The URL can be used to link to this page

2019, 01-24 Agenda Packet 0111111°1#1\11111111111k SIP/ okane Valley Spokane Valley Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave. January 24, 2019 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 10, 2019 VI. COMMISSION REPORTS VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Public Hearing: 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 Regular Meeting Minutes Spokane Valley Planning Commission Council Chambers—City Hall January 10,2019 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 Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Timothy Kelley Jenny Nickerson,Building Official Robert McKinley Chaz Bates, Economic Development Specialist Michael Phillips, absent-excused Michelle Rasmussen Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission Hearing no objections, Chair Rasmussen excused Commissioner Phillips from the meeting. II. AGENDA: Commissioner Johnson moved to amend the January 10,2019 agenda. He offered to move exchange the study session for CTA-2018-0005 with the annual public records training in order to accommodate the waiting audience. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against, and the motion passed. III. MINUTES: Commission Secretary Deanna Horton noted there was a mistake in the October 11,2018 minutes regarding the outcome of a motion. She explained the vote on the motion for the Findings of Fact for CTA-2018-0003 needs to be corrected from five in favor and zero against,to four in favor,one against with Commissioner Rasmussen dissenting. The Findings will also be corrected to reflect this change. Commissioner Walton moved to amended the previously adopted minutes from October 11 to change the outcome of the vote on the Findings of CTA-2018-0003. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against, and this motion passed. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the minutes from November 15 and December 13, 2018 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on this motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. IV. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson reported he attended the Pines Grade Separation Project meeting on November 13, 2018, the City Council and the Human Rights Task Force meeting on January 8,2019. V. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow reported the advanced agenda was looking to be very busy for the beginning of the year. She stated the Comprehensive Plan amendments would not be on the agenda until February, due to staff needing more time for review and evaluation of the proposals. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS: i. Election of Officers: Ms.Horton informed the Commission that according the rules of procedure, Commissioner Johnson had reached his term limit as Vice Chair and would not be able to be elected to that position again. However; Commissioner Rasmussen had only served one term as Chair. She then accepted nominations for the position of Chair of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Rasmussen and Commissioner Johnson were nominated for the position of chair and both accepted the nomination. The vote on this position was as follows: Commissioner Vote James Johnson Rasmussen Danielle Kaschmitter Rasmussen Timothy Kelley Rasmussen 2019-01-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 4 Robert McKinley Johnson Michelle Rasmussen Johnson Matt Walton Johnson With the vote ending in a tie, Commissioner Rasmussen stated she would step aside and allow Commissioner Johnson to take the chair position. Commissioner Johnson stated he would accept this proposal. Commissioner Walton and Commissioner Rasmussen were nominated for the position of vice chair. Commissioner Rasmussen declined the nomination, Commissioner Walton accepted. There was consensus from the entire Commission to accept Commissioner Walton as the vice chair for the 2019 year. ii. Findings of Fact: 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 explained the Findings of Fact reflected the process and decision the Commission had made regarding CTA-2018-0004,the Planned Action Ordinance, Centennial Business Park. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for CTA- 2018-0004. There was no discussion. The vote on the motion was six in favor, zero against and the motion passed. iii. Study Session: CTA-2018-0005: A privately initiated amendment to SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Use Matrix, 19.40.060 Development Standards — Duplexes, and 19.40.050 Development Standards—Cottage Development. Ms. Barlow gave the Commission a presentation explaining the privately initiated code text amendment CTA-2018-0005 which proposes to amend SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Use Matrix, 19.40.060 Development Standards — Duplex, and 19.40.050 Development Standards — Cottages. She stated that all of the changes relate to the R-3 zoning district only. She continued in the Permitted Use Matrix the amendment proposes to change in the line for Duplexes from a 'P' for permitted under the R-3 zoning district to an `S' which would signify that there are additional regulations. On the line for townhomes it would strike the `P,' and make them prohibited in the R-3 zone. In SVMC 19.40.060 Development Standards—Duplexes, language would be added which states `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.' Ms.Barlow stated that when planners are looking at the Permitted Use Matrix and see the `S' instead of the P they would then look to this language to see these additional regulations to govern where a duplex could be placed in a development. She said the currently duplexes are allowed in the R-3 and the multifamily zones. The proposal does not ask to change any of the other standards for a duplex. She then showed the Commission how it might look if a development were proposed to have a duplexes and where they could be placed. Commissioner Walton asked what would happen if a developer sold the lots in the plat, and someone wanted to come in and build a duplex on one of the lots,outside of the larger development. Would this be a way to get around the intent of the proposal? Ms. Barlow stated that in the past dedication language has been used but the City is reluctant to use this, because the only way to remove that language should the regulations change in the future would be through another process. There would have to be discussion internally as to how to implement the proposal should it be adopted. She hoped to look at these applications further in the staff report for the public hearing. Commissioner Kelley confirmed that it did not matter who owned the lots,it would only allow one duplex per acre. If the land was divided into four lots, and one person built a duplex, the other three would not be able to do so. Commissioner Rasmussen asked how many parcels of land this would affect. Ms. Barlow stated she did not know,but would try and work to figure it out,but it might not show what is completely under utilized. 2019-01-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Walton asked if there are other jurisdictions had these same types of restrictions. Ms. Barlow said she could look to some jurisdictions lying further away from the City, however she had looked the surrounding jurisdictions and did not find any regulations built into those codes which were similar to this. Spokane County had used plats in the past to keep the density to a certain number, which they felt was not an effective way to manage density. In fact, Spokane County was changing their regulations to eliminate barriers in order to make it easier to develop duplexes, and they are increasing the density in some of their urban districts. Commissioner Rasmussen asked how the proposal affected the City's Comprehensive Plan in respect to the Growth Management Plan and capacity to handle population growth. Ms. Barlow stated in theory it should not have any effect, because our density is six units per acre, it does not matter if it is single family homes or duplexes, six structures verses three structures,the density is still six units. Ms. Barlow continued explaining the proposal looks to add language SVMC 19.40.050 (C) 'In- whole purchase of any development by one entity in the R-3 zone is prohibited.'This would prohibit a single owner from owning all of a cottage development. Commissioner Walton asked if this would apply to the cottage structure, meaning the entire area developed into cottages or would it apply to the land someone would purchase and create for development into that purpose? Would it be prohibited for a developer to come in, buy the land, develop a cottage development and then sell off the individual cottages as separate pieces? Ms.Barlow said the way the language is written it would prohibit the entire development being owned by a single entity. Someone could own the underlying land and common areas,but individuals would own the separate living structures. This would insure that the cottages would be owner occupied and not a rental community. After Commissioner Kelley tried to clarify how someone could develop a cottage development, Ms. Barlow said she would have to have more discussions with other staff members in order to try and work through this,because as it written this would prohibit a cottage development. Ms.Barlow stated the public hearing for this amendment has been scheduled for January 24,2019. iv. Annual Training: Public Records Act, Open Public Meetings,Appearance of Fairness. Deputy City Attorney Erik Lamb gave the Commission and staff in attendance training on how to handle public records,the Public Records Act,public meetings, and the appearance of fairness. VIII. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Johnson stated he would not be able to attend the January 24,2019 meeting. Commissioner Walton said he would like to reflect on the work the Commission put into CTA-2018- 0003,which was the city initiated amendment regarding open space requirements in mixed use zones. He said he felt like the Commission put in a tremendous amount of work, reflection and it reflects tremendous on this body. Especially when you consider the amount of regarding the subject,the very vague nature of the proposal that City Council submitted to us,in terms of having us look at this subject. I felt we created a very reasoned approach to not only addressing the concern Council brought to us,in the fee-in-lieu of but also in terms of helping to define for future development what mixed use really means. After reviewing the January 8, 2019 City Council video and looking at their decision to go against the Planning Commission, I am personally extremely disappointed in the direction the City Council chose to take. It disregards the hard work the Commission put in that. Each of you individually spent a lot of time, not only addressing the information we had, but in providing guidance to the planners. I just wanted to recognize that again. It is difficult not to take it personally when you have a lot of work you put into something and then have it disregarded by a different body, but in this case, I understand the direction the City Council chose to take,but I very strongly disagree with it. The entire intent of an elected body, as well as a body appointed by that elected body, is to govern on behalf of the people. In terms of what we have seen for public comment, from members of the community showing up at public meetings, and being engaged the public very clearly cares about maintaining the character of Spokane Valley. Simply saying we wish to take government out of actions so we can maintain the maximum amount of freedom, in my view is an abdication of our responsibilities to the community and to the citizens who elected the City Council,who appointed us as a Commission. While I understand the City Council had a role to play,and that role for their own individual sakes meant they 2019-01-10 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 4 had to exercise their conscious to make a decision that went against the Planning Commission. I truly feel the Planning Commission created a legislative action for consideration by the elected individuals which would truly create a situation that was pro-growth and pro-character of Spokane Valley. It would have satisfied both sides of an ongoing and heated discussion that continues and was evident from watching the videos from January 8, 2019 and the meetings previous to that. I wanted to go on the record that I feel the City Council erred in making the decision they did and that this body made the correct determination by explaining what mixed use was and by also basically creating a scenario that allowed both residential and mixed use development while still discouraging the strictly residential that members of the City Council indicated they were not necessarily for, but then voted to affirm that particular stance. Commissioner Rasmussen thanked the Commission members for their support while she chaired the Commission in the last 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 24, 2019 Item: Check all that apply n old business I1 new business I1public hearing n information n 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 (CTA) 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 Planning Commission (Commission) conducted a study session on the proposed CTA at the January 8, 2019 meeting. The proposed amendment is a privately-initiated code text amendment to SVMC 19.60.050, SVMC 19.40.050 and SVMC 19.40.060. 