,peak travel times, and traffic counts. 2018-11-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 5 • Is the suggested rail spur the one which was already been installed? Mr. Bates stated the one suggested in the report is another spur which has been suggested,further north. Would there be a grade separation project for this spur line. None has been considered for this spur. A grade separation project for the spur would have to go to the Utility Trade Commission. • How were costs for the impact fees worked out? Mr. Walton stated he came up with a different number than the report reflects. Mr. Wright stated there were mitigation factors involved, the difference in the cost of a roundabout vs. a signalized intersection over a 4- way stop. It is not a straight-line charge,it is a mitigation fee based on over all impacts to the system. Mr.Basinger and Mr. Lamb explained the process of imposing impact fees in advance of development so everyone coming in pays a portion. Instead of the last person coming in and having to pay for all the improvements when they trigger the need for them. • Appendix A, page 8, why would we allow a system, which might already be broken or strained,to continue to fail. Mr. Lamb stated it was a chicken and the egg problem trying to improve infrastructure. You have to show the system failing before anyone wants to fix it.If the fix comes before the failure,where do you come up with the money when it might be needed somewhere the infrastructure is already failing. • Appendix B, page 3, trip distribution, how was this calculated? Where did they get the methodology?Why do they feel this would impact Trent more than the I-90 corridor? Mr. Wright stated there are several ways to get the information, cell phones, the changes of zoning, WSDOT can track where traffic is going, where the density is, similar land uses, how the industrial park traffic moves,etc. • Appendix B,page 7, it is not recommended to have a left hand turn lane. Why would no one recommend a left hand turn lane in this location for Phase I? Mr.Basinger stated staff communicated with the users. There will only be one property owner on the east side and there would not be a lot of left turn traffic so the need for the left turn lane did not seem necessary. Mr. Basinger commented this is a specialty area. These analyses were vetted by Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC),and Spokane County DOT and they all agree with the results in the study. • Appendix B, page 9,vehicle cueing lengths, is this long enough for turning onto Barker? Mr. Bates explained that after the Barker Grade Separation Project,there will no longer be a road crossing, so this will not be relevant. • Appendix B, page 12, it states changes to the I-90 interchange would be constructed by 2020, but would occur by 2040. Is that referring to the bridge replacement? Mr. Wright stated the 2040 assumption was with the bridge replacement. The interim solution is two one-lane roundabouts by 2027 and when the bridge is replaced there will be two,two-lane roundabouts. Mr. Walton would like to know the timing of this before the public hearing. • In the memorandum from Fehr & Peers, Page 6, Figure 5, it has assumed truck trips in 2040 would be the same as observed trips in 2017. How is this possible? Mr. Bates responded it would be proportionate. The percent of truck traffic will increase at the same percentage as it was increasing in 2017. The truck traffic will increase, at the same rate it is increasing now. Commissioner Walton stated he understood this concept, however currently there is no truck traffic coming from this area. Commissioner Kelley stated currently Old Dominion is there and many trucks use Euclid to get to Barker instead of trying to use Sullivan. Mr.Bates offered that on Page 12 of the Existing Conditions report accounts for where the truck traffic is currently coming from. • In the memo,page 6,it discusses the realignment of Cataldo and Boone. However,it does not indicate how this would be accomplished,how property would be acquired,or how it would be paid for. Mr. Bates replied there were some assumptions made, but this was considered as part of the fee in the infrastructure plan on page 7,figure 6. 2018-11-15 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 5 • Why was Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) used for cost assumptions? Mr.Bates stated that the Engineering department reviewed the costing estimates as to what the City would expect to pay for infrastructure costs. Mr. Wright said that Caltrans was not a standard but since they do so much work, from a unit cost standpoint, there is good uniformity in their numbers. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: There was nothing for the good of the order. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Kelley moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen,Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall December 13,2018 I. Chair Rasmussen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners,staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present: James Johnson Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Danielle Kaschmitter Mike Basinger,Economic Development Manager Timothy Kelley Ray Wright, Senior Traffic Engineer Michael Phillips,absent-excused Chaz Bates,Economic Development Specialist Michelle Rasmussen Suzanne Stathos, absent—excused Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Hearing no objections, Chair Rasmussen excused Commissioners Stathos and Phillips from the meeting. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to accept the December 13,2018 agenda as presented. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commission Secretary Deanna Horton noted it had been brought to her attention there was mistake in the September 27,2018 minutes regarding the wording of a motion. She explained the motion was written as `which would require multifamily developments of 10 units or less to provide open space.' This should have said `which would approve the presented changes to 19.70.050 but adding back the exemption for multifamily developments of 10 units or less to provide open space.' Commissioner Kelley moved to amended the previously adopted minutes from September 27 to read `which would approve the presented changes to 19.70.050 but adding back the exemption for multifamily developments of 10 units or less to provide open space,' and striking the words 'by staff' from the end of the sentence which approved the motion to recommend approval of CTA-2018-0003. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero against, and this motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the City Council meetings on December 4 and 12,2018,the Spokane Home Builders Association government affairs meeting on December 6, 2018 and the Human Rights Task Force meeting on December 11,2018. Commissioner Johnson noted that the City Council decided to strike the section of code which refers to providing any open space in a mixed-use zone. They will be holding a public hearing. Commissioner Kelley asked if he thought the change to the minutes would make any difference, Commissioner Johnson said the minutes would not change anything. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0004: A city-initiated amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) creating a new chapter 21.60, Centennial Business Park Planned Action Ordinance(PAO) Economic Development Specialist Chaz Bates gave a presentation to the Commission explaining the proposed amendment to SVMC Title 21, which would add a new chapter, 21.60 Centennial Business Park Planned Action Ordinance (PAO). The area is located in the northeast industrial area of the City, bordered primarily by Hodges Road, Euclid Avenue, Trent Avenue and Flora Road. A planned action ordinance is a focused environmental analysis that allows for a more efficient permitting process. Impacts to the area can viewed holistically and in greater depth. Mitigation measures are right-sized for the area and proportionate to the industries that will locate 2018-12-13 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 there. Traffic is the biggest mitigation factor. Those impacts can be identified and mitigation factors funded with this plan. It is voluntary to participate in the PAO. This process will reduce the permitting time for applicants. The City has calculated traffic fees for participating in the PAO, of$2,831.00 based on per trip basis. This number is based on peak PM hour trips and the evaluation of what we believe those infrastructure improvements would cost the City to put