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 restrict 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. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct the public hearing and deliberate on the amendment. If the Commission recommends approval of the CTA, staff recommends that the proposal be rewritten with substantive changes to content considered. Alternatively, due to the complexity of the issue, if the Commission desires additional information or to take additional public comment,the Commission should continue the public hearing. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Amendment 19.40 and 19.60 SVMC 2. Staff Report with attachments 2. Presentation RPCA Study Session for CTA-2018-0005 Page 1 of 1 COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS 01"1\11rIm%, BUILDING&PLANNING Spokane Valley STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION CTA-2018-0005 STAFF REPORT DATE: January 17, 2019 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: January 24, 2019, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A privately-initiated text amendment to SVMC 19.40.050, SVMC 19.40.060, and SVMC 19.60.050 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. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, SVMC 17.80.150, 19.30.040. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS: Staff concludes that the proposed amendments to SVMC 19.40.050,SVMC 19.40.060 and SVMC 19.60.050 are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF CONTACT:Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: CTA-2018-0005 Application, attachment and proposed amendments to SVMC 19.40.050. SVMC, 19.40.060 and SVMC 19.60.050. Exhibit 2: Presentation Exhibit 3: May 15,2018 Council Administrative Report- Overview of Duplex Regulations in the Residential Zones Exhibit 4: October 2, 2018 Council Administrative Report—Duplex Density Issues BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. APPLICATION PROCESSING: SVMC Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures. The following table summarizes the procedural steps for the proposal. Process Date Application Submitted November 16, 2018 Department of Commerce 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt December 10,2018 Amendment SEPA—DNS Issued December 28,2018 Published Notice of Public Hearing: January 4 and 11, 2019 PROPOSAL BACKGROUND: The proposed amendment limits the number of duplexes allowed in the R-3 zone to one duplex per acre, requires that each dwelling unit within the duplex receives a separate parcel number, and establishes standards that prevent duplexes from being constructed adjacent to other duplexes. The proposed amendment also prohibits townhomes and single entity ownership of cottage developments within the R-3 zone. The proposal modifies SVMC 19.60.050 Permitted Use Matrix, SVMC 19.40.050 Development standards—Cottage development and SVMC 19.40.060 Development standards—Duplexes. The sole basis for the proposed amendment identified by the applicant stated in the application is to Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0005 "mitigate excessive duplex/rental buildout detrimental to homeowners." The application and specific language proposed are attached as Exhibit 1. Analysis: Currently duplexes and cottage developments are allowed in four zones, and townhomes are allowed in 5 zones (see Table 1 below). Duplexes are allowed as a permitted use, subject to Density and Dimensional Standards in chapter 19.70 SVMC, and cottage developments and townhomes are subject to supplemental regulations specific to each housing type as set forth in chapter 19.40 SVMC. Table 1—Current Zoning Districts that Allow Duplexes, Townhomes and Cottage Dwellings Parks and Open Residential Mixed Use Commercial Industrial Space R-1 R-2 R-3 MIR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS Dwelling,cottage S SS S Dwelling,duplex P P P P Dwelling, industrial accessory S S dwelling unit Dwelling, multifamily P P P Dwelling,single-family PPP P P P P Dwelling,townhouse S S S S S lulanufactured home park S S The proposed amendment has the following implications in the R-3 zone: 1. Reduces the number of duplexes that may be constructed. Pursuant to 19.70.020 Residential Standards the minimum lot size Table 2—Table 19.70-1-Residential Standards in the R-3 zone is 5,000 square feet(Table 2 - 19.70-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR(11 Residential Standards). Front and Flanking Street Yard 35 15' 15 15' SVMC 19.40.060 Setback. Development Standards — Garage Setbacket 35' 20' 20' 20' Duplexes requires that Rear Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 10' duplexes meet the minimum Minimum lot size per dwelling unit. Side Yard Setback 5 5' 5' 5' Duplexes, although one Open Space NPA wA N/A 10%gross structure, contain two areata) dwelling units, thereby Lot Size) 40,000 sq.ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft. N/A requiring a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (5,000 Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% minimum lot size per unit X Maximum Density 1 dulac 4 du/ac 6 dufac 22 dulac 2 dwelling units = 10,000 Building Heighttal 35' 35' 35 50' square feet minimum lot size Page 2 of 7 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0005 per duplex). The current regulations also dictate that the maximum density for residential development in the R-3 zone is 6 dwelling units per acre(du/ac)resulting in a maximum number of 3 duplex units per acre allowed to be constructed since each duplex contains 2 dwelling units. The proposal reduces the number of duplexes allowed to be constructed per acre from 3 duplexes down to 1 duplex. 2. Reduces available both affordable housing units and alternative housing types in the R-3 zone by reducing the number of duplexes that may be constructed and eliminating townhomes as a housing alternative. Generally, duplexes provide an affordable housing option for renters versus renting a single family home. Although the rent price is market driven, the rent can be influenced by the cost of construction. Duplex construction is generally less costly than single family construction since one lot is purchased and developed, compared to two lots; mobilized construction for one building, rather than two separate buildings; and shared infrastructure such as driveways, curb cuts, yards, and utility service connections. This can be true for townhome development as well. Duplex development provides a lower risk investment opportunity than investing in single family homes. A vacant single family rental home affects an investor financially more than a duplex,which provides two rental opportunities, thus affecting the amount of rent necessary to offset the cost of a vacancy. While ensuring opportunity for real estate investment is not generally a role played by the city,ensuring affordable housing alternatives to meet the needs of the community is considered in the development regulations. Duplexes provide rental opportunities for individuals or families that desire a traditional single family neighborhood setting, a more private yard, more space for storage which includes a garage, and the ability to choose a location in a suburban-type area at a rental cost more similar to an apartment rent rather than a single family home. Duplexes become a reasonable option for persons who are not in a position to purchase a home or those that choose not to. According to the City's 2016 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element the median household income in Spokane Valley is $2,000 less than the average countywide annual earnings, and almost one-third of the City's residents earned between $25,000 and $50,000 annually. It was further noted that 51% of renters were cost burdened by rent, meaning that housing costs are greater than one-third of their income. Affordable housing continues to be a need in the City of Spokane Valley. 3. Affects anticipated to development rights. Development rights can add value to a property, as they define the development potential of that property. In this case the value of the development rights would be the difference between the fair market value of the land that is allowed a duplex versus land that is not allowed a duplex because of a nearby duplex. For example a property owner could anticipate developing a 10,000 sq. ft. lot with a duplex based on the development standards found in SVMC 19.70.020 Residential Standards,but when applying for a building permit discover that a duplex has been built, or a permit issued to construct a duplex in the vicinity which eliminates the development right to construct the duplex. The end result is uncertain development rights based on a"First in—Last out" implementation strategy unless the implementation of the proposal is only applied to lots created by plat actions occurring subsequent to the adoption of the amendment. Utilizing this approach would rely on specific plat dedication language that notes only one duplex per acre is allowed, and perhaps defines which lots are duplex lots. Staff conducted a review of the available lots in the R-3 zone that could be affected by the proposed amendment. Table 3 identifies the number of lots by a series of sizes, and further identifies how many duplexes could be developed under the current regulations compared to the proposed regulations. Under the current regulations duplexes may be constructed on individual lots that meet the minimum dimensional requirements,or allowed through plat activities that anticipates duplex lots not to exceed 6 du's/acre. Under Page 3 of 7 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0005 the proposal it is presumed that vacant lots less than 1 acre (technically the land area is 39,930 square feet as that is the threshold number where the number of allowed dwelling units(DU's)is rounded up from 5.5 DU's up to 6 DU's) would not be eligible for a duplex since the minimum density of 1 duplex/acre could not be achieved. If the proposed amendment were to be approved, the result would be a significant reduction in the number of duplexes allowed. Table 3 Survey of Available Lots by Size within the R-3 Zonel 10,000—15,000 sq. 15,000-39,930 sq. >39,931 sq.ft. >39,931 sq.ft. Lot Size ft.Vacant Lots ft' Vacant Lots with Sfdu2 Vacant Lots Number of Lots 153 161 91 564 3;number of 2;number of Number of duplexes allowed duplexes allowed duplexes allowed increases relative to increases relative to under current 1 1 3 lot size and a 6 lot size and a 6 regulations du/acre density du/acre density maximum maximum Number of duplexes allowed under the 0 0- 1 1/acre 1/acre proposed regulations3 'Source: 2018 Land Capacity Analysis conducted by COSV GIS Technician 'Sfdu means single family dwelling unit 'Assumes that plats smaller than 39,930 square feet would not be allowed to develop duplexes since the minimum density of 1 duplex/per acre could not be achieved. If the regulation were to be applied to individual lots, it is unclear how to determine the 1 acre area of influence. For example should the duplex location be the center of the area, or should the 1 acre radius extend from the duplex location as the farthest point. See Graphic#1 for examples. Graphic#1—Determining Duplex Location by Density t1UUNtA t 4. Appears to prevent cottage development. .111.111111111111•5I. P•,•1 "111. The proposed supplemental cottage development E DES ET AVE regulation is difficult to implement. While the intent is ENE. believed to be an effort to prevent rental communities © ,1 ,'•, from developing, it appears that the implementation UL would be to require more than one owner, at the time of development approval, during development, and ing,ELPE continuous operation. In many cases land is developed milli by a single entity. This could be a deterrent to cottage X= duplex location development by requiring additional ownership. .AL Historical Duplex Development The City has seen considerable duplex development from 2013 through April 2018. A comparison of the duplex permits issued during that time frame noted a steady increase by Spokane Valley compared to Spokane and Spokane County (See Graphic #2). On May 15, 2018 and October 2, 2018 staff presented Page 4 of 7 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0005 Graphic#2 information to City Council on density related issues and duplex development. The review was Comparision of Duplex Permits conducted at Council request. See attached 2013-2018 (April) Exhibits 3 and 4. 