in. Mr. Bates said the City decided to undertake this project because the Comprehensive Plan was a data driven product, which requires data driven strategic economic investments to support opportunities and growth. This action provides an incentive for future development by leveraging federal, state and regional resources. This PAO will reduce risk, create a predictable permitting process and reduce the permit time line for new businesses. It makes the costs and expected requirements known earlier in the permitting timeline. It identifies the capital improvements that are right-sized for the area. This also happens to be one of the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber's BIG 5 initiatives,building a greater vision of an enterprising identity The PAO process started in 2016 with a grant to begin the studies necessary to supplement the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) done for the 2016 Comprehensive Plan update. The Technical Advisory Committee had members from Spokane County, Spokane Regional Transportation Council(SRTC),Avista,Department of Commerce,City of Liberty Lake, Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Union Pacific railroad, Utilities Trade Commission (UTC), and Fehr & Peers. Fehr & Peers are the transportation consultants hired by the City to help conduct the studies necessary to supplement the Comprehensive Plan EIS. The existing conditions reports showed the area had limited connectivity,the land was vacant,there were no critical areas, it was zoned industrial,there was limited infrastructure, good access to rail and truck routes and Barker Road is key for growth in the area. The EIS that was completed when the Comprehensive Plan was updated looked at the economic welfare of the City and addressed land use, transportation, housing and the natural environment. The supplemental for this area looked at air quality, surface water and water runoff, historic and cultural preservation, utility provision and supply, and transportation. It also looked at the mitigation factors that need to be addressed for each of these areas. It was determined that during the permitting process, a notice would need to be sent to Spokane Clean Air and Spokane County so that air quality and sewer can be taken into account when a new business moves into the area. Surface water will be addressed by the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual regulations. An inadvertent disturbance plan includes procedures for the discovery of cultural materials at the time a new building is constructed. Transportation improvements will be necessary to support the increase in industrial development in this area. Improvements to the road system will be needed at Flora and Trent,Barker and I-90, along Barker,extending Garland Avenue to Barker,and the Grade Separation Project at Barker and Trent to move the traffic above the rail lines. By looking at these things ahead of time and planning for them,the items can be improved to support the growth that we know will come. A traffic fee has been generated based on the infrastructure improvements needed to support the growth of the PAO area. For our jurisdiction,it will be$2,831.00 per PM Peak hour trip. Incoming businesses will not have to pay for traffic analysis or frontage improvements, because these will already be done. Spokane County created new forms for applicants applying for building permits to use to inform Spokane County regarding sewer installations. Commissioner Kelley confirmed Consolidated water district were not concerned with the ability to provide water to incoming businesses. Mr. Bates noted the in the future Consolidated plans to replace the Campbell Road line, a line from Euclid to Wellesley, from Barker to Tshirley build a loop and replace the north side of Trent from Tshirley to Flora. Consolidated funds improvements through development. It was also confirmed a sewer line runs under Euclid out to where the Katerra plant was built. Commissioner Kelley asked about road improvements being proposed. Mr. Bates discussed the improvements to the intersection at Flora and Trent,Barker improvements from Mission to Trent, and the Barker Grade Separation Project. Commissioner Walton confirmed that the land is currently zoned industrial and Barker is currently expected to handle truck traffic without this PAO. 2018-12-13 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Johnson asked if the PAO could be expanded. Mr. Bates stated it was possible to expand it; however, the EIS would need to be further supplemented in order for it be expanded. The environmental elements would need to be looked at for each area that one wanted to incorporate into the PAO. Commissioner Rasmussen noted in one place in the report it states no increase in rail traffic. However, in another place it states growth could be 50 to 100%. How will this be handled for emergency traffic trying to cross Trent? After considering where emergency facilities were located, Mr. Bates said he would look at the discrepancy in the report however, with the future grade separation projects it would reduce the worry. Any attempts to control traffic with paint on pavement concerns Commissioner Rasmussen as she sees them as ineffectual in her business of parking enforcement at Eastern Washington University. Mr. Bates stated the suggestion in the report is just one way to mitigate the traffic, but it would require an enforcement effort if this method of mitigation were used. Commissioner Kaschmitter and Johnson asked about the spur and train traffic. Mr. Bates responding saying Katerra could increase the train traffic,but that has yet to be seen. A future spur would not be installed by the City but would have to be added by whichever company had the need for it. There would not be a grade separation project for the spur because most of the traffic would be routed to the larger grade separation project for Barker as a whole. Commissioner Rasmussen opened the public testimony at 6:53 p.m. John Patrouch, 18009 E Riverway Avenue: Mr. Patrouch stated he read the PAO and feels Mr. Bates and Mr. Basinger had done a great job. His issue is light pollution. He said when Old Dominion moved in on the north side of the river,their lights are so bright that he can read at night on his deck on the south side of the river. Wassa is in the old Bayliner building and all of their lights are pointing straight out. He offered that with an industrial area,light trespass to residential areas is still important and something that needs to be considered when permitting projects. The light trespass can travel and it does impact people's property ways a way. He also commented he did not feel there was enough protection for ground water. He was impressed with permit fast tracking,but would like to see the light trespass and ground water protections added. Mr.Basinger commented the City does have lighting standards,which address light trespass. Seeing no one else who wished to testify Commissioner Rasmussen closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. Commissioner Walton stated he had spent time going through the documents,and the responses to his questions from the study session and he has found this to be a well-crafted proposal. He has concerns about the transportation growth strategy as it relates to Barker Road. He stated he felt the City should be more proactive elevating some of the transportation issues in relation to Barker traffic increases. He also understands that there are funding issues that go along with attempting to be proactive. Again, he stated he felt happy with the way the document was laid out and he would be supporting the proposal as presented. Commissioner Johnson said he agreed with Commissioner Walton and stated this was how proposals were supposed to work. He commended staff on a fantastic job, stating he would be supporting it. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated the she felt the document was well written. Her only concern was regarding the transportation. She would like to see bus service improved in the area. She also said she would like to see the lighting standards enforced for the residential areas surrounding the proposal. She said she would be supporting the proposal. Commissioner Rasmussen said she felt the document was a great collaborative effort. She was glad to see so many stakeholders had been involved in the development of the project. She stated it was commendable and she would be supporting it. Commissioner Walton commented growth would happen in this area regardless of any actions the Commission takes,water,transportation,sewer will all be issues whether this proposal is passed or not. In his mind, getting this PAO in place is going to allow the City to remain extremely 2018-12-13 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 competitive and bring in the industry in a way that is going to allow the City to address some of the concerns every Commissioner has voiced at some point regarding the Barker corridor. This is an excellent step in taking the grant money to study the area,to get the ball rolling to put these other processes in place to streamline the permitting process. Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend approval of CTA-2018-0004, the Planned Action Ordinance Chapter 21.60 Centennial Business Park to the City Council. Commissioner Kelley stated he felt the location was excellent being on the northeastern edge of the City. He said there were several ways to handle the traffic,none of which was too difficult to overcome. He commented that he had asked about what kind of jobs would be coming to the area, wondering what kind of other jobs it brings in peripherally. He said we want industry to bring money back to our community, as well as share it around the country. He is supportive of this proposal. Commissioner Johnson said the largest traffic obstacle had already been funded;the rest of it is in the planning stages. He feels the City is ahead of the game in preparing for this. The vote on the motion to move CTA-2018-0004 forward was five in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. Mr. Basinger shared the City has an interactive map on its website which lays out which transportation projects the City is working on, in which order. The City purposely focused on Barker because of the economic impacts. Pines,also needs a grade separation project,but we knew that this area would bring in high paying manufacturing jobs so we wanted to focus on that first. The next focus will be Pines Grade Separation project. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioners thanked each other for hard work in 2018 wished each other well in the New Year. IX. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:12 p.m. The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed. Michelle Rasmussen,Chair Date signed Deanna Horton, Secretary CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: January 10, 2019 Item: Check all that apply ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ study session ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2018-0004 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Findings&Recommendation—CTA-2018-0004 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The proposed amendment is a City-initiated text amendment to Title 21 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). The proposed amendment will create a new chapter 21.60 SVMC adopting a planned action ordinance (PAO) for the Centennial Business Park in the City's northeast industrial area. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150; SVMC 19.30.040; RCW 36.70A.106; RCW 43.21C.440; WAC 197-11-164;WAC 197-11-168; WAC 197-11-172. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment at the December 13, 2018 meeting. Testimony was provided by one member of the public discussing lighting of existing industrial development. The commenter acknowledged that existing regulation were adequate to address the issue and thus an enforcement issue versus amendment needed to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Following the public hearing, 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 applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and whether the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation for CTA-2018-0004. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Economic Development Manager; Chaz Bates, AICP, Economic Development Specialist ATTACHMENTS: 1. PC Findings and Recommendation CTA-2018-0004 RPCA Findings&Recommendation for CTA-2018-0004 Page 1 of 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2018-0004—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 Comprehensive Plan Update and updated development regulations on December 13,2016,with December 28,2016 as the effective date. 2. CTA-2018-0004 is a City-initiated text amendment to Title 21 SVMC. The proposed amendment will create a new chapter 21.60 SVMC Centennial Business Park Planned Action.The code text amendment identifies the procedure for designating projects as planned actions consistent with the State Environmental Policy Act analysis completed for the project. Projects that meet the criteria have the option to use the environmental analysis and mitigations identified.Being designated a planned action is strictly voluntary, and projects that meet the criteria and qualifications for a planned action shall not require an additional State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) threshold determination, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), SEPA appeal, or any additional review pursuant to SEPA. If applicants chose to not use the new chapter 21.60 SVMC, they will proceed through the existing permitting and environmental review process. 3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing and conducted deliberations on December 13, 2018. The Commissioners voted 6-0 to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendment. Planning Commission Findings: 1. Recommended Modifications The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments presented 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: The proposed text amendment is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. ED-G1 Support economic opportunities and employment growth for Spokane Valley. ED-G3 Balance economic development with community development priorities and fiscal sustainability. ED-G6 Maintain a positive business climate that strives for flexibility,predictability and stability ED-P3 Encourage businesses that provide jobs and grow local markets. ED-P4 Promote key retail, office and industrial opportunity sites, as identified in the City's economic development studies and other planning documents(e.g. Certified Sites). ED-P6 Promote the development or redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties, particularly those with potential to serve as a catalyst for economic development. ED-P8 Provide and maintain an infrastructure system that supports Spokane Valley's economic development priorities. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0004 Page 1 of 2 ED-P11 Leverage federal, state,and regional economic development resources and programs for City economic development purposes. LU-G4: Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. LU-P9: Provide supportive regulations for new and innovative development types on commercial,industrial,and mixed use land. T-G1 Ensure that the transportation system and investments in transportation infrastructure are designed to improve quality of life or support economic development priorities. T-G2 Ensure that transportation planning efforts reflect anticipated land use patterns and support identified growth opportunities. T-P9 Provide and maintain quality street, sidewalk, and shared-use path surfaces that provide a safe environment for all users. CF-P6 Ensure that facilities and services meet minimum Level of Service standards. b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health,safety,welfare and protection of the environment. Findings: The code text amendment and supporting environmental analysis identifies the potential impacts that may result from increased industrial development in a specified geographic area. Under existing regulations and standards industrial development would occur at the same intensity and location but development would be evaluated and potentially mitigated on a project-by-project basis. The proposed amendment articulates the anticipated location and intensity of industrial development in the area and provides appropriate mitigation measures to protect the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. 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- 0004. Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendment CTA-2018-0004 Approved this 10th day of January,2019 Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0004 Page 2 of 2 Chapter 21.60 CENTENNIAL BUSINESS PARK PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE (CBP-PAO) Sections: 21.60.010 Purpose of the Centennial Business Park Planned Action Ordinance 21.60.020 Findings. 21.60.030 Procedures and criteria for evaluating and determining projects as planned actions. 