100 The growing number of duplexes in the community 80 is an issue frequently noted by citizens at public 60 hearings for subdivisions. Common statements involve concerns regarding decreased property 40 values, lack of investment by non-owner occupied 20 units, inconsistency with the neighborhood o character and impacts from the increasing number 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 of rentals within the neighborhood. However, the proposed amendment appears to raise many more Spokane Valley Spokane Spokane County issues for implementation, as well as concerns regarding the effects on affordable housing stock. If the Planning Commission chooses to recommend adoption of the proposed amendment, staff recommends that the code text amendment, or portions of the code text amendment be rewritten. Other considerations As identified above, the proposed amendment imposes additional restrictions and limitations on the allowable types of development. Any time that the City considers regulations that limit allowable development, it must be cognizant of potential constitutional issues. Takings. Generally, Washington law prohibits takings without just compensation. The courts have identified a number of instances where takings may occur. In the context of governmental regulations, there are three primary types of takings: (1) eliminating all economically viable use of the property, (2) determination that, under an extensive analysis of multiple factors, the public and governmental interest does not outweigh the economic impact to the landowner,and(3)regulatory exactions. In the present case, the second type of takin would be the most likely consideration. Staff have not conducted an extensive review of the proposed amendment,but highlight the constitutional takings issues for Planning Commission consideration due to the significant limits the proposed regulation places on development as well as the basis stated by the Applicant for the proposed amendment to protect homeownership rights. Substantive Due Process. Washington law also provides that governmental regulations may not violate substantive due process rights. Courts use a three-prong due process test: (1) they begin by determining whether the regulation is aimed at achieving a legitimate public purpose; (2) courts then evaluate whether the means used were reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose; and finally(3), whether the regulation was unduly oppressive to the landowner. Key as applicable to the present issue is identification and consideration of the public purpose that is being sought to be furthered. Here,the Applicant has only stated a desire to"mitigate excessive duplex/rental buildout detrimental to homeowners." In the land use context, it is important for Planning Commission and the City to identify land use bases and not just purposes based upon personal status. Overbreadth and Vagueness. Washington law also provides that City codes may be unconstitutional if they are overbroad or overly vague in identifying criteria for approval or disapproval. As Planning Commission noted at the study session, there are questions regarding how the provisions limiting purchase and sale of cottage developments would allow any cottage development. Staff recommends that as Planning Commission considers the proposed provision, it identify the impacts that it desires the proposed amendment to address, and that if it desires to move it forward to City Council, to more artfully articulate the proposed condition. Page 5 of 7 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0005 "Vested"Rights Another issue for Planning Commission consideration is how the proposed regulations may actually be applied where owners have an expectation that the development they desire will be allowed. Washington law and the SVMC both provide some protections for developers to allow them to have some certainty in being able to follow through with developments even if regulations change in the midst of the development process. There are several codes and laws that apply that allow developers to (1) have their applications processed under the rules in place at the time the completed application is submitted,and(2)have building permits considered under the rules in place at the time the plat was approved where the plat was designed for certain types of buildings. RCW 58.17.170 provides that subdivisions shall be governed by the"terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of approval...for a period of...five years if the date of final plat approval is on or after January 1, 2015...." SVMC 17.80.170 generally mirrors state law for building permit and land disturbance permit applications. Thus, it appears that if a developer sought to build duplexes in a plat within the five year period after final plat approval,those duplexes would not be subject to the proposed regulation. As identified above, there are also questions about how the proposed regulation limiting duplexes to one acre will be implemented where there are existing duplexes in the nearby area of new duplexes. Further, the proposed amendment does not identify whether the limitation is to be implemented to"applied-for"or "constructed" duplexes. A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TEXT AMENDMENT 1. Compliance with Title 17 (General Provisions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code a. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F)Municipal Code Text Amendment Approval Criteria i. The City may approve Municipal Code Text amendment, if it finds that (1) The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Analysis: Staff notes that the Applicant has not identified any specific goals or policies or other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan supporting the proposed amendment. The sole basis identified by the Applicant for the proposed amendment is to "mitigate excessive duplex/rental buildout detrimental to homeowners." Staff has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and identified that the proposed amendment is not supported by the Comprehensive Plan and is not consistent with the following goals and policies: Goal LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Policy LU-P 14 Enable a variety of housing types Goal H-G 1 Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. Goal H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. Policy H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre- fabricated homes, co-housing, cottage housing, and other housing types. Page 6 of 7 Staff Report and Recommendation CTA-2018-0005 Policy H-P3 Support the development of affordable housing units using available financial and regulatory tools. Policy H-P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance from social and human service providers. (2) The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Analysis: Staff notes that the Applicant has not identified a clear statement as to how the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare, and protection of the environment. The sole basis identified by the Applicant for the proposed amendment is to"mitigate excessive duplex/rental buildout detrimental to homeowners." In reviewing the proposed amendment, staff believe that the amendment creates regulations that are in conflict with numerous goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and would create barriers to providing alternative and affordable housing options in the R-3 zone. Further, it creates unclear and difficult to implement regulations. The amendment does not bear a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and protection of the environment. b. Conclusion(s): The proposed text amendment is not consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. 2. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Public Comments a. Findings: No public comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): In the absence of public comments, staff makes no conclusions. 3. Finding and Conclusions Specific to Agency Comments a. Findings: No substantive agency comments have been received to date. b. Conclusion(s): In the absence of substantive agency comments, staff makes no conclusions. B. OVERALL CONCLUSION The proposed code text amendment is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff makes no recommendation on the privately initiated code text amendment. However, if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the code text amendment, staff recommends that the proposal be rewritten with substantive changes to content considered,as well as clear land use impacts and bases to support such amendments. Page 7 of 7 envoi DEVELOPMENT CODE T T AMENDMENT APPLICATION n SVMC 17.80.150 �� lley` 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5240 ♦ Fax: (509)720-5070 • permitcenter(spokanevalley.org STAFF USE ONLY f Date Submitted: lit lL/1O l Received by: --T Fee: $ke6)-C( PLUS #: File#: (1!.-TA - Z " (200 PART I — REQUIRED MATERIAL **THE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED** Pre-Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting) [Completed Application Form cid e6Ei Pc vzc s Llication Fee Ej Notice of Public Hearing packet for 400-foot notification. (Please note: DO NOT submit the notice of public hearing packet until you have been contacted by the City. Addresses must be current within 30 days of the Planning Commission public hearing.) PART II — APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT NAME: rr / ILLDP. MAILING ADDRESS: 41 ( t'//SSCGIJ CITY: rC V*LEy STATE: OA ZIP: 9, !"!6 OI PIWE PHONE:5074) .?44 70 FAX: CELL' r EMAIL: c onv ;Athr- SECTION(S)OF CODE PROPOSED TO BEAMENDED(INCLUDE CODE CITATION): O / / .4Q. � L9re-14 dJJn j9, ILO.4S-0 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CODE AMENDMENT(S): /f!l2 L fitDEAe4 T ?1(I2.4)/A1C C,oPES pOH 9FcSWEA)TS me 7t,-5 ZoAJE . PL-08V1.o RECEIVED Page 1of2 NOV 1 6 2018 SPOKANE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • . Spo a e Valley TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION REASON(S) FOR CODE AMENDMENT(S): in,776.47-6 -rK ES$YI/1 'LtPLrEY ,FE.A.074C.. Gct cp6iL7 .''rR/r+s,EAI7/1—7 -4 M.E41u>ER 3 IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: yr 5 DOES THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BEAR A SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH,SAFETY,WELFARE, AND PROTECTION OF THEENVIRONMENT: E5 PART III — AUTHORIZATION (Signature of applicant) '1 rr I, N��df ,6 /'r1/L4& , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are made truthf011y and to the best of my knowledge. ////6/1? al- CI- 114Aj6-47-- (Signatu e) (Date NOTARY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss: COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) / SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this / 0 day oWtiv .,b x ,2O!g NOTARY SEAL 5 -.-1 C __, - I (70 NOTARY(SIGNATURE NotSI! PnbliC Notary Public in and for the State of Washington elate of Washington DEANNA HORTON l IIII/1� - MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Residing at: /!' i P_ 2/7/ 19 (Li' 9g:4 Y, JULY 26,2021 J r MUM ■ My appointmentexpires: PL-48 V1.0 Page 2 of 2 • ANL COMMUNITY&PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT cars ne Building & Planning Division PRE-APPLICATION MEETING WORKSHEET File No. PRE-LU-20178-0062 Meeting Date & Time: Wednesday,November 7, 2018 ()a,2:00 PM This pre-application meeting and$250.00 fee paid is valid for one (1)year from the date of the meeting. If proposal changes or expires, you must apply for a new meeting with application and associated fee. Project Details: Proposal: Modify duplex standards in R-3 zone and not permit townhomes in R-3 zone. Sections to be modified of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) are 19.40.060 19.60.050. See attached proposal. Applicant: Pete Miller, 18124 East Mission Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA Meeting Topics: 1. Fees total $1,850.00 (less the $250.00 paid) 2. Project discussion: a. Conflicts with goals and policies of Comprehensive Plan i. LU-G4 Ensure that land use plans, regulations, review processes, and infrastructure improvements support economic growth and vitality. ii. LU-P14 Enable a variety of housing types. H-GI Allow for a broad range of housing opportunities to meet the needs of the community. H-G2 Enable the development of affordable housing for all income levels. iv. H-P2 Adopt development regulations that expand housing choices by allowing innovative housing types including tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, pre-fabricated homes, co-housing, cottage housing,and other housing types. 3. Code Text Amendment process. SVMC 17.80.150 and flowchart of process provided. 4. Criteria for approval of a Code Text Amendment per Spokane Valley Municipal Code 17.80.150(F). a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and b. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. PRE-LU-2018-0062 November 7,2018 Page 1 of 1 RECEIV : NOV 1 6 2018 SPOKANE VALLE r COT.1 ,L,NITY LC. = 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 Kennel S S• S S P P Orchard, tree farming, P P commercial Riding stable P P t' Communication Facilities Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P Repeater facility PPPP 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 PP P P P P P T _ Church, temple, mosque, PPP 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 IMU I POS Crematory Funeral home P �' Transitional housing C Day Care L Day care, adult PPP P P P P P P P Day care, child (12 children or PPP P 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 PPP P P P P P Schools, professional, vocational P P P P P F 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 1MU I POS Theater. indoor P P P Group Living Assisted P P P P living/convalescent/nursing home Community residential facilities PPP 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 PPP P P Hotel/motel P P P P S Recreational vehicle S park/campground Marijuana Uses Parks and Mixed Open Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space • R- R- R- 1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC 1MU I POS Marijuana club or lounge Marijuana cooperative Marijuana processing S S Marijuana production S Marijuana sales SS S Medical S P P P P P Office Animal clinic/veterinary S S S S S Office, professional PPPPPP P Parks and Open Space Cemetery P P P Golf course PPP P P P PP Golf driving range CCCC P C P PP Parks PPP P PPP P P Public/Quasi-Public Community facilities P P P P P P P P P P P Essential public facilities RRR R R R R R R Public utility local distribution SSS S S S S P P P S facility Public utility transmission facility SSS S S S S S S S S Tower, wind turbine support S SS S Residential Dwelling, accessory units S S S SS S S S Dwelling, caretaker's residence S S S S Dwelling, cottage S S S S Dwelling, duplex 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 PPPP P P P Dwelling, townhouse S S S S S Manufactured home park S S Retail Sales and Service p p S P P S S Transportation Airstrip, private P P Battery charging stations SSS P P P P P P P S Electric vehicle infrastructure P P P P P P P Heliport P P Helistop C C P Parking facility—controlled 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 painting, repair, body and fender works Car wash P P S P P P Farm machinery sales and repair P P 1' Fueling station P P S P P P A 19.40.060 Development standards — Duplexes. Du.lexes shall be limited to 1 du•lex ser acre. Du•lexes shall have se•arate .arcel numbers per 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 and/or 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 dwelling 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 19.150 SVMC, E. SVMC Title 20, Subdivision Regulations. The design requirements of SVMC 20.20.090 are waived. (Ord. 16- 018 §6 (Att. B), 2016). CITY OF7 r �n 11{;11 jUalleyA Planning Commission Meeting Public Hearing CTA-2018-0005 January 24, 2019 PROCESS t -. o, o Study Session Administrative N cu c c January 10, 2019 • Report TBD N = 4 el .- O 1st a I ' Public Hearing L� Ordinance W cu = L. ta January 24, 2019 Reading TBD cu ct : Findings of Fact Ordinance 2 ndA1.4 CiJ .: CI TBD Reading TBD O Pi 4 ' 1 ( AI 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 Li 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 [nMENa• Zones That Allow DuplexesVieI le0. Cottages and Townhomes (mild ---.. 4 A , E ill. Ave E,,,,, EucII Ave Ave i 1',4 Buckeye 3 - a Are ni lik ■ � I CC ■ Mixed Use $1 M. Ion - ilkF■: .A a _#_ 4_ MsgiunAre gi Pir- .+■�^" - :� �� i inn �� I � � �i Ave h».,�. Corridor Mixed Use • iMICIMMI I Is Ave . __ -- ami, -� , � '{- ;r„ , 7 �'1 � i 1 Multifamily k ,, . _ ,i II oft.. I 1 Residential -I __ _, A. m ,(ehArel _ 1,011 Lassailmi • • 24th Ave -.CD 2dfh Are -- R-3 Single Family 31111da Residential Urban Proposed amendment , ire 4 Ir only affects duplexes, Legend Zoning Neighborhood townhomes and -' ,ii t 1 R3 th Ave -MF Commercial cottage development NC (Townhomes only) in the R-3 zone cJ Proposed Amendment Add an "S": SVMC 19 . 60. 050 indicates the use is permitted subject to Permitted Uses Matrix supplemental use Residential Mixed Use Commercii ndustrial regulations. R-1 R-2 R-3 I MIR MU CMI] • RC IMU I POS Dv;ellrrrg, cottage S S S Dwelling, duplex P s) F' F F Dwelling, industrial accessory S S dwelling unit Delete "S"; Dwelling, multifamily F' P F indicates the Dwelling, single-family P P P P P P use is ,ellrrg, to...enhouse prohibited. Manufactured home park S S Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 19 .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 1 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 t R_1 R_2 R_3 MFROI Table 19.70-1 35' 15' " 6 15' Setback MI GarageSetback(2) 35' :: 20 2U° Rear Yard Setback 20' ..3:: ' 0 10' Minimum Side Yard setback 5° 5 5' 5' Open Space fJ . , NV. ` , 10% gross area(2) Lot Size"4' 40:000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft 5.00E sq. ft. VA Lot Cove-age .30.0% 50.0% 50.D'/: 60 0% Maximum Dvn2ity 1 du?ac 4 dur"ac 6 tlu!.ac. 22 dur'ac Suilrlirlg Hlei°ght :' 35' 35' 35 60' 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? _is u , _______ .• _____....,., _ . , . 31711. prit i1 �a ��`�� f its 46% NUM ! l X 174 I I ILP 1 uu�` �1 — 1, s�" fi' ii. .fi Li a u ay F 1•1 I i..ni .1 -patl�l01 'j 4 , t-_ L.. —1 g6 Y Sip+r n . , ' +tea J-�_ •.' ~�_ ,� A, f •Q- - - , ..1 -f- - ,13r ,_,,, ,„ 4 f rI \ p " � atl##it , ' r-- t ..r.....--rA�C 1 ' '''' ,ar� r ..,\ '_,;111!",5V-,--, —7-,- --)1--* —1— '\ -; iL-,,, \ ,],,, , —:— 1 4.4: fil . I i i •t: 1 ` foUNMErSiMualtaSIMINas FQ1 , ,‘ `I'a t 1 ! 3 pi • C `. �: I 9 ill f l� 4 �` . . �' ' I,.......,,,,,, ,„ I t1Ili b 1 • a`. 3— T sr sz i Prohibits .di f -- ,1 T =,. roti -,i s moreMy 100% duel- *,_ -�- Prohibits 1 duplex/acre 2 n . . - es-to development duplexes on be across the street in R-3 Zone adjacent lots allowed in this or opposite corners example) Proposed Amendment SVMC Chapter 19 .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 R-3 zoning districts. What Does the Proposed Amendment Mean to Cottage . .1; -1. t , 1 1 : 1 •Development? } � ti ilfl p � . #4A Pc-' I 1 a a -4 0 1 04 y I Prohibits a single -' �l.t._ � �� #_� �� 8 - '± r. owner in the R - 3 .. . ,., zr: .� a s,Ar, MI I-, }f• , zone• .s 1 r---1. , ..,7.T m.1 14...''.. Cr iirr.onl F # Bull�I9 rI L 0 Ad WA t ,a. c * —, 2'od IIII : i ...� - 51 _. �.: • 111111 . , _ . .„ . d 1 , 1 0 ,_., if. !W— % Li Staff Concerns ❑ Reduces the number of duplexes that may be constructed; a Reduces available affordable housing units and alternative housing types; ❑ Affects anticipated to development rights; o Appears to prevent cottage development and eliminates Townhomes; and n Difficult to implement; • Other legal considerations. Staff Procedural Recommendation ❑ Consider the comment provided If additional information is requested leave the public hearing open to add information to the record If additional time is desired to consider comment, delay deliberations If approval is desired, direct staff with substantive revisions ❑ If Commission is ready to move forward, deliberate and make a recommendation to Council NEXT STEP t : : ..., c, L.., ct - •- Study Session Administrative ,�14 ,-1N January 10, 2019 ' Report TBD .- N N E p WU cu © Public Hearing Ordinance 1st = z January 24, 2019 Reading TBD © 1.4 °' ' 14 14 Findings of Fact Ordinance 2nd CJ A 1.4 Pi TBD Reading TBD 0 4A A I Today 13 14 QUESTIONS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: May 15,2018 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Overview of Duplex Regulations in the Residential Zones GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.40.060; SVMC 19.60.050; SVMC 19.65.130; and SVMC 19.70.020 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: SVMC 19.60.050,Table of Permitted Uses,identifies that Duplex Dwellings are allowed in the R-3,MFR, and Mixed Use Zones. The R-3, Single-Family Residential Urban Zone allows residential development at a density of 1-6 dwelling units per acre. Duplex development regulations generally note that the same standards must be met for a duplex as for a single family residence, with the exception that the minimum lot size must be provided per unit. Council has requested the duplex regulations be discussed. Staff will present an overview of the duplex regulations for discussion. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:N/A STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner Doug Powell,Building Official Marty Palaniuk, Planner ATTACHMENT: PowerPoint Presentation Spokane Valley City Council Meeting May 15, 2018 Overview of Single Family and Duplex Development Regulations Administrative Report Single Family versus Duplex (Appendix A - Definitions) Dwelling, single-family: A building, manufactured or modular ho e or portion thereof, designed exclusively for single-family resident8 �a purposes, with a separate entrance and facilities for cooking, se ing, and sanitation. IP Dwelling, duplex: An attached building designed exclusively for occupancy by two families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation, but sharing a common or party wall or stacked. Dwelling, townhouse: A single-family dwelling unit constructed in groups of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from foundation to roof, open on at least two sides. Dwelling, multifamily: A building designed for occupancy by three or more families, with separate entrances and individual facilities for cooking, sleeping, and sanitation. Single Family - International Residential Code Chapter 2 Definition WAC 51 -51 : R101 .2 Scope. The provisions of the International Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, occupancy, location, removal and demolition of detached one- and two-family dwellings, adult family homes, and townhouses not to exceed three stories in height IRC Chapter 2 - Definitions Dwelling: Any building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or that are occupied for living purposes. Dwelling Unit: A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Why are Duplexes allowed in Single FamilyNeighborhoods Scale #� Duplexes SingleFamily lexes and Homes are similar in size r ` s1! Designed as a single family unit sharing a common 4 ti wall _ . .. 5 �V Can be one story or two story; Livable area can be horizontal or stacked Character ' Generally has typical features of a single family home Garage facing the street; front door entrance to each unit Similar construction to existing single family neighborhood structures Scale and Character (single family, duplex, townhouse ,,,,„„, /,, _.„..... 6:.:„,.._ , _ 471--iir4-,- ;� ; , , ,.._. , i _: \ 4; ILL -- and multifamily) --j!, III . hi Apir-__ _ 46,.. 411. ____ N -_,_, . ., '11,,N11.• ,ii.i_-__Ik-______,7, i _ I ' ii , iti_ ,iblt1 dt, norr . . . . ‘.1 r_, _. ._ 94„. _ 1 �a .,i6-2Kt-;,- i.-.L'::..-,-L __,..7.002 nji_T _ ut .,.._ .„------4`t: . — - F .A.,.', .-..,,&;:::_ 4'.4..:4` � # A 4v —I '4 _ , ILL .,.:. -7 I' Iii �� i . , , .„.„. L. . i, .,... r . , 9 ..i.: '.W .ICY'+ ... - -._• .. Scale and Character __ ___,,,,, _ .,., Duplex vs . Multifamily - Er ..__. . I r 1 , } q , -- ` •, $ , ,_ ,, -. I.,V_ _ `-?- - _ .k .1 lir it • got I _ . _., .r..=. i , 10_ -,- .• i am P os _ "; ifH.:11: ii : At fj r P •1 . .. �' , !, . ___ _„s [ '. r i ,.. . _ _ _._ ,. •_„ w -__ ,,,_ , .• Trio..,..,.- .1 ' . ' ..-• ' t yur S,1 • '.1 -al, 411 . i-, Id/ 1 I Scale and Character . #., , co ,4 ' L, II P 4.' . X -1 ,. - a A , - . , • _ _ - - - t. A %am lipp ir/ L7 Du plex vs . Single Family ,..... _. . . . ti 11:70: 1 ' 111117‘123111 " *-- , • - at , ..., ,{ or PEL . ..- %,... 14. j.. _ 4 ,.. ._... ir . • • d P L 1 ' irk 1 .1, ik ..• NI. - I 9 ".1l. Ni vii Nab A. ' -- ''' - _,4t i , .., , . . i - --.1. Enlik1 th Ave B r— ...... rill tra o . • .!- r , Zer' 1 -±_ _. . ... , , lir •a . I ... , . .. . . . 1 • 1 .,%,.. A j -- -. • 0 S. to , ..4- . LAr.CN.., k I* , , it ii . Ch tir rs , _ 11 i t 1. _3?4,..r_ !sr . . —. - FG. 'rt li—P _r_,_r - . .'' _ i". ,_ ,, •_.. .,, LL ■ fC ,,,,,,."1...1"1 ��yti8"� Cityof ■ 1441• li S okane Valle ■• _ - ■ e1111( ei .g� — da Euclid Ave EudidAv. • ;? Y �e B Avee - Zo nin Mg p ktno'x Av: Ir�dlanaA� � ' L �`� - * ■ \ 1 S21#0-:,-::,-) F Mission Ave . 11- I , �- Mission Ave i �. e 't � 3�dway r y k Ave 9r :.t._ i • .- - v '1111 II II y a - 132 11111 11 total Zones _ 17, �rdAv _ .. .r .I ,r . CF _ • . ° nit �_ � , •ve =Mai 4` ? } • 4 residential E �o H 111i ET 0/ /� ,' 1:14'...... Lrr.■ 16th Ave ■ 11.0 16t `: e 111 � i� /off • 3 Mixed Use LI...,■ -4 {• LPZ3 21dhAve '4111N2,5„:- - • 2 Commercial t%,} imm• 17 • 1 Industrial •i eP • ti Legend r.//i e R I MU 1 LakesfRivers • 1 Parks/Open Space `�-� .: : R2 CMU Municipal Boundaries /„..,,,,;,,,,v- R3 -FtD Arterials ''�"" - PDS -IM Freeway/Highway MF I 8 _ali d'i = MI NC . ......_ „. 0„ , T. LL i. , i.J 4, eller- Ave 40.., Zones that allow = a i tc Single Family and ■• • t 41.1 e-f+C';-, Eutlid Ave Euclid Av: �$ Buckeye + 4viB ■ P Av. n� y Duplex �_ KA Ave � i.'�L - _ • IIx1�ro Avg - • bAf5 19 A' • -.0 Mission Ave Za . • • Mixed Use l :_... y --� ardy • � r �'� g Ave Bran's!'-'lls I }-. .75 r,. L MINIM • CorridorIltd .wei:2, -•:., ,i L°.L.5 EMMEN. d Mixed Use ___ s!"1 —'s i REIM• Multifamilh. �" ■ 169h pine d � 1g+} Residential •-- '.o 2$th Ave 24 h Ave N tillb �� rte_ • R-3 Single y FamilY . Residentialel iii- Legend lt5 I Lakes/Rivers 44th Ave he�.,• ; Urban4 = MF D Municipal Baurdaries ■rr+ mu cMU -Freewa�rhiigVay . I I I SVMC Development Regulations - Table 19.70-1 R-1 R-2 R_3 MFRO = .0.-it and FI -<ing Street. Yard 35' 15' 15 15' Seto El ck ,. 35' u' 20 2i I' a age eUJ{Icf var Yard Setoac . C',, L'; 10 10' Virimun7 .isle YardSetback: 5 5' 5' 5' 'ti peri Space l'. . Ni., 1..1i.A 10% gross area:2• Lot Size'4' 40:000 sq. ft. 10:000 srl. ft. .5.00C sq. ft. NoA Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% Maximum Ge.ri ity 1 duras 4 deur"ac G du/ac 22 du/ac Building Height''2:' 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 . Spokane CUrban Residential Minimum Lot Size Zones (Area in square feet) Duplex Density Single Zone Allowed (Units/acre) Family Duplex Low Density Residential X 1 -6 5,000 10,000 Low Density Residential Plus i 1 43, 560 Medium Density Residential X 6- 15 4,200 8,400 High Density Residential i X 66.15 All 1 ,600 3,200 ote: Spokane County allows duplexes in Mixed Use, Commercial, Resource !Inds, and Rural Zones. Minimum Lot Size Spokane Residential Zones (Area �• n square feet) Duplex Density Single Zone Allowed (Units/acre) Family Duplex Residential Agriculture 4-10 7,200 Residential Single Family 4-10 4,350 Residential Single Family Compact 4-10 4,350 Residential Two-Family X 10-20 1,800 4,200 Residential Multifamily X 15-30 1,800 2,900 J Residential High Density X 15 + min none None * Spokane has both a minimum and maximum density requirement. Minimum Lot Size (Area in Liberty Lake Residential Zones square feet)* Duplex Density Zone Allowed (Units/acre) Single Family Duplex R-1, Single Family Residential 4-6 5,000 R-2 Mixed Residential X 6-12 5,000 - 10,000 7,000 -12,000 R-3 Multi-Family Residential X 12 + 4,000 — 8,000 5,000 — 10,000 * Liberty Lake has both a minimum and maximum density and lot size requirement. Spokane Valley Residential and Mixed Minimum Lot Size Use Zones (Area in square feet) Duplex Density Single Zone Allowed (Units/acre) Family Duplex R-1 Single- Family Residential Estate 1 40,000 R-2 Single Residential Suburban 4 10,000 R-3, Single - Family Residential urban X 6 5,000 10,000 MFR - Multifamily Residential X 22 DU/acre 2,000 4,000 MU Mixed Use X None 2,000 4,000 CMU Corridor Mixed Use X None 2,000 4,000 Conclusions of Jurisdictional Survey w _ __ ____ -.. Comparison of Duplex Lot Size Range Allowed by Minimum Lot Adjacent Jurisdictions Size 14000 Comparison: 1200000 LL 10000 00 N a COSV IS s 8000 • 6000 similar to 1' 4000 4 0 J County 2000 0 Low Lot Size Larger Lot Size Smallest to Largest Minimum Lot Area Allowed Spokane County —Liberty Lake —Spokane —Spokane Valley Single Family Residential Permits Regional Trends -• -, M. Spokane Spokane Comparison of Single Family Residential Permits ' 2013 -2018 (present) Year Valley Spokane County 900 2013 110 269 551 800 700 2014 151 213 421 600 500 2015 167 312 526 400 300 2016 175 342 769 200 100 2017 129 314 816 0 2018 35 89 286 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 L Spokane Valley Spokane Spokane County Duplex Permits I Regional Trends • M. Spokane Spokane Comparison of Duplex Permits Year Valley Spokane County 2013-2018 (present) 100 2013 4 9 76 80 2014 26 5 67 60 2015 17 6 86 40 20 2016 24 6 35 r 0 2017 37 8 19 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 28 23 2 —Spokane Valley —Spokane Spokane County Regional Trends Duplex as a percentage of total DU Duplex as a percentage of permits permits 50.0% Spokane 45.0% Year Valley Spokane Spokane County 40.0% 35.0% 2013 3.5% 3.2% 12.1 % 30.0% 25.0% 2014 14.7% 2.3% 13.7% 20.0% 2015 9.2% 1 .9% 14.1 % 15.0% 10.0% 2016 12.1 % 1 .7% 4.4% 5.0% .. I_I -I -, I■■ 0.0% - 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2017 22.3% 2.5% 2.3% • Spokane Valley • Spokane • Spokane County 2018 44.4% 20.5% 0.7% Next Steps mr o Staff is reviewing density & evaluating development trends In Further Council discussion on this item CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: October 2, 2018 Department Director Approval: El Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Duplex Density Issues GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.40.060; SVMC 19.60.050; SVMC 19.65.130; and SVMC 19.70.020 PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: On May 15,2018 staff provided an overview of the duplex development regulations in the residential zones to City Council. At that meeting, staff stated that a review of the density regulations was being performed and that more information would be brought to City Council at a future meeting. Staff has reviewed recent plat activity to determine if the density has been exceeded with the construction of single family dwellings or duplexes. It has been found that in two specific instances duplex development has resulted in the maximum density of 6 dwelling units per acre to be exceeded by one dwelling unit. A memo has been provided that highlights the issues. Staff will present an overview of the density issues for discussion. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:N/A STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner Jenny Nickerson, Building Official ATTACHMENT: September 26, 2018 Memo with attachments pvkane Community and Public Works Department Valley 10210 E Sprague Avenue ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 Phone: (509)720-5000 • Fax: (509)720-5075 •www.spokanevalley.org Memorandum Date: September 26, 2018 To: John Hohman, Deputy City Manager From: Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner Subject:Density Issues Associated with Land Division Recent changes were made to the Development Regulations that were intended to increase opportunity for infill development. A review of the regulations in 2016 identified that 7,500 square foot minimum lot size was a barrier to infill development. In previous years the city processed many rezone applications to reduce the minimum lot size from 7,500 square feet down to 6,000 square feet. The rezones were approved as the requests were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The 3-4 month rezone process was delaying development unnecessarily as the rezones would ultimately be approved. Analysis showed that reducing the minimum lot size to 5,000 square feet would allow more flexibility to develop lots within the irregular shaped parcels. Residential development in the R-3 zone is limited to a density of 6 dwelling units per acre of lot area (6 du/ac). The current development regulations associated with the R-3 zone allow for both single family dwelling and duplex dwelling development on individual lots. A minimum of 5000 square feet of lot area is required per dwelling unit(DU)for a total of 10,000 square feet of lot area required for a duplex. Within this memo are examples and further explanation as to how the density limitation described above has been, and could be, exceeded by duplex development. Spokane Valley residents have expressed concerns related to negative impacts to neighborhoods resulting from duplex development in the R-3 zone which has the potential to exceed the maximum allowed density. Generally,the concerns focus on decreased property values and the effects of rental properties to the owner-occupied dwellings in the neighborhoods. The current zoning regulations do not distinguish between owner-occupied and rental properties but do stipulate a maximum density allowed in all residential zones (see Table 1). Table 1 Maximum Density and Minimum Lot Size by Residential Zoning District R-1 R-2 R-3 MFR Maximum Density 1 du/ac 4 du/ac 6 du/ac 22 du/ac Minimum Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft 2,000 sq. ft. Duplex Minimum N/A N/A 10,000 sq. ft. 4, 000 sq. ft. Lot Size Duplex development has been increasing over the past five years. A recent review of the building permits issued for single family dwellings compared to duplex building permits has shown a steady Page 1 increase since 2013 of duplex construction. A comparison of duplex development between City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County and City of Spokane permits noted that the City of Spokane has experienced an increase in duplex permitting from 2017 to 2018, but that Spokane County has experienced a steady decline in duplex development since 2015. Figure 1 highlights the comparison of duplex development by jurisdiction. Figure 1 The density regulation is primarily implemented during the land division process. Prior to Comparision of Duplex Permits submitting a short plat or subdivision 2013-2018 (April) application the property is reviewed to 100 determine the maximum number of lots that 80 can be created for residential development. 60 This occurs very simply with the following 40 formula: Density X Acres= Number of lots allowed. In an R-3 zone example with an 20 allowed density of 6 du/ac on a parcel that is .5 acres in size, 3 lots would be allowed (6 DU's X 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 .5 acres=3 lots). After the lots are established, —Spokane Valley—Spokane —Spokane County the lot size is reviewed at the time of a building permit application to determine that the minimum area is provided, corresponding with the proposed use,which is either a single family residence or duplex( See Table 1 for Minimum Lot Size). In 2018 staff conducted a review of platting activities that had occurred subsequent to the 2016 Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulation update. The review period was January 2017 through April 2018. The review noted that during that time-frame the city had received 42 subdivision applications, (32 short subdivision applications and 10 long subdivision applications); eight of those plats had been recorded with the Spokane County Assessor's Office; and according to a review of building permits five of the plats were either developed or currently under development. The final item noted that two of the five plats had exceeded the maximum density allowed through the development of duplexes, rather than development of single family dwellings (See Table 2). Table 2 Number of Dwelling Units Allowed and Built By Plat File No. Plat Number Maximum Dwelling Units Number of Dwelling Units Built Size(in of Lots Allowed Acres) Approved SHP-2017-0005 .56 2 3 2 SHP-2017-0008 .29 2 2 2 SHP-2017-0010 1.65 6 10 11 SHP-2017-0016 .98 2 6 2 SHP-2017-0018 .79 3 5 6 Note: See attached plats for detail. A review of SHP-2017-0010 and 0018,the two plats which exceeded the density through development, indicates that all the lots created were greater than 10,000 square feet,which is the minimum lot size Page 2 required for a duplex in the R-3 zone.The physical development of the lots determined the density at build-out, and in each case the development exceeded the density by one DU. The concern is that the discrepancy between lot development and build out has become a "loop hole" for development to squeeze in additional dwellings. While the density has been exceeded by one DU in two occasions, it is not clear beyond the snap shot of time reviewed, how frequent this will occur. Other jurisdictions: Discussions with Spokane County staff indicate that the same situation occasionally occurs within County Plats, but this is not a major concern for them. In fact, as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan Update process staff has reviewed their Development Regulations to identify barriers to infill opportunities and noted that their 6 du/ac maximum density, large lot sizes, and lot standards are inhibiting infill and affordable housing opportunities. County staff's alternatives, currently under consideration by the Planning Commission and potentially focus groups, includes increasing the density from 6 du/ac, up to 8 du/ac, and allowing a bonus density up to 10 du/ac for duplex and row housing; decreasing the lot size in the Low Density Residential Zone from 5,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet; and reducing lot width requirements. Spokane County's Draft Infill Development Options report is attached for your information. Conversations with City of Spokane (COS) staff indicates that duplex development exceeding density requirements is not a concern as duplexes are only allowed in zones with a density of 10 units and greater. For information the COS minimum lot size requirements are 2,900 or 4,200 square feet depending on the zone. Possible Solutions for Discussion: The concerns identified by the neighborhood were considered in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. The following discussion highlights three options that affect duplex development through dedication language, density increases or lot sizes increases or decreases. The options could be used to either limit duplex development or eliminate the density conflict. Plat Language Dedication language could be placed on the recorded plat that stipulates which lots could be developed with duplexes, or generally identifies that the density couldn't be exceeded at the time of development. The concern with this approach is that if development regulations change in the future,the dedication language remains a controlling factor that can only be changed by a Plat Alteration process. This could be a costly and