21.60.040 Monitoring and review 21.60.050 Conflict 21.60.060 Severability 21.60.070 Effective date 21.60.080 Expiration date. 21.60.010 Purpose of the Centennial Business Park PAO. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Set forth a procedure designating certain projects within the boundaries of the geographic area described in SVMC 21.60.030 as "planned actions" consistent with RCW 43.21C.031; B. Streamline the land use permit review process for projects which qualify as planned actions within the Centennial Business Park(CBP) by relying on the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement(SEIS) completed for the CBP;and C. Ensure that projects designated as planned actions are appropriately mitigated and conditioned so that no adverse impacts to the environment will occur as a result of development approval; 21.60.020 Findings. A. The City is subject to the full requirements of chapter 36.70A RCW,the Growth Management Act, located within an urban growth area, and has an adopted comprehensive plan in compliance with the Growth Management Act; B. The CBP-SEIS is consistent with the comprehensive plan and has been prepared and adopted under the provisions of the GMA and SEPA; C. The CBP-SEIS identified and addressed all significant environmental impacts associated with land uses as described in the SEIS; D. The thresholds described in the SEIS are adequate to identify significant adverse environmental impacts; E. The mitigation measures contained in SEIS,together with applicable City development standards,are adequate to mitigate the significant adverse environmental impacts anticipated from development in CBP; F. The expedited permit review process, as set forth in this chapter 21.60,will benefit the public, adequately protect the environment, and enhance the economic development of the Centennial Business Park; DRAFT—January 10, 2019 g e I 1 G. Opportunities for public involvement and review have been provided, and comments considered as part of the preparation of the draft and final supplemental environmental impact statement; H. The uses allowed by the City's industrial zoning classification will implement the Comprehensive Plan; I. The CBP planned action is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW 36.70A.200(1). J. Chapter 21.60 SVMC shall be known as the"Centennial Business Park Planned Action Ordinance." 21.60.030 Procedures and criteria for evaluating and determining projects as planned actions. A. To qualify for a planned action designation, a project application shall comply with the following: 1. Be located entirely within the planned action area, as defined in Figure 21.60-1. Figure 21.60-1—Centennial Business Park Planned Action Area f-—11 1 1 PAO 1 — =a Boundary i` �e BNSF MainV' - �— w. ; .,f3x Ip [v , 4:,. ` $..g --,•±-_,' --"`+:,-,..1 --p ' '''' 4. , 'i �1 `� - .`� -. �� I� City fl 1a .' �. iFK _. o - ,,fir Limits �� � -- ia 1 1113 1 1 1 2. Have primary uses that meet the definitions of light industrial; heavy industrial;or warehouse,wholesale, and freight movement use categories as set forth on Appendix A Definitions SVMC. 3. Submit an environmental checklist or other project review form pursuant to SEPA; 4. Submit estimates of total building gross square footage and/or number of employees to provide sufficient information for the City to estimate the number of PM Peak hour trips for the project. 5. Not exceed a cumulative PM peak trip count of 1,340 trips from all development within the CBP from the effective date of chapter 21.60 SVMC. 6. Meet density and dimensional requirements for non-residential standards pursuant to SVMC 19.70.030 DRAFT—January 10, 2019 Page 1 2 7. Pay a proportionate share of off-site improvements based on PM peak hour trips as provided in the CBP- SEIS to mitigate transportation related impacts; i. The fees.The fee is$2,831 per PM Peak hour trip. 8. Submit a signed "Sewer Planning Requirements Form" as specified by Spokane County Environmental Services; and 9. Project impacts may be mitigated through the application of the mitigation measures detailed in CBP-SEIS; as well as other City, state, and/or federal regulations; B. Planned Action Review Criteria. 1. The City shall base its decision to designate a project a planned action through review of an environmental checklist or other project review form pursuant to SEPA and the review of the application and supporting documentation; 2. The City shall designate a project as a planned action, pursuant to chapter 21.60 SVMC and SEPA, if it Imeets the following conditions: a. The project is not otherwise exempt from SEPA; b. The project is consistent the CBP-SEIS and the adopted city of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan. c. The project has had its significant adverse environmental impacts adequately identified and addressed in the CBP-SEIS; Id. The project impacts may be mitigated through the application of the mitigation measures detailed in CBP-SEIS; as well as other City, state, and/or federal regulations; e. The project complies with all applicable City, county, state and federal regulations, and where appropriate,the project complies with needed variances, modifications, or other needed permits and conditions; f. The project meets all the planned action qualifications pursuant to SVMC 21.60.030(A). g. The project is not an essential public facility as defined in RCW 36.70A.200; 3. A project that meets the criteria and qualifications for a planned action shall not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, SEPA appeal, or any additional review pursuant to SEPA 4. Should environmental conditions change significantly from those analyzed in the CBP-SEIS,the City may determine that the planned action designation is no longer applicable until an environmental review is conducted. C. Planned Action Permit Process and Application. 1. Applications for planned actions shall be reviewed pursuant to the following process: a. Application shall be made on forms provided by the City and shall include a SEPA checklist, or approved planned action checklist. DRAFT—January 10, 2019 Page 13 b. The department shall determine whether the application is complete pursuant to chapter 17.80 SVMC. c. After the City receives a complete application,the responsible SEPA official shall determine, pursuant to the criteria and procedures of chapter 210.60 SVMC,whether the project qualifies as a planned action. Once a project is determined to quality as a planned action,the City shall: i. Notify the applicant, and the project shall proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in Chapter 17.80 SVMC; and ii. Notify utility providers in the area, such as: sewer,water, power, natural gas, and telecommunication of a pending development under the CBP PAO. Notice shall also be provided to Spokane Clean Air or their successor.The notice required by this section may be combined with the public notice required or provided with the underlying permit and may take the form of the environmental checklist or other project review form. Notice provided shall not be less than 14 days. d. If a project does not qualify as a planned action,the City shall notify the applicant.The notice shall describe the elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a planned action.The notice shall also prescribe a SEPA review procedure consistent with the City's local SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. e. Projects that fail to qualify as planned actions may incorporate or otherwise use relevant elements of the CBP-SEIS or other relevant environmental review documents,to meet SEPA requirements.The City may limit the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental impacts not previously addressed in the CBP-SEIS. f. The decision regarding qualification as a planned action shall be final. 21.60.040 Monitoring and review. A. The City shall monitor the progress of development within the designated planned action area to ensure that development is consistent with the assumptions of chapter 21.60 SVMC and the CBP-SEIS. Development shall be monitored regarding the type and amount of development,the associated impacts of that development, and the adequacy of the mitigation measures identified in chapter 21.60 SVMC and the CBP-SEIS. B. The total number of PM peak trips available at the time chapter 21.60 SVMC becomes effective is 1,340 PM Peak hour trips.The City shall have an internal tracking system for the number of PM peak trips available within the planned action boundary.The tracking system shall reduce available PM peak trips at the time an application is deemed complete.Trips shall be re-introduced if the building permit expires without construction of the project. DRAFT—January 10, 2019 Page 1 4 C. This planned action ordinance shall be reviewed no later than six years from its effective date to determine the continuing relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the planned action area,the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures.The City, based upon this review, may propose amendments to this chapter and/or may supplement or revise the CBP-SEIS. 21.60.050 Conflict. In the event of a conflict between chapter 21.60 SVMC or any mitigation measure imposed thereto,and any other adopted regulation of the City,the provisions of chapter 21.60 SVMC shall control. 