time intensive process for a developer depending on a variety of circumstances. Additionally, buyers may be unaware of a density limitation when purchasing the lot, and find out after the investment has been made,that although the lot meets the minimum area requirement for a duplex,the density limits have been reached by the previous development on the lots within the plat. County staff indicated that dedication language has been used as a means to ensure compliance with the density limits, but noted instances where the density has been exceeded as the dedication language was overlooked at the time of permit application,when the reviewers only considered the lot size. The point being dedication language increases the opportunity for error as it may conflict with the development regulations. Page 3 Density The current maximum density is 6 du/ac in the R-3 zone. However,the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet allows for a density of 8 du/ac to be achieved. This is also true when applying the duplex minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. Generally 8 du/ac is not achievable as many factors influence the design of the lots that include providing right-of-way, irregular parcel boundaries, existing development or natural features, etc.. The density forces all, or some of the lots to be larger in order to stay within the density limits. This could contribute to the higher cost to develop housing and may conflict with goals and policies within the comprehensive plan to increase opportunities for affordable housing. The density limit could be increased to 8 du/ac which would eliminate the conflict. If the density limit were increased, it would allow the development community to take full advantage of the 5,000 square foot lot size and support infill development. The density limit is identified within the Municipal Code, and not in the Comprehensive Plan. Consequently the process to consider this would only require a Code Text Amendment and not a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Lot Size Lot size for a duplex is twice the area for a single family detached dwelling (2 X 5,000 sq. ft. = 10,000 sf. ft.) Increasing the lot size for a duplex has been mentioned to eliminate duplex development from exceeding the density. However, increasing the lot size above that of a single family detached dwelling will likely act as a deterrent to duplex development as developers would be able to develop more single family lots than duplex lots. This would conflict with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies that direct the regulations to provide opportunities for affordable housing. Often lot sizes for duplexes are less than twice the area for a single family detached lot as it considers the elimination of the setback area (typically a 5' setback from side yard property line) between the two structures due to the common wall. All the other dimensional standards remain the same to ensure that the duplexes are consistent with the scale of development typical of single family neighborhoods. Other mechanisms may be utilized by other jurisdictions but at this time further research is required. Council Alternatives for Discussion: Before pursuing this matter, staff is requesting direction to determine if further information is desired, and/or if City Council would like the topic to be discussed by the Planning Commission. The City Council may want to consider the following action alternatives: 1. Direct the Planning Commission to review the topic and provide a recommendation through the public review process; 2. Monitor the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update process to keep informed of the modifications to their development regulations while continuing to review development trends within the City of Spokane Valley. Staff would report back at a future City Council Meeting; 3. Consider other action,which may include taking no action. Attachments: 1. Spokane County Infill Report 2. Recorded Plats 2017-April 2018 Page 4 Draft, Subject to Change 6-6-18 Infill Development Options Low Density Residential Zones As part of Spokane County's Comprehensive Plan Update, the Department of Building and Planning is considering options to increase opportunities for infill development within the Urban Growth Area. The objective is to provide more opportunities for diverse housing types and increase housing affordability. This effort identifies barriers to certain types of residential development and provides policy and regulatory changes to increase infill opportunities. The proposed changes will affect those areas within the unincorporated Urban Growth Area that are zoned Low Density Residential. The initial review for this project was predicated on concerns within the development community that it is often difficult to develop single family residences in certain areas within the UGA. Many of these areas contain smaller parcels within established neighborhoods, which because of location and economic limitations makes development of traditional subdivisions difficult and less profitable to the point that they become unfeasible. Review and discussion has identified barriers to development including: • Lot Standards Lot standards includes dimensional requirements for lot size, setbacks, frontage and lot coverage. The standards can impede development of infill and affordable housing by limiting smaller lot compact development. Proposed Revisions Lot standard are revised to allow greater flexibility and promote infill development. • Density The current maximum density of 6 units per acre in the LDR zones can hinder infill development, especially in older neighborhoods. In some established residential areas, the sales price for a new single-family home may not provide enough revenue to make the development feasible. Higher density housing may allow development to meet this profitability threshold. Proposed Revisions Increase the maximum density to 8 units per acre in the Low Density Residential Zone. Bonus density would allow projects to increase to 10 units per acre for certain infill projects such as row housing and duplex housing. • Row Housing Row housing, which provides the opportunity for higher density development, is currently only allowed through a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD process is more complex than a traditional subdivision, requiring additional design components and a lengthier process. While the PUD process has been successful for certain developments, it is seldom used. Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update 1 Draft, Subject to Change 6-6-18 Proposed Revisions Increase the maximum density to 8 units per acre. Additionally, allow subdivisions to increase to 10 units per acre for certain infill projects such as row housing and duplex housing and providing standards to reduce impacts to existing neighborhoods. • Duplex Development Duplex development, which can provide affordable housing in the UGA, is hindered by development standards that require large lot areas and preclude the development of vertical stacked duplex units where each dwelling unit is on a separate floor. Proposed Revisions Revise the definition of duplex to allow stacked units. Reduce lot area requirements for a duplex to the same lot area requirement for a single-family home. Provide a bonus density for duplexes located on corner lots where the duplex can be designed to resemble a single-family dwelling unit when viewed from the street. • Bonus Density Bonus density, which is supported by Comprehensive Plan policies, is only available in the LDR zone through planned unit developments. Providing bonus density for infill development may increase options for affordable housing in the UGA. Proposed Revisions Provide bonus density provisions for infill development including row housing and certain types of compatible duplex housing. Bonus density will allow a maximum of 10 units per acre. • Small Scale Triplex and Fourplex Development Small scale triplex and fourplex development can provide infill opportunities on sites that are difficult to develop with traditional single-family development. These areas may include isolated, smaller vacant parcels where property values make construction of new single-family homes unfeasible. Providing this opportunity while limiting density to a maximum of 10 units per acre can provide affordable housing opportunities within the urban growth area. Proposed Revisions Allow infill with triplex and fourplex units with bonus density to a maximum of 10 units per acre. Include development standards to lessen impacts to adjacent single-family development. Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update 2 Draft, Subject to Change 6-6-18 Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Additional wording underlined Deleted wording strikethrough Page UL-1, Comprehensive Plan Urban Land Use Categories Residential Categories Three separate categories for residential use are established, ranging from low to high density. Low density residential includes a density range of 1 to and including. 8 dwelling units per acre. Bonus density in the low density residential category may allow an increase to 10 dwelling units per acre for qualifying infill projects.+ceMedium density residential includes a range of greater than 6 to and including 15 dwelling units per acre and high density residential shall be greater than 15 dwelling units per acre. Design standards ensure neighborhood character and compatibility with adjacent uses. Commercial uses, with the exception of office use in high-density residential areas and neighborhood centers associated with traditional neighborhood developments, would only be permitted through changing the land use category with a comprehensive plan amendment or through a neighborhood planning process. Page UL-12, Comprehensive Plan Goal UL.9a Create a variety of residential densities within the Urban Growth Area with an emphasis on compact mixed-use development in designated centers and corridors. UL.9b Create efficient use of land and resources by reducing the conversion of land to sprawling, low density development. Policies UL.9.1 Establish low, medium, and high density residential categories to achieve population and economic growth objectives. Low density residential areas shall range from 1 to and including 6 8 dwelling units per acre. Bonus density in the low density residential category may allow an increase to 10 dwelling units per acre for qualifying infill projects. Medium density residential shall range from greater than 6 to and including 15 dwelling units per acre and high density residential shall be greater than 15.0 residential units per acre. Mixed residential densities may be established through community-based neighborhood planning, subarea planning, or approval of traditional neighborhood developments. UL.9.2 Spokane County shall seek to achieve an average residential density in new development of at least 4 5 dwelling units per net acre in the Urban Growth Area through a mix of densities and housing types. Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update 3 Draft, Subject to Change 6-6-18 Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Code Additional wording underlined Deleted wording strikethrough Chapter 14.300 Definitions 14.300.100 Definitions Dwelling, Two-Family (Duplex): A single structure containing 2 dwelling units designed exclusively for occupancy by 2 families living independently of each other, and neither unit is considered an accessory dwelling unit. To be classified as a duplex, the dwelling units must be connected by common floor/ceiling, a common wall or by a covered carport/breezeway which does not exceed a distance of 20 feet between the two dwelling units. 14.606.100 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the Urban Residential Chapter is to implement Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to urban residential use. Residential zone classifications provide for a range of residential uses within the Urban Growth Area. The Low Density Residential (LDR) zone is primarily for single-family, duplex and row housing residential development that allows a density of 1 to and including 6 8 dwelling units per acre. Small scale, multi-family development may be permitted, consistent with density standards to provide compatibility with adjacent single-family residences. Zero lot- line housing, bonus density and other incentives are permitted to promote infill, preservation of open space, and a variety of housing types and densities. Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update 4 Draft, Subject to Change 6-6-18 14.606.220 Residential Lands Matrix Table 606-1, Residential Zones Matrix Residential Uses LDR LDR-P MDR HDR Dwelling, multi-family, small scale infill L N N N development Dwelling, multi-family N N P L Dwelling, multi-family, greater than 30 units per N N N CU acre Dwelling, single-family P P P P Dwelling, row housing L N P P Dwelling, two-family duplex P N P P Dwelling, two-family duplex - corner lot bonus L N N N density Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update 5 Draft, Subject to Change 6-6-18 14.606.230 Limited Uses with Specific Standards Uses that are categorized with an "L" in table 606-1, Residential Zones Matrix, are subject to the corresponding standards of this section. In the case of inconsistencies between section 14.606.220 (Residential Zones Matrix) and section 14.606.230, section 14.606.230 shall govern. x. Two family duplex dwelling with corner lot bonus density(LDR zone) a. A two-family duplex dwelling located on a corner lot shall be considered as a single-family dwelling for the purposes of calculating density provided the front door and driveway for each unit face opposite streets to give the appearance of a single-family residence from the street view, as illustrated below. sp pi, Ng II IN t III NEI 2 x. Multi-family dwelling, small scale infill development(LDR zone) Standards to be developed 16. Row housing (LDR zone) a. Row housing development requires application and review as a Planned Unit Development under Chapter 1'1.70'1. a. Row housing shall comply with the requirements for Zero Lot Line Development under Section 14.606.300(4). b. Row housing lots with rear lot lines abutting an existing single-family neighborhood, shall require installation of a 6-foot sight obscuring fence along the rear property line which shall be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. c. Preliminary plats in which 25% or more of dwellings are row houses shall be allowed a bonus density of 2 units per acre within the Low Density Residential zone. If the preliminary plat is completed in phases, each phase of the development must include at least 25% of the units as row housing units until such time as the total number of row housing units required to receive the bonus density has been reached. This requirement shall be included in the plat dedicatory wording. Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update 6 Draft, Subject to Change 6-6-18 14.606.300 Development Standards Permitted uses in the Urban Residential zones shall comply with the following development standards. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, evidence of compliance with provisions of this section shall be provided. 40. Density Standards: Table 606-2, Density Standards for Residential Zones Low Density Low Density Medium High Density Residential Residential Density Residential Plus Residential 1 to 6 8 1 unit/acre Over 6 to 15 Over 15 Density: units/acre* units/acre units/acre *Bonus densities may be allowed for planned unit developments and other infill developments as identified herein. Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update 7 Draft, Subject to Change 6-6-18 2. Lot Standards: Table 606-3, Lot Standards for Residential Zones Low Density Low Density Medium Density High Density Residential Residential Plus Residential Residential 555 70 %of lot 55 70 % of lot 55 70 %of lot Max. Building 70%of lot area Coverage area area area 35 feet 35 feet 40 feet 50 feet Max. Height 65 feet for a 65 feet for a 65 feet for a 65 feet for a college/university college/university college/university college/university Permitted uses: Minimum lot 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. area Minimum 50 feet 60 feet 60 feet 60 feet frontage Single family: Minimum lot 4,000 5,000 sq. 43,560 sq. ft. /1,200 2,500 sq. ft. 1,600 sq. ft. area ft. Minimum 5040 feet 90 feet 50 36 feet 20 feet frontage Duplex: Minimum lot 10,000 4,000 sq. Not applicable. 8,100 2,500 sq. ft. 3,200 1,300 sq. ft. area ft. Minimum 50 40 feet Not applicable 50 40 feet 40 30 feet frontage Row Housing: Minimum lot 2,500 sq. ft. Not applicable. 1,300 sq. ft. 1,300 sq. ft. area Minimum 36 feet Not applicable 36 feet 36 feet frontage Minimum frontage w/ 20 feet Not applicable 16 feet 16 feet vehicle access from alley Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update 8 Draft, Subject to Change 6-6-18 Minimum Yard Setback: 15 feet— 15 feet— 15 feet— 15 feet— Front/flanking residence residence residence residence street 20 feet— garage 20 feet— garage 20 feet— garage 20 feet— garage Five feet plus 1 additional foot for each Side 5 feet 5 feet additional foot of structure height over 25 feet to a maximum of 15 feet. Rear(all Five feet plus 1 additional foot for each additional foot of structure height over 25 residential feet to a maximum of 15 feet. zones) Notes: 1 Setbacks are measured from the property line unless there is a border easement, in which case, the setback shall be measured from the border easement. 2. Zero-foot setbacks for side lot lines may be allowed consistent with number 4 below. 3. Front/flanking street setbacks for garages include both attached and detached structures Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update 9 1o(o4<yei37 3/-'35 LEGEND AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE p SET RERANDT@PLASTIC CAP FINAL SHORT PLAT AL POR RECORD 143:!...: MARKED'UNDTIX 26300- RB 9300' ytd?",g/ RB• FOUND 1/2"REBAR k CAP'RSA 73IY SHORT PLAT SHP-2017-0005 ,,,,� DAY [.45G?L 20!/ IP• FOUND 1-1/4'O.D.IRON PIPE A REPLAT OF TRACT B,SP-1150-97 IN THE NW1l4 OF THE NEU4 SECTION 17 A MINUTES PAST D,'aoa(7�M; 4404 FOUND MAGNAIL TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH,RANGE 45 EAST,W.M. Air RECORDEDRIN VOLUME„2 OF SNORT Q EASEMENT NOTE CALLOUT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY % PAN(S)3(4.-35.- 4' S)3Li.-3t --x—x— FENCE UNE SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON 4 -SHEET 2 OF 2- N4, 50 — .2 5I LINE TABLEcoin•'AUDITOR�� LINE BEARING DISTANCE ./ AUDIT/ ^J SCALE 1"..5O' LI N8 //J 920'19"E 20.00' (Q -7`f' / L2 N8919'56'E 20.00' AUDITOR'S FILE NO. J-07 (�)( - 6 g J-09 FOUND 2'BRASS CAP WITN 8 N8993'20'E_285293' -- - - -- - MANHOLE RIFOUND nr M, FOUND SANITARY SEWER PUNCH MARK SET IN -_ MONUMENT CASE. FOUND P{.}i--- - - - MISSION AVENUE 17 16 REFERENCES SE.SW&NW AS REFERENCES SW,SE&NE AS Ij., PER SHORT PUT SHP-37-O6 PER SHORT PLAT SHP-2016-0008 SO.. \Tam FELTS ROAD 5 ';?1rg FIRST ADD. pi? BK.,3 PG.49 } P�° 0 OPPORTUNITY J'. - < 6 i6 BLOCK 26 6� Q� ry9 ;:' j (\ ` �'`� t1fP.• UIll. \ U OV WAS SHARP AVENUE _I 0 • n' 2 N892019'E 188.41' —.-X N8920'19'E 133,29' R8 /- O7 GRAHAM'SPC.BTB R8 l „ 100.41' 3 88.00' Re T i- L1 / 0 �� \1 1 - SP-lt50-97 -1-1 r 13'BORDER 6 1 EXISTING WQpm EXISitNG PRIVATE TRACT A EASEMENT I r _w�, TRACT 8 ACCESS EASEMENT- , DK.4,PG 77-78 = 2 1 - .1 to 13,057 5.F. j., 11,429 S.F. x- St 10205 El 110211 El i 20,$ EXISTING PRIVATE o 2 ACCESS,CRUET A SESKR EASEMENT .--� ! EXISTING 20'120' 8 " 8---- „p/ -- Qw TRACT A) 1 I 20'PUBUC UIUTY 10'WATER MAIN Qin �• 1 1 L.1 I EASEMENT J , I-EASEMENT - I 0 \SHARP LANE BOONE AVENUE L_- N8919'S6"E 321,36' --'1. ,-700.61', O N Y X00 L SO' 1 —-—-—- --I- IP 1 N8919'S8'E 188.61' R9 1.16919.56"E 'T 6919'S8"E I 133.34' r I OPPORTUNITY -1 VOL K.PG 20-13 20 120 BLOCK 54 I BLOCK 55 it -IM /0/////7 P 1r R' EASEMENT NOTES I8 4 fT+. nAL OAAEA O'LOT Z DEDICATED TO PUBLIC AS ACCESS ! ArI,y��!'-'�1 EASEMENT,WATER EASEMENT,UTUT'V EASEMENT. AND PERPETUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE PRIVATE SEWER '} EASEMENT �e 2i'r0 fR L LSD 999"` INDEX DATA BASIS OF BEARINGS BEARING OF E ALONG II-- --- THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE CF FELTSROAD,AS SHOWN LANDTEK "`' _ +_ - ( PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS Y I I EQUIPMENT&PROCEDURES BROADWAY AVENUE 1 -+-- --+--- THISMAO SPOKANE,WASHIN SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITH A TOPCON ---- 810 E,WASHSTREET I I RIPER-V GLOBAL PORTIONING SYSTEM USING REAL NGTON 99202 I I I TIME KINEMATIC SURVEY PROCEDURES IN PHO,LAN0 9.99S6.2821FAX 509LCOM 736 S17 T25N R44E W.M. USING A 33-SECOND RSE PROCEDURES OURES FILE:2162-4idgeon FSP 10/04/2017 09:16 AM BASIS OF BEARINGS �__�_ 20' 40' 60' AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE Bearings ore derived from CPS Grid Beanngs. NAD 83 t Washington North Zone. The existing plat was ' Filed this day ofl2tt/i/"'20 22, at /1�'3/ computed end rotated to best fit to the monumentotion. 1 The convergence, or difference between Grid North and \ j o'clock f m, in Book 3/ of Short Plots,page of the request Geodetic North is 239'09.03" �O, j �//�r/ Ground Distances are shown hereon. of Emerson Surveying. Auditor's Number(/orl- rte'/ See Equipment and Procedures for more information. W 3 tiQf0OOX' Utility fool 25.00' I 25.00' /� >� CSL 00 Utility Easement I 7,7/ y � t-''�--^— per Orig. Plat \ F County Auditor //Q by Deputy \\ (9#Fd. }"rebel.&cop per Plat Corner not set N 87'08'58" E ® 1 ___ due to Fence Corner 72.36' I Wood Fence _ — �._ 0I i VICINITY MAP 7. 78.97 2.00'Water Easement 'No ® 1 1""- 100' N 87'08'58" E 5.51" o __-_- J ----- Sewer Easement Garage ‘8' z • Lori (� g QJ U 6751 S0. FT. z LOT 2 1 r - w I 1 z .‘,10.c0j z o 6110 50. Fr. ": i_u I 1 0 46364.0303 o House c• � 0 (") u'w rl f-L Concrete-b -oe 76609E Brood Ave. (5 ,g Inlet I".u; Off(`' 46364.0203 Vn z N 76675 E Brood Ave. I m i I ��O P N o f n _ c j o Cr' 0'' Ft 10 foot i LT 1" ALO 46364.0304 Porch ( 2 foot Utility Easement 1,"" O Border per Orig. Plat I i 1 46364.0302 C 46364.0202 real r _Sidewalk c, (Typical) A 1 2 See Legend $___------- -- ----------------- ---a--- -----� �,.�•/ I 463640207 _ -- 80'„---- I --� Fd. 1/Z"rebor&cop QO��ti 6Qo�� pR ti Pti°'t iT7 •----------- 78.91' N 8708'58"!E _ N52:652B_`�B__E_ - Fd. 1/2"mbar per Plat ,',6 Q6� a 0? LOT t p Corner/ not set pa 6 Y r' BLK 3 % � � _-.,_ per Plot Q 10 foot .��Gurb Line- N 87'07'26" E o due to utilities. j 4 160.03'[760.04') 0`� I BROAD AVE Utility Easement Concrete per Orig.Plot -. ---- ._._._._.--y/f- -._ Inlet _._._.- -_._.__._ - - --' 0 j N' ,00 14 q j rn 46364,0t06 Corner not set E I o•2g, ti'fi' Ok' w 7-i due to utilities. BROAD AVE. 0 597$53 1 1393,01, os,,W C}v LO o j o _ _ rn - I 6TC1 J N 276925.20 ft. LEGEND `0 E 2540784.27 It. • GPS County Monument - See Note in Narrative C.- 0 600 Z • Found monument as noted N 276793.49 ft. o Computed point, not found or set this survey E 2538135.72 ft. w I zo -C p. Set 1/2"reed.'is cap PLS 38037 i.!N t- or as noted 1 1 Record plat data ''''.I p f71 - - Drainage Easement per Original Plot ® Sanitary Sewer Manhole •g ,v,J/Lo,�1 Plat 111 -. 0�/ -0008 ul"+I Water meter o 1 Y EQUIPMENT&PROCEDURES 'p .,8 .iJ a rl n r.J h o rt Plat a t 0<1 Water Valve This Survey was performed using a Topcon CPS Receiver with RTK I SWY4 `G methods using the Washington State Reference Network(WSRN) I In the SYV t4 of SEA of Section S6 corrections. NAD83-2011 Epoch 2010 j Fe.. 1/2"rebar&cap Redundant measurement using re-initialization and multiple per Plot 7- measurements with error ellipses not greater than.05'was achieved. 1•ZUf vA� ., R.44E. W.M. Methods used comply with State Law including WAC 332-130-90& /+ WAC 332-130-100. O ].Ee.., NARRA:7YE- Boundary Determination City of Spokane )/alley, Spokane County, WA. 'p' ca eoagr.S� y '?.3 Block 3 was computed from the record plot distances 3'.' r relative to the found monumentotion as shown hereon. �tMk� ,I The monumentotion and occupation match f ,R improvements. Street monumentaion is intact as .N ( Short PI tt SHP-2017-0008 __ ?'p 4lgy�$"' noted f. Todd J. Emerson PLS 38037 /01.4:LAN719J GPS County monument Designations and Values ore v nu+w ////�� y based on the County GPS survey by Jerry Sims filed }pI.�;_ EMERSON SURVEYING 8017-007 9-22- 17 rr , with the Spokane County Engineer. The values ore f$'a -''A' I 17010 N Tamarac Lane sue J ( shown only for compliance with SVMC 20.40.010 C12. Pt Nine Mile Falls, WA. 99026 T -'Z0 Dora ,f (509) 710-3200 °09-14- S1rcH8¢,8 "� 7-00 (e(a%9 Lo(a 3I-701.. SHORT PLAT S H P-20 1 1 0 SPOKANE COUNTY AUDITOR FILED FOR Y t RECORD B ,.:__ r,JNMa iarree5 9/1‘; FOUND #4 REBAR THIS__..2..2_' DAY OF..63$413---___1.2 IS',AT # WITH CAP"LS 7317" LOCATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 SECTION 21, T25N, R44E, W.M. �4 MINUTES PAST JJ_O'CLOCK.A.M; AND 1(21 IN MON.CASE PER RS RECORDED IN BOOK .xf OF SHORTS PLATS AT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON PAGE(S)7RECORDS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, 1.--11.7( i FOUND 7/8"P.K.NAIL(HEW) WASHINGTON. , &FOUND 3/9"P.K.NAIL f� il'00 -----7- --_-__ S35'01'57"E,0.47' L_ -t ua ets .a _ 'c ---_r----- 10TH AVENUE '-- _ N89'30'S7'E 1326.12' 1326.11'(134) -_ 10' ____ __ _____ 10-D___-�___,_-.--FOUND _ �__-.- ----- .9-�'" - SPOKANE COUNTY AUDITOR(- "t.44-.7------ t -} 6b2.96' 663.06'(84) 1 � -FOUND#4 REBAR PATH CAP'KITZAN FOUND 1.25'BAR- 663.16' 663.06'(84) O •,-,v, \ 4 33141"N00'29'03"W,0.12'FROM N85'32'22'5,2.94' M mI CALCULATED POSITION 274 53' FROM LOT 6 CORNER 1689'30'57"E -� �� .�� -----I ---- --- nI 80.32 251.2b' 40' g 92.87' 181.85' )-_. _,_ _ ___ . - BASIS OF BEARINGS 39.86'(Rl) 7L0 ,\ 82,92(61) I I I _ 7! FWND#5 REBAR IN CONCRETE w �� I FWND#4 REBAR WITH ;,, L I 600'00'52"E,0.23'FROM UI THE BEARING OF NOO'01'09"E ON THE WEST LINE I FOUND 1"TAG I I CAP"KITZAN 33141" '6 12'BORDER I CALCULATED POSITION PER R6 i OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 21 AS I MARKED"KITZAN N08'57'08"E,0.15'FROM g �+0 SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY AS RECORDED 33141' I I CALCULATED POSITION 10'UnUTY 111` W UNDER BOOK 161 OF SURVEYS,PAGE 8 WAS USED m -EASEMENT rn FENCEUNE 0.5'WEST `:'_�1 m ti AS THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS PLAT. Ll I `ii`r} w A°4 FOFE CEUNER0. UNE I 1� n FOUND pi. ;� i, SHORT 11,A`P I 1N. • - til• , ON 1l m lh .T _ V.