21.60.060 Expiration date. The planned action adopted pursuant to chapter 21.60 SVMC shall expire 20 years from the date of adoption, [insert adoption date] unless otherwise repealed or readopted following a public hearing. i (\ ,- DRAFT—January 10, 2019 Pape 15 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: January 10, 2019 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information® admin.report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: N/A AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Open Government Training DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: N/A GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30); Public Records Act (RCW 42.56);RCW 42.23 BACKGROUND: In Washington,there are numerous laws to promote transparent and open government by the legislative and appointed bodies that serve the people. These laws include the Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30), the Public Records Act (RCW 42.56) and various laws setting forth ethics requirements for municipal officers. As members of an appointed body, Planning Commission members are subject to the requirements set forth in these laws. Staff will provide training and overview on the various open government laws for Planning Commission members to meet training requirements for the Open Public Meetings Act and to educate members on the other open government requirements. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell,City Attorney; Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: PowerPoint Presentation RPCA for 2019 Open Government Training ------------ - - Public Records Act and OpPublic Meeting Act Training Cary Driskell City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley Erik Lamb Deputy City Attorney, City of Spokane Valley January 10, 2019 City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney ThePtib1ic Records Act — RCVT42 . 56 Historical b Adopted in 1972 by Initiative 276. Codified under chapter 42.56 RCW. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 2 -----� Strongly worded mandate - statute "The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments they have created." RCW 42.56.030 City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney " Public Record " definition Relevant portion of definitions states as follows: "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney " Public Record " definition Most important parts are: (i) "writing" that contains (2) "information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function" and which is (3) "prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency". City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney "Writing " - electronic E-mails; Tweets; Text messages; Transitory postings on Facebook and other social media; Meta-data; and Police/security video. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 6 Dfinftie — nt ad "used by overnment" � Important distinction within definition - location not mentioned Location not critical factor, nature of record is what is critical (relates to conduct of government or performance of governmental or proprietary function and prepared, owned, used, or retained by City). Consider whether record was created within "scope of employment" or "scope of official capacity." Personal computer or phone of Planning Commission Text messages from personal phone of Planning Commission In possession of third party contractor Available from another entity City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney ;_ Dfinftie — nt ad "used by overnment" — cont . � No Constitutional privacy rights for public records on private devices, private emails, or private texts Must conduct reasonable search where records are likely to be located. If we know or learn of facts that suggest a search of an additional location or source might reasonably be expected to uncover responsive records, we must make that extra search. PRA requires employees/agents/officials to conduct a search of their own files/devices, submit any public records, and submit a reasonably detailed affidavit attesting to the nature and extent of the search City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Agency Rules Local governmental entities are mandated to adopt and enforce reasonable rules governing how the agency shall respond to requests. RCW 42.56.100. Spokane Valley has done that through adoption of SVMC 2.75. Requestors may request copies or to view records. Have requestors work with City Clerk's office to set up viewing appointments. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney oF rm ftherecord 0 r No specific form necessary Can be oral, but agency should memorialize in writing for protection and clarity Request must provide "reasonable description" to be able to locate the record Sufficient clarity to give agency fair notice a PRA request has been received as opposed to other request City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Pmpt-re5b n s e uired Must respond within 5 business days by: (1) providing the record; (2) providing an internet address/link to website for specific records; All City ordinances, resolutions, and contracts are online, as well as many other major documents such as the Comprehensive Plan (3) acknowledging that the [agency] has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the [agency] will require to respond to the request; (4) acknowledging that the [agency] has received the request, requesting clarification, and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the [agency] will require to respond to the request if clarification is not provided; or (5) denying the record request. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney b. 'Hotdisclosuittrneyfleht p privileged information RCW 42.56.070(1) contains what is commonly referred to as the "other laws" exemption to disclosure. It specifically states in pertinent part that "each agency . . . shall make available . . . all public records unless [exempt under the PRA] or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records." RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) states that "[a]n attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment." City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 5a Public Record (writing) versus Information PRA only requires disclosure of public records Information is not a record and therefore not subject to required disclosure Information is material or data that is not part of an identifiable record E.g., City population, who is the mayor, how many employees However, City policy and customer service standards provide for employees to provide information as requested City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Information notexa m- les protected p Council, Planning Commission, and employee names; Council and employee salary; Council and employee benefits; Employee vacation/sick time used; Council, Planning Commission, and employee work e-mail address; and employee length of service. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Penalties and Attorney's Fees RCW 42.56.550(4) provides that it "shall be within the discretion of the court to award such person an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy said public record." how much of a fine to assess is based on two steps: (1) count the number of days the party was denied access to the records; and (2) determine the appropriate per day penalty, up to $100 per day depending on the nature of the denial. The prevailing party is entitled to "reasonable attorney fees" and costs of suit. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Penaltyer document orper request ? p Until 2016, the rule was that the daily penalty applied to the request, not per document. Yousoufian v. Sims, 152 Wn.2d 451 (2004). Now - Supreme Court ruled that it is within the trial court's discretion to assess a daily penalty for each page of each document wrongfully withheld, depending on the circumstances (i.e. how egregious the violation was). City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Determinin how muchpenalty� Factors used by Courts to determine amount of penalty Yousoufian v. Sims (V), 168 Wn.2d. 444 (2010) 7 mitigating factors Examples: good faith, honest, timely, and strict compliance with all the procedural requirements and exceptions; proper training; reasonableness of reason for noncompliance; tracking systems Size of agency is a valid consideration 8 aggravating factors Examples: lack of strict compliance; lack of proper training; negligent/ reckless/bad faith/intentional noncompliance with the PRA; potential for public harm; deterrent effect City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 5,, -----� Agency " best practices" � y 1. Entity management attitude; 2. Training; 3. Prioritizing requests; 4. Tracking requests; 5. Effective monitoring; 6. Central point of contact in the agency; 7. Visible signage; 8. Transparency and communication; 9. User-friendly website; 10. Good records management and information technology; 11. Appropriate copying charges; 12. Using the installment method for large requests; 13. Communicate agency appeal process for record denials; and 14. Documenting the request process. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney i8 New reporting/ log Logs of public record requests and responses RCW 40.14.026 ID of requestor, date request was received, text of original request, description of the records produced, description of records redacted or withheld and reasons, and date request was closed Annual reports to JLARC $100,000 threshold 17 different metrics • http://leg.wa.gov/jlarc/Pages/publicRecAdmin.aspx Limited-time grants for improving records management City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Questions on the PRA? City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 20 The O e� n Public Meetings Act City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 21 The Open Public Meetings Act OPMA Washington State law enacted in 1971. Codified under chapter 42.3o RCW. Applies to all city and town councils, and many subordinate city and town boards and committees. Applies to planning commissions, lodging tax advisory committees. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney ��. Purpose of OPMA Governments "exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business." RCW 42.30.010. "Thedeo le of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.' Id. "The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the riht to decide what isgood for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. Id. p p "The people insist on remainin informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.' Id. Goal is transparency and public trust. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney OPMA requirements OPMA requires that: All meetings of the governing body shall be open to the public. All actions taken by such bodies shall be done at meetings that are open to the public. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney What is a " meeting " ? There must be a "meeting" in order to trigger the requirements of the OPMA. "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken; "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions; Physical presence is not required (email, phone call). Majority (quorum) implicates "meeting" rules. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney What is a " meeting " ? cont . Courts have found that "serial meetings" are considered "meetings" under the OPMA. What is a serial meeting? One Commissioner speaks with two other Commissioners about particular City business. Unbeknownst to the original Commissioner, a fourth Commissioner also speaks to the two other Commissioners about the same City business. So now all four Commissioners, which constitutes a quorum, have discussed the City business and have done so outside of an open public meeting. Best practice: Conduct all discussions in public meetings. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 2 What is a " meeting " ? ( cont . Email communications can constitute a meeting which violates the OPMA if it goes back and forth. Solely receiving information is not a violation. Responding to email could be a violation depending on the circumstances. It is not necessary that a governing body take "final action" (a vote) for a meeting to be subject to the OPMA. Discussion regarding City matters is "action." Requires a public meeting if a quorum of members are present for the discussion. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 2,_ What is nota " meeting " ? What is not a meeting: If City matters are not discussed, then the gathering is not a "meeting" subject to OPMA (even if a quorum is present). Examples: Social gatherings if City business is not discussed; Gatherings before or after official action (such as the time prior to Planning Commission meetings) so long as City business is not discussed; Meetings of other government agencies (BoCC, chamber of commerce), so long as the Council/Commission members do not discuss City business amongst themselves. Perception still important. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Procedural Requirements for Meetings Some general requirements: Notice; Open to public; Votes cannot be by secret ballot; Member of public cannot be forced to give their name or other information as condition of attendance (can condition a person's ability to speak at the meeting on providing information). City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney ,k) OPMA exemptionsexce tions and p No City business = OPMA not implicated. If no official business of City is transacted, OPMA does not apply. Public perception is a separate consideration from what is legal. Active preparation for litigation. Executive sessions (generally only applies to City Council) : 11+ specific circumstances, defined by statute Closed session (OPMA simply does not apply) (generally only applies to City Council) RCW 42.30.14o (quasi-judicial matters and collective bargaining issues) City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney ;_ OPMA p enalties Effect of penalty The penalty for a violation of the act is direct: any action taken in violation of the OPMA is null and void; "Any person" may bring the action in superior court. Individual liability. $500 penalty for first violation if they attend with knowledge that the meeting is in violation of the Act, and $1,000 for subsequent violations. City liability. Liable for all costs, including reasonable attorney fees. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney ;. Questions on OPMA? City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 32 _ ________-- - Conflicts of Interest Appearance of Fairness Doctrine Municipal Code of Ethics Conflicts of interest "The general rule for specific prohibitions against conflicts of interest is that a public official may not exercise his or her office to confer a personal benefit upon him or herself. This rule is grounded on the fundamental principle that public officers hold a public trust. Under this principle, public officers are held to a standard of behavior that does not undermine, provide an opportunity to undermine, or appear to undermine that trust." Excerpt from publication on conflicts of interest by Bob Meinig, Municipal Research Services Center Various statutes provide restrictions on specific conflicts. Most related to financial benefits Conflict of interest — now what ? A Planning Commission member who believes they may have a conflict should contact City staff prior to meeting, if possible, to discuss. If a Planning Commission member believes they have a conflict of interest problem should announce the conflict, then leave the room while that matter is being considered by the Commission, and not participate in any way in communications or in the decision-making process regarding the matter. Appearance of Fairness doctrine Applies only to quasi-judicial matters and not to legislative ones. RCW 42.36.010. Doctrine requires government decision-makers in quasi-judicial matters to conduct hearings and make decisions in a way that is fair to others in appearance and fact. Test for fairness: would a fair minded person in attendance believe that: everyone was heard who should have been heard, and the decision-makers were impartial and free from outside influences? City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney What actions are - uasiudicial ? a � Those actions of a legislative body or planning commission that determine the legal rights, duties and privileges of specific individuals in a hearing or contested case. RCW 42.36.010. Indicators that action is quasi-judicial: • Decision applies policy to a specific situation rather than setting policy. • Decision has a greater impact on a limited number of people, and has only a limited impact on general public. Purpose of the proceeding is to reach a fact-based decision by choosing between two distinct alternatives. 37 Examples ofquasi -judicial actions . Quasi-judicial (handled by City Hearing Examiner): Subdivision approvals; • Preliminary plat approvals; • Conditional use permits; • Variances; Rezones of specific parcels; and Discretionary zoning permits if hearing required. Not quasi-judicial: Adoption, amendment, or revision of comprehensive plans; Adoption of area-wide zoning ordinances; and Adoption of area-wide zoning amendments. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Appearance of Fairnessapplied Disqualifies decision-makers from the quasi-judicial decision-making process who: have prejudged the issues; have a bias in favor of one side in the proceeding; have a conflict of interest; or cannot otherwise be impartial. Prohibits "ex parte" communications between a decision-maker and a proponent or opponent of the matter being decided during the pendency of a quasi-judicial proceeding. RCW 42.36.060. City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney Municipal Officer Code of Ethics - RCW 42 . 23 . 070 Prohibited Acts for Municipal Officers: Cannot use position to secure special benefits Cannot receive gifts related to scope of position No disclosure of confidential information 40 ions on Conflicts, Ethics and Appearance of Fairness ? City of Spokane Valley- Office of the City Attorney 41 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Planning Commission Action Meeting Date: January 10, 2018 Item: Check all that apply nold business Fl new business n public hearing n information Fl study session n pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA-2018-0005 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Study session - Amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40 and 19.60. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Privately-initiated code text amendment to 19.40 and 19.60 SVMC to add regulations within the R-3, Single-Family Residential Urban zone (R-3) that limit duplex development, prohibit townhomes, and preclude single ownership of a cottage development. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 17.80.150. 19.40, 19.60; and RCW 36.70A.106 BACKGROUND: The amendment has been initiated by a private party through the code text amendment process. 19.60.050 SVMC Permitted Use Matrix identifies the uses that are permitted in each of the zoning districts. Duplexes and townhomes are a permitted use in the R- 3 zoning district as indicated by P in the Permitted Use Matrix; cottage development is a permitted use in the R-3 zone subject to supplemental regulations. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the matrix which will add supplemental regulations for duplexes and prohibit townhomes in the R-3 zone. The proposed amendment would also amend 19.40.060 SVMC Development Standards - Duplexes and 19.40.050 SVMC Development Standards - Cottage Development. Language would be added to the section to limit duplexes to one duplex unit per acre and restricts the location of duplex units in proximity to other duplexes. Additional language would be added to the Cottage Development standards that preclude single ownership of cottage developments. Current cottage development regulations require that the use be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process, with adherence to a variety of supplemental conditions. Duplexes and townhome development are outright permitted uses with limited exceptions. The proposed amendment only affects R-3 zoned properties. Under the current zoning regulation, duplexes, townhomes and cottage development uses are permitted in the Mixed Use (MU), Corridor Mixed Use (CMU), Multifamily Residential (MFR), and R-3, Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) zones. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action recommended at this time. The Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing and consider the code text amendment on January 24, 2019. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Amendment 19.40 and 19.60 SVMC 2. Presentation RPCA Study Session for CTA-2018-0005 Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED NOV 1 6 201d SPGKar'E '.'2LLL' . 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 SSSS S S S Greenhouse/nursery. commercial P P P Kennel S S S S P P Orchard, tree farming, P P commercial Riding stable P P C Communication Facilities Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P Repeater facility PPP P P P P P Small cell deployment SSSS S S S S S S S Telecommunication wireless SSSS S S S S S S antenna array Telecommunication wireless SSS S S S S S S S support tower Tower, ham operator SSS S S S S S S S Community Services Community hall, club, or lodge P P P P P P P Church, temple, mosque, PPP P P P P P synagogue and house of worship .Parks and Mixed Open Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space R- R- R- 1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC lMU I POS Crematory P P P P Funeral home P P Transitional housing C Day Care Day care, adult PPPP P P P P P P Day care, child (12 children or PPPP P P P P P P fewer) Day care, child (13 children or CCCP P P P P P P more) Eating and Drinking P P P P P P S Establishment Education Schools, college or university P P P Schools, K through 12 PPPP P P P P Schools, professional, vocational P P P P P P and trade schools Schools, specialized P P P P training/studios Entertainment Adult entertainment and retail S Casino P P P Cultural facilities P P P P 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 Parks and Mixed Open Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space R- R- R- 1 2 3 MFR MU 'CMU NC RC IMU 1 POS Theater. indoor P P P Group Living Assisted P P P P living/convalescent/nursing hone Community residential facilities P P P P P P (6 residents or less) Community residential facilities P P P (greater than 6 and under 25 residents) Dwelling, congregate P P P Industrial, Heavy Assembly, heavy P Hazardous waste treatment and S S storage Manufacturing. heavy ` P Processing, heavy • P Mining S Industrial, Light 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 P P P P P Hotel/motel P P P P S Recreational vehicle I S park/campground Marijuana Uses Parks and Mixed Open Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space T R- R- R- 1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU l POS 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 S S S S Office, professional PPP P P P 1' Parks and Open Space Cemetery P P P Golf course P P P P P P P P Golf driving range C C C C' P C P P P Parks PPP P 1' P P P P Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities PPP P P P P P P P P Essential public facilities RRRR R R R R R Public utility local distribution SSS S S S S l' P P S facility Public utility transmission facility S SS S S S S S S S S Tower, wind turbine support S SS S Residential Dwelling, accessory units S S S SS S SS Dwelling, caretaker's residence S SSS S Dwelling, cottage S S S S Dwelling, duplex PS P P P Parks and Mixed Open Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space R- R- R- 1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Dwelling, industrial accessory S S dwelling unit Dwelling, multifamily P P ,P Dwelling, single-family P P P P P P P Dwelling, townhouse S S S S S Manufactured home park S S Retail Sales and Service P P 5 P P S S Transportation Airstrip, private P P Battery charging stations S S S P P P P P P P S Electric vehicle infrastructure P P P P P P P Heliport P P Helistop t. C P Parking facility—controlled P P P P P access Railroad yard, repair shop and P roundhouse 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 P P P P P tires Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle P P P P painting, 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 5 P P P A 19.40.060 Development standards -- Duplexes. Duplexes shall be limited to I duplex per acre. Du slexes shall have se+crate .arcel numbers .er each dwelling unit, be non-adiacent, across the street from or on opposite corners. Duplexes shall meet the minimum lot size per dwelling unit. setback standards, maximum lot coverage, and building height standards shown in Table 19.70-1. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B), 2016). 