\'(' P 6 - - wtoER V),. SPIKE U LEGEND - of (j4 )4 r �� 8 10993 sv Z EASEMENT 19.59' INN J TRACT 110804 EI �1 LI FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED TRACT HELD BEARING PER SECTION 11I 1 1 TH i,;n I H I I 'BREAKDOWN AND FOUND REBAR LANL,I • SET#4 REBAR WITH CAP OR PLUG WITH A I 45' I I 'mea WASHER MARKED"WCE LS 43610" _ 689'33'23"E 286.72' 89'33'23"E 80.32 _ 689'33'23"E 251.27' W a 44.83(81)CI 7861' 1 72.00' -V72.00' t 64.10' ~L 72.42' I r- _ n �,� • FOUND 3/4"TAG MARKED`M.E.M. 35157" V. FOUND 4 REBAR•WITH7.90' o ^I^ (SEE NOTE PER R3) # HELDT BEARIEGDER CAP'KITZAN 33141" SECTION BREAKDOWN .,Gj ! P n m AND FOUND REBAR \&,1 I o 8 FOUND GIN 8 O N I 17 z SPIKE z SECTION CORNER o 0 o1r n -2 12TH AVE. i f,'; e 1 - 2 3 4 i`om 5 I '" AI''i, n SECTION QUARTER CORNER A' " � N " ,ry + 12582 Sr W 1 2029 Sr '� 12030 Sr '- 12031 SF 12102 eF i P ,IA.�` R Ear N 110701/10703 E.11v 10707 1070 E.;� 110715/10717 E.I:'110725/10727 E.J)�w 10805/10807 E. z (`,\11,I ----- 1 I 1 .111' 6.1234 ADORES$ pp N N o NS, t , JR' $N I'" FENCEUNE . I ''t/ 18 I 19 �� i a ,.%is PROPERTY I,o 1'W£ST OF NOTES z z z z PROPERTY FOUND#4 REBAR WITH LINE I" LINE 161TH N89'32'37"E 186.55'186,53'(R4� 1) 61,I 132&WAYS CALCULATED PER CAP"MEM 35157 i Ni - 97.90' 77.02' m 1 v II' LINE I I LANE DATE OF SURVEY: AUGUST 20)7. FOUND#4 REBAR &ACCESS �'^•� , N WITH CAP"MEM 35157' EASEMENT \f I N89'34'01"E 611.74'611.58'(83) ;,,I FOUND 3/8" FOUND 3/8" 3) SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE FROM STEWART TITLE COMPANY, O __._ _ / P.K.NAIL P.K.NAIL m,^0 50.50'(83) x`,/-------6-3.--- . 72'03 72.°,1°: 2.00' • 72.00' E 72.00' 72.42' I 7_ 89.65' 1 _ 150 00 11.63'- ER #170 41, DATED NOVEMBER 9, 2017. t�-- T --689'34'01"E-360.46 _ _ T'CT IIS -7�_ 61.36' 1 • "a 6.88'---- - 6893401'E 60198' f0" -�� RECORD DOCUMENTS 1 L ... 10 m 689'3401"E 450.41 f 0_ __ __ ,75:0-071-1. 5 " '---- 176:-.'"4" --'--4 z I,-1 (RI)RECORD OF SURVEY AS RECORDED IN BOOK 161 OF SURVEYS, PAGE B. -- -- �- ,_45.00' ___..,145.00'45.00 45.00 6 m •..'"--13.79' �` 11858' 45.01' 61.76'133) ` t,-, 12 i g 13.79 TRACT' A I FOUND THOLE I ( \ /� o (--, (R2)SPOKANE COUNTY SHORT PLAT 84-294 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 3 OF WITH LEAD I n ....' SHORT PLATS,PAGE 49. z 589'35'09"W ____ ( ( BA I.1(I 50' - -- 119.70 I I -. (R3)FINAL PLAT OF DIAMOND ROCK PLACE AS RECORDED IN 800K 30 OF 50.30'(84) ` (19,70 n `-7 PLATS,PAGES 46-47. I 1A 1B i 2A 20 3A 3(3 4A 40 ___I ,--- w1 I e n ,,..i (R4)FINAL PLAT OF PARC CENTRE AS RECORDED IN BOOK 25 OF PLATS, 4'18 1 1 I'd PAGES 46-47. e n -qq �' '10 i i f P =Ci RB $ 11 05)RECORD OF SURVEY AS RECORDED IN BOOK 148 OF SURVEYS,PAGE 44. 2� -iY,9 812 ()IAI\'TONT) I?, CI< E'I A(.IZ ., nn `��k.S,S'>." ti;°1 .1 I II I (R8)RECORD OF SURVEY AS RECORDED IN BOOK 10 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 43. - _ I I ---1'---L --' v-- 1 -- - (07)RECORD OF SURVEY AS RECORDED IN BOOK 148 OF SURVEYS,PAGE 32. 689'35'09"E 493.24' �l( r$ FOUND P KE GIN r 12TH AVENUE __ 663.26' 663_11'(R4Z--_�_-_____-_ _-_-----1!N_ 186_96' 476.06'4„Eti 7 � / LOCATION r 689'3709"E 1326.28' 1328.26'(83)1326.22'(84) FOUND#4 REBAR WITH- Il1 ( .<% i- CAP WORN SMOOTH /J m '' 02. FOUND 3"BRASS CAP MARKED N /' ✓ "0':."GO/POOo N NE 34150 SPO CO"PER 95 Una TableA N 2653.90'(81) EQUIPMENT& PROCEDURES Line# Length Direction 2653.87(82) _ THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITH A TOPCON GPS RTK SYSTEM/ rer2 T 201121 2653.91'(85&137) L1 20.13 N58.36'12"E AND A 5-SECOND TOPCON OPT 3005LW TOTAL STATION THEOD TE '� �� 689'4708"E 2853.90'M 21 USING FIELD TRAVERSE PROCEDURES ACHIEVING MINIMUM CLOSU E . 43610 9 ,r L2 40.70 300'1050M1V STANDARDS PER WAC 332-130-090, WAC 332-130-100. �`nJ)P .,.SS�a w sE 29128 16TH AVENUE 28 W E 21Z�ii0 a 441 IAHo .60 FOUND 3'BRASS CAP MARKED L3 26.20 NO2'22'14'E "34150 SPO CO"PER R7 L4 26.99 N00'25'IB'W S FILE NO:SHP-2017-0010 1 F.B.: OW01/8 CML 4VVC11TH LANE GRAPHIC SCALE slRucm a SHEET 50 0 25 50 100 DATE: 02(07(18 X 6URVEY'��L.. 2 2 Es TRAFFIC SHORT PLAT DRAWN: BAG PLANNING. SHORT CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOB NUMBER ( 1N FELT) APPROVED:JAG LOTHER PE 2I S.PINES ROAD SPOKANEVAU.EY,WA 60250 SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 17_1796 I inch= 50 ft, P11'6096933617 FNC 609828.0227 (,, '9-c3 _w-w. L-17 FINAL SHORT PLAT L-19 AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE BRASS CAP IN MONUMENT CASE BRASS CAP IN MONUMENT CASE REFERENCES FOUND: 'PLAT FOUND: FI „*,/OR - CORO BY: BRASS CAP IN CURB SHORT PLAT SHP-2017-0016 CHISELED•X°IN CURB 'f �C" -1473E 85.24' A PORTION OF TRACT 87 OF VERA, I'U/L._ -N63E 54.89' L -571W 58.91' -N72W 80.58" .A DAY�` _2064 CHEELED'X'IN CURB IN THE NE1/4 OF THE SW1/4 OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 25 NORTH, RANGE 44 EAST,W.M., CHISELED•X'IN SIDEWALK -SiSE 73,10' CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON -548W 42.25' /� bb :�+� MINUTES PASTA_O'CLOCIC/�M: -N52W 54.73' ^'SHEET 2 OF 2^' -N54W 47,08'BROADWAY AVENUE �pp// BRASS CAP IN CURB AN' ••al IN VOLUMECZ OF SHORT IS 1i- N89'48'S0'W 2844.08'(?844.12'-SRH) - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- -5651Y 45.88' 1322.04' 132204' /� j�e (1322241111107 2;5' -.11: Cryr'AUp1TOR w�� gs I ALKIAVENUE `p a _h/of ZS3' ,__ _______—_—_---_ N89'S4bt'W 1322.32—___—_�____....__...______�_____ \(—. AUDI SFlLE NO. a�_____________ '54.0135-1321) `y Ieg, I FIRST ADDITION TO I I I I VERADALE HEIGHTS h I F I n 1 I BK 2,PC 42 a 110 1051 9 _ ._e,---�-L 7 m I 8 0� g._._ i , �-I 1 N8953'3YW 475.91' 1 �- N8953'32'W 100.30' -� N8953'32'W xj- N89'S3'32'W -1 75.03' i 87.22' Y r-12 VERA o g N8953'32'W-/ n TRACT 87 ,n I 1281' LEGEND BK'0',PG 30 i (1254•-821) 0 SET 1/2'REBAR&'LANDTEK 48757'CAP a z N8953'32'W I 50c USIA GEAR SPIKE(BROKEN) 1 '•100.31' K�." I SCALE T'..SO' 20' 057e GEAR SPIKE 8:'CS PLN 34150'WASHER -.l Ma MAO NAIL&'SPOKANE COUNTY'TAG / \ ' / / / I FBI• 1/2'REBAR,NO CAP j \\ '/,'''''''''1\'' J PER AIN I BASIS OF BEARINGS q IIIL" 1 , 9508220251 'f' o I 25' 202• 1/2'REBAR&BROKEN CAP i L -/ //'/ I ALONG IRE CENTERLINEGOF VvAuE WAY W O I s(= I 'I' I AVENUE,AS SHOWN HEREON. D: m RB3• 5/8'REBAR&BROKEN CAP \ 1) . W f" (/.j•/) 08514588 FROM COMPUTED POSITION _— —_ I at rt I w s I SHOWN \\ OLIVE AVENUE r I EQUIPMENT&PROCEDURES m 1 I THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITH A W I" I / I:o TOICOJ RIPER-V KX�AL POSITONINO ��""" SYSTEM USING REAL TLt£KINEIJATC I I 7�' `p SURVEY PROCEDURES B4 CO4JJNCTION 8 I i 4 j) -'Q WITH FIELD TRAVERSE PROCEDURES USING w 1 $$ x ✓ v A 3-SECOND TOTAL STATOR. i Z a i I SURVEY REFERENCES 31,658 S.F. m I.45) 3 14414 E GIVE AVE SI (SRH) RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 132 OF I m 81 n -C SURVEYS,PAGE 38,TRIPP,2008 < ¢m 14 *IP¢ INDEX DATA I a ti (882) FINAL PLAT OF FOURTH ADDITION TO - j a 0 ;i<o m, -- I I I VERADALE HEIGHTS FILED IN BOOK 8 CF I n PLATS.PAGE 38,SIMPSON,1959 W S I" u ,m Ii (923) FINAL PLAT OF FIRST ADCTO4 TO X7' Z 1 VERADALE HEIGHTS FILED IN BOCK 2,PAGE I I- -w 6 5 I 14 i-- 42,PAYNE 1951 O w' --. (1324) FINAL PLAT OF VERA FILED IN BOCK'0', z_ PAGE 30,STRACK.1910 q c9 i I 1 f I I 1< o f"� w 1 ( S14 725N R44E W.M. I0 Q'GA ¢,0 2 20' 85' I W I 0T ce m x I 3%ei .N SURVEYOR 'S CERTIFICATE I LY THIS PLAT CORRECTLY cIN I "5Q N89.4707'6 100.33' O MEE,,RIRESENTS UNDER MY DIRECTION,IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE X —10'"DRY" 3 ;g REQUIREMENTS THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY�SUBCNSON ORDINANCE , 15'UTILITY--- U. UTILITY ( �` #em �/�N� EASEMENTEASEMENT i .2 g �/AoO 25' 25' SCOTT A.HERDERS P. S 1 1 5-' CERTIFICATE NO.48757 UNE BEARING DISTANCE - 11,081 S.F. • x i 25' LI NUR'05'19'E 25.00' a 14411 E � D A 12 N005S'05'E 25.00• I ^ VALLEYWAY ANE - 'g3,kSgY BORDER -10'UTILITYbtTS•k' I EASEMENT L EASEMENTKP,� /7 V� -�-'100.34•-- 163.11' .., Ste » •7 H- q zu(1J-SRI'5' - N JO' ! c7' w2a 1o 1322.72' 478.02' 100.34' 746.38' _ 70KHL C� \•{( VALLEYWAY AVENUE N89'4707'W 2645.44'(2845.51-SRI)+ In P r -1 n — J L , LAN (T r DTEK MEDINGER ADDITION I UNPLATTED I 2 SP-7B6-92 I I I BK 8.PG 90 PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS 819 N.MADEUA STREET SPOKANE,WASHINGTON 99202 PHONE 509.928.2821 FAX 509.920.2736 LANOTEKSURVEYCIRSOGMAILCCM FILE; 2240-FSP 02/20/2018 03:41 PM SHORT PLAT S H P-20 1 7-0 1 8 SPOKANE COUN YAUDI_ OR D FOR Ra_ _ IS LOCATED IN THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 SECTION 21,T25N, R44E, W.M. DAY 01✓a .%r 20,2 AT 2-- .- 49243'(Rt)'s PO KANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON MINUTES PAST/ O'CLOCK ....1_' M; AND RECORDED IN S8740'33"E 492 34' ,/f�� BOOK "/ OF SHORTS PLATS AT PAGE(Se L1?RECORDS 10TH AVENUE FOUND 1/2 '` 587'40'33"E 164,96' - - Q FOUND 7 2"__ °j 16527 589'44'46'E 205.00' FOUND 1/2'x/1 OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. WAG .. -_.. M.A.C.NAIL I (Rt) 205.00'(R2)M. - ___ � A.G.NAIL 586'16'45E 1 -�r�_- G5� __ , .i -- SPOKANE ® 11/1.88;11-8.97'(-R1}j i ._ _...._. _.__ r__ 4�NTT A H 0 FOUND/5 REBAR OUND 1"ROUND BOLT W/DOMET•- . 013'52'E 0.44'OF ' \ SO0'01'S5"E 24.89'FROM CENTERLINE I CALCULATED POSITION 7.71 N00'06'51'E OF PLAT(7.6'R2), ! I N HELD FOR EAST LINE OF(Rt) 1 I I I 1 W E er .r -1 -,o � 00 GRAPHIC SCALE u ` 1 E. I N.1 4 ( IN MT' I L_ .. _, .__ - _. _, I 1 Inch = 50 tt. CURVE TABLE F j I -,12'EXISTING UTILITY-+-1 Ir- CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA ANGLE CHORD CHORD BEARING ! ,, EASEMENT PER(RI) I ! LEGEND Cl 20.00' 31.47 90'09'24' 2832' 544'57'16"E C2 20.00' 31.36' 89'50'36" 2825' 945'02'42'E I • SET#4 REBAR&PLASTIC CAP C3 20.00' 32.67' '93'35`51` 29.16' N46'S5`20'E _) -' I , (.-- - - - I I MARKED"WCE LS 43610" FOUND#4 REBAR,EAST 0.33' 0 FOUND#4 REBAR W/CAP MARKED /OF RIGHT OF WAY I "KITZAN LS 33141"UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 1 1 14 Iii `1..' -- - - - ..._----_ -1N �!� I0'p CM LOT ADDRESS nm S r- RECORD DOCUMENTS g mw 2$ �� um ( -� � iw --- '-- --- - --- --- 1 v (1)FINAL PLAT OF PULVER SUBDIVISION AS �� ! ,� . C, v RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS,PAGE 81. IP: (R2)FINAL PLAT OF PORATH SUBDIVISION AS $g ( I o g, 1 RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS,PAGE 82. I 6 I O 3 z I \:1: ! (R3)FINAL PLAT OF VALLEY PINES AS RECORDED i -.-5'EXISTING UTILITY ( IN BOOK 26 OF PLATS, PAGE 81. ! I N89'58'00"E 139.96' EASEMENT PER(R2) CL '`-, LL1 •• ••I_ 180.02' I 0- I (R4)FINAL PLAT OF OPPORTUNITY AS RECORDED IN O m � .. ....__ .._._ _..._. ... ___ __ ...__ T VOLUME"K"OF PLATS, PAGE 20. K .-- ----- --- 0 4�""t'-- 1 1 BASIS OF BEARINGS ' o o1THE BEARING OF N89'58'00"E ON THE to s38 SF I SOUTH LINE OF TRACT 212 AND 213,OF Z ZI 1:) 0 r '' OPPORNUNITY AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL FOUND A4 REBAR,NfST 25 25 PLAT OF PULVER SUBDIVISION AS N89'S8'00"E 139.98' RECORDED UNDER VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, • • 0.23'OF RIGHT Of WAY PAGE 81 WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF I -•- 1-...•-10'UTIUTY I BEARING FOR THIS PLAT. 25' 25' EASEMENT -I- 180.04' EQUIPMENT PROCEDURES ' S 2 S I I &THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITH A - n1:06Fi TOPCON GPS RTK SYSTEM AND A 5-SECOND TOPCON OPT 3005LW TOTAL STATION THEODOLITE USING FIELD TRAVERSE N89'58'00'E 139.99' - I FOUND 3`PIPE PROCEDURES ACHIEVING MINIMUM CLOSURE • • W/PIN IN MON.CASE STANDARDS PER WAC 332-130-090, WAC 7 1,2.31(`2-0 ! °11 W/RP,"X"IN CURB 332-130-100. c L {5 ^: N3813'E 50.35' m 3 I I 065'01'W 5&26'S31'03'E 59.81' 21 FOUND¢4 REBAR,SOUTH 0.20' t� 2,356 SF N38'24'W 57.53' 22 2'q 2 / ��1 ./ J LOCATION OF CALCULATED POSITION L AV FOUND f4 REBAR I ' j 5 FOOT RIGHT OF i W/CAP BENiHiN • WAY DEDICAi1 FOUND 1O %')WG�R�2 ,_NW /E- LS 13315' ;n FOUND 84 REBAR FOUND 3'PIPE �n WNO 1 2' � ,';- -- REBAR ! 0 1 W/PIN IN MON.CASE 7, . �! , / 110.57' 119.95' 163.97' 1 / M.A.G.NAIL ® _.. -vARtES --o- -�' `v • .__ o... .. ._.. ..__ ___ ry`y. - _- ry i A 5.00 _ •P' • 15.00' N89'58'20"E 493.83'494.04 Rt S89'58'DO`t4 /1329.71' 140_OUI - (15.00' °' '< Z ;yo ( ) ( N89'58'20"E 325.23' N89'5O'40"E 465.78' M R,. 43610 P8. • 14.82'141.76• 558.57 120.74' • 44.80' • 589'58'07 E F3,N o -- 8"•+-'FOUND I'PIPE 12TH AVENUE �_._ N FOUND 1/2'MAG.NAIL '.44 h ? S70NAI LANG S' --SW 14E- 2 • __L0.1D' I :Is ..- ...._ __.__._ _.._ __1.ill �, � I];v ('IN). •� 21 22 ( I Iw�jl,�„,'Y 1 FILE NO:SHP-2017-18 29 274WCE CIVIL NOT •, 34150 28„22 SURVEYING SHEET i) DATE OF SURVEY NGV. 14, 20'77. FOUND 3"BRASSI CAP,W/RPS A„ C' 28 27 R SURVEY' 2) LEGAL DESCRIPTION,EASEMENTS&EXCEPTION NAIL&TAG"SPOKANE CO.ENG.'IN'.-.949E 41.71' TRAFFIC 2 OF 2 P.8.: 17-1881 INFORMATION IS FROM VISTA TITLE,PLAT "X"IN TOP CONCRETE 1'01'POST 945'A 43.11' PLANNING WHIPPLE CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE: 2.23-18 CERTIFICATE#01271-14421 DATED DEC. 6, 2017. I LANDSCAPE 21 S.PINES ROAD JOB NUMBER DRAWN: JAG 3) RIGHT OF WAYS CALCULATED PER R1, R2 AND R3 'OTHER KA SPONE VALLEY,WASHINGTON 99206 17-1881 APPROVED:JAG PH;109-8932817 FAX:509-926.0227