19.40.050 Development standards—Cottage development. A. Site. 1. The design of a cottage development shall take into account the relationship of the site to the surrounding areas. The perimeter of the site shall be designed to minimize adverse impact of the cottage development on adjacent properties and, conversely, to minimize adverse impact of adjacent land use and development characteristics on the cottage development: 2. The maximum density shall be two times the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the underlying zone; 3 Where feasible, each cottage that abuts a common open space shall have a primary entry andior covered porch oriented to the common open space; 4 Buildings shall meet the following minimum setback standards: a. Twenty-foot front yard setback; b. Ten-foot rear yard setback; and c. Five-foot side yard setback: 5. Common open space is required and shall meet the following criteria: a. Four hundred square feet of common open space per cottage; b. Setbacks and private open space shall not be counted towards the common open space: c. One common open space shall be located centrally to the project with pathways connecting the common open space to the cottages and any shared garage building and community building: d. Cottages shall surround the common open space on a minimum of two sides of the open space, and e Community buildings may be counted toward the common open space requirement: 6. One and one-half off-street parking spaces for each cottage is required. B Building 1 Cottages shall not exceed 900 square feet, excluding any loft or partial second story and porches. A cottage may include an attached garage, not to exceed an additional 300 square feet. 2 The building height for a cottage shall not exceed 25 feet. 3 The building height for any attached garage or shared garage building shall not exceed 20 feet. 4. Buildings shall be varied in height. size, proportionality, orientation. rooflines, doors, windows, and building materials. 5. Porches shall be required. C. Other. 1, Accessory dwel9ing units are prohibited. 2. In-whole purchase of any development by one entity in the R-3 zone is prohibited. 3. 2. All other SVMC provisions that are applicable to a single-family dwelling unit shall be met. D Permit Type. Cottage development shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 9.150 SVMC. E. SVMC Title 20, Subdivision Regulations. The design requirements of SVMC 20.20.090 are waived. (Ord. 16- 018 § 6 (Aft. B), 2016). s11ol \4mmmlI5111 jUalleyA Planning Commission Meeting Study Session CTA-2018-0005 January 10, 2019 PROCESS aA .� - 'z2 Study Session Administrative Iii N •I January10, 2019 Report TBD N 0 : .- a N Esc5' w c4c Public Hearing Ordinance 1St : z 4 January 24, 2019 �, Reading TBD Pi ct 5 : o '~ : c.) Findin s Fact Ordinance 2nd � � g of .p; A February 14, 2019 Reading TBD o 40 4 1-Vr 'V 1A1 ' A A Today Proposed SVMC Amendment - Overview 3 ❑ 19.60.050 SVMC Permitted Use Matrix Add "S" in the R-3 zone column — provides supplemental regulations for Duplexes Prohibits Townhomes in R-3 zone u 19.40.060 — Development Standards - Duplexes Add supplemental use language for duplexes ❑ 19.40.050 — Development Standards — Cottage Development Add supplemental use language for cottages „._ - - -- '4'1:-_--;116,,:--- - - J,i,i, ___-_,, , _......._,,._, • -----__ Duplex Def inedwit o Duplex Definition �,4, r .I: An attached buildingdesigned 'y . 1-0 g . . . 4 exclusively for occupancy by two , . , ,fo,r==,7:, ,, t- . . , � arai. � Via, _ families, with separate entrances I_ r �_ and individual facilities for = = =_ 117 cooking, sleeping, and sanitation, _.„.„..-_. x . but sharing a common or party wall or stacked. Wr.- -- 7-7111,1-- . S _____ Townhome Defined I , _ �— _ . MI IA Townhome Definition _ LV 11,Icy 1 111 sir; . 'n �- A single-family dwelling unit -_ • a - ° ' -; - - constructed in groups of three or more attached units in which each _. - unit extends from foundation to roof, open on at least two sides. II II Ai , f1I ! T 6 4 ____ ... -- : .._..-..- , . CottagesDefined_ TI ... . , r _ az1 - . a. i Il_ ' . .} II �I - ■ 11 ....:ii w�� 1IIi� 4u ,p „ � I jii- .iii 9¢ t i •. F [ l -. _ I Townhome Definition — f I LI Ir a ■ lc A small single-family dwellingunitiiiWpP. 10 _ developed as a group of dwelling :1. .I; :.' LL +'# units clustered around a common _ ;�- lig �* ! - Corlima. ! 1 . ■ it area pursuant to SVMC "�` �- #1� . '-F'"'� 19.40.05 L ' ' � .. '.�91U . 6 0 e ___,_..,..„ . il I iimom 0 n mu gig' IL 0 4 MP r •.......t. Zones That Allow Duplexes, til- C, F�� e"e$'e �n re 1 le Cottages and Townhomes - - uelld ���� Euclid Awe ':'..t _f i_d Euclid Awe Ave — ve �m Buckeye s f.. _A _ Awe oN <01. I� I L.1 Ave. _ . 7 MA(Av 1 0 Indians Ave — ' `�. 1. -- — ! '.';', Ili Mixed Use Ce PensionA A �� Mission • t a v z ,owe Oro. ly I. , -, ,'° r _ F'[l�idw c. . "" ° fid-r..�. ,v Corridor Mixed Use P ' - � _' _ 104 " _. ray Priggaiti _ 2 �. t - 'Awat . Multifamily _. i .- - ;--m ��, �a ■ iii., Residential • L . t' Awe a iaen Ave ® ■„kola 2 h Ave me Av 24th Awe - ®- R-3, Single Family , ` Pro osed amendment ,� ` Residential Urban p only affects duplexes, I Le,e,3d zoning Neighborhood townhomes and AweM F Commercial cottage development PAC (Townhomes only) in the R-3 zone cmu Proposed Amendment Add an "S": SVMC 19 . 60.050 indicates the use is permitted subject to Permitted Uses Matrix supplemental use Residential Mixed use cominerci ncltistriai regulations. R-1 R-2 R-3 I MFR MU CMU • RC IMU I POS Dwelling, cottage SS S Dwelling, duplex P S P P P Dwelling, industrial accessory S S dwelling unit Delete "S"; Dwelling, multifamily p P P indicates the Dwelling, single-family P P P p p P use is [Dwelling, to'..rihauseSSSC prohibited. Manufactured home park S S Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 1 9.40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.060 Development standards — Duplexes Duplexes shall meet the minimum lot size per dwelling unit, setback standards, maximum lot coverage, and building height standards shown in Table 19.70- 1 . Duplexes shall be limited to one duplex per acre. Duplexes shall have separate parcel numbers per each dwelling unit, be non-adjacent, across the street from or on opposite corner. Add supplemental use language for duplexes applicable to the R-3 zoning districts. SVMC Development Regulations R_1 R_ R_3 MFR':iI Table 19.70-1 35' 15' -' 5 15' Setback Garage Setback(2) 35' 20' 20 20' Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10 10' Minimum Side Yard Setback 5' 5' 5 5' Open Space hl Nr.' ` ,r, 10% gross area(2) Lot ize) 40:000 sq. ft_ 10:000 sq. ft 5,000 sq. ft. VA Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0'.1_: 60.0% Maximum Density 1 duiac 4 iliac ac. G dna?ac. 22 du?ac SLiiltling HoighC' 35' 35' 35 50' SVMC 19.40.060: Duplexes must meet the minimum lot size per dwelling unit, setbacks, max lot coverage, and building height standards shown in Table 19.70- 1 . What Does the Proposed Amendment Mean? _ _JI . , _. ,, . \ ki yLl NUM w s _. Y T. �z r i� ! ]}- '7 �w � f r SLI 1 i I - -.'4-.�1 7 1 11 1r_ r )� r I__ ; . it 3.1 . irt r g, g _ _- Vilh r 0 ...a, , ,i, I � � � a_ 5:„,, _ -j--a--- i;0. -� -',ti -C_ . —1—_ '- • . II ,,,, r . , , .___, ,. .„ ..,„.7,..„ IIrr a ' _ , ,(-1, ,...,\ i, .. .......... ' i ,J, 1 1 r , ... .` ,�et� g w.� ,r+ wr mow wr 1 �I •I— ;� Id Prohibits -- g 1 — +d _ 'I roil .,i s morean' 100% dupl- Prohibits aYNf„a N ; - . • es_-to development duplexes on 1 duplex/acre (2 allowed in this be across the street in R-3 Zone adjacent lots or opposite corners example) Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 1 9.40 Alternative Residential Development Options 19.40.050 Development standards — Cottage Development 19.40.050.0 Other 1 . Accessory dwelling units are prohibited. 2. In-whole purchase of any development by one 73. entity in the R-3 zone is prohibited. All other SVMC provisions that are applicable to a single-family dwelling unit shall be met. Add supplemental use language for cottages in all zoning districts. WhatDoes the ProposedINWIWPIPPIPPIWIMMUIWPIWIWIMI .� Amendment Mean to Cottage .t .,; T1 • in Development? ate... 'IA —. Q.. .I g 3: y '' h ems, fly... 'ix - / 1 r . .klfi I ' Prohibits a single 1 r WI i -3OM ; -.dl. alt 3A - - I -�i . . owner in the R - 3 .._.,,, ,....., , .-7-R-Ato 4 � _�f � I. ' # c 1.1 .. I zone • 1 f- , 4,. I . +inion - .¢"F i .' r 7. .- ©me4 Rai s 1050 . Ilk.. .._... . ...' . VIII' .. 6 11' x. . • NEXT S aA .� - 'z2 Study Session Administrative CI 14 N •1 January10, 2019 Report TBD Z N 5 .PO N E Immi 41. W cu - Public Hearing Ordinance 1St : z 4 _ ; January 24, 2019 Reading TBD Pi ct 5 wct : Findings of Fact Ordinance 2nd A February 14, 2019 Reading TBD 1.4 o a 4 Vr , 1' , A A Today 14 15 QUESTIONS