2019, 02-14 Agenda Packet ScITYokane
Valle
y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave.
February 14, 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 24, 2019
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Deliberations: 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.
ii. Study Session: Proposed 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
PC ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
As of February 5,2019
***Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative and subject to change***
To: Commission & Staff
From: PC Secretary Deanna Horton by direction of Deputy City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Commission Meetings
February 14, 2019
Deliberations: CTA-2018-0005 -Miller CTA(Duplex)— Lori
Study Session: Comprehensive Plan Amendments —Lori
February 28, 2019
Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendments —Lori
Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0005 —Duplex - Lori
March 14, 2019
Findings of Fact: Comprehensive Plan Amendments —Lori
Study Session: CTA-2018-000X -Addressing Standards —Karen (Tentative)
March 28, 2019
Public Hearing: CTA-2018-000X -Addressing Standards —Karen
April 11, 2019
Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-000X -Addressing Standards —Karen
April 25, 2019
Draft Advance Agenda 2/5/2019 Page 1 of 1
Regular Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers —City Hall
January 24,2019
I. Chair Walton called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance.
III. Secretary Deanna Horton took roll and the following members and staff were present:
James Johnson, absent-excused Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
Danielle Kaschmitter Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Timothy Kelley
Robert McKinley
Michael Phillips, absent- excused
Michelle Rasmussen Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant
Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission
Hearing no objections, Commissioners Johnson and Phillips were excused from the meeting.
IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the January 24th, 2019 agenda as
presented,there was no discussion. The vote on the motion was five in favor, zero against, and
the motion passed.
V. MINUTES: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to approve the meeting minutes from January
10th as presented, there was no discussion. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero
against and the motion passed.
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: The Commissioners had nothing to report.
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: There was no administrative report.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
Bob West-1917 E Indiana-Mr. West spoke on the topic of building and development in the
City and how extensive it has become. He feels as though the City's neighborhoods are losing
their integrity. Mr. West went on to explain that he understands building is important and is
good for the vitality of the City,however he expressed that the citizens of the valley have a lot
of questions. Mr. West suggested implementing a dialog forum with members of the
community to include members of the Planning Commission, Home Owners Association or a
City Council member to answer specifics questions the community might have. Mr. West also
suggested employing an ombudsman for the City to help answer and direct the citizens with
any questions they might have.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
i. Public Hearing: CTA-2018-0005, a privately initiated amendment to Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.050, 19.40.060 and 19.60.050,proposing changes to
duplex and townhome development standards.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow explained to the Planning Commission the proposed privately
initiated amendment would modify SVMC 19.40.050, Development Standards — Cottage
2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 8
Development, 19.40.060, Development Standards — Duplexes and 19.60.050, Permitted
Use Matrix. Ms. Barlow gave a presentation detailing the proposed amendment process
and explained that staff have reviewed the application for environmental impact. A
determination of non-significance was issued on December 28th 2018 and notice of public
hearing went out on January 4th, 2019.
Ms. Barlow clarified that this proposal is not site specific and has broad implications to
every property that would fall within the R-3 zoning district, therefore did not have site
specific notification requirements. In this case, notifications were published in the
newspaper and posted on the City's website and at various locations throughout the City.
This was to give a reasonable opportunity of awareness that the amendment was being
considered. Ms. Barlow continued that the Commission conducted a study session of this
proposal January 10, 2019. Ms. Barlow added that the purpose of the public hearing is to
consider public comment,ultimately resulting in a recommendation to be forwarded to the
City Council for consideration through their review process which would include public
comment. Once a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission it would be
formalized in the Findings of Fact and that date it yet to be determined.
Ms. Barlow continued, the proposal's intent is to modify the regulations applicable to
duplexes, cottage developments and townhomes in the R-3 zoning district only and will
affect three sections of the City's municipal code. Ms. Barlow described that this
amendment will add additional supplemental use language for both duplexes and cottage
developments and will remove townhomes as permitted use in the R-3 zone.
Mr. Barlow provided a color-coded map depicting all zones that currently allow duplexes,
cottage developments and townhomes showing that this amendment would affect the City's
predominant R-3 zone with over 51% of the land being R-3 residential. Currently cottages
are allowed within four zones within the City and townhomes are currently allowed in five
zones within the City.
Ms. Barlow continued that this proposal would change the Permitted Use Matrix SVMC
19.60.050 by changing Duplex in R-3 from a P (permitted)to an S indicating"additional'
supplemental use regulations. This proposal would also change the Townhome matrix by
deleting the S, subject to supplemental use regulations, indicating the use would be
prohibited entirely in the R-3 zone.
Ms. Barlow summarized that the current language for duplexes SVMC 19.40.060 defines
that duplexes meet minimum lot sizes per unit, setback standards, maximum lot coverage
and building height standards per Table 19.70-1. Mr. Barlow added that this proposal
would add three additional language components. First component to SVMC 19.40.060
'The duplexes should be limited to one duplex per acre.' Ms. Barlow noted that this
language is not suggesting that each duplex have a one-acre lot but rather suggesting that
duplexes only be allowed at a density of one duplex per acre. Second component to SVMC
19.40.050 The duplexes shall have separate parcel numbers per each dwelling unit. Staff
believes the intent is that each parcel should be sold separately. Third component to SVMC
19.40.060 'The duplexes have to be non-adjacent, have to be across the street from or on
opposite corners. ' Ms. Barlow explained that this would ultimately achieve that duplexes
are not located near each other in a development if more than one is permitted.
Ms. Barlow illustrated that Table 19.70-1 highlights R-3 zones front, side and rear yard
setbacks with the maximum density of six dwelling units per acre with a minimum lot size
of 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit. With this proposal the implication is that inherently
duplexes by virtue have two dwelling units and will be required to have a minimum lot size
of 10,000 square feet. She showed an example of how the proposal could look if developed
as proposed.
2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 8
Ms. Barlow stated the existing language for cottage developments SVMC 19.40.050
highlights a large number of design features for minimum architectural and open space
requirements. Ms. Barlow advised this amendment proposes to add a one-line statement
to SVMC 19.40.050 (C)Other: In-whole purchase of any development by one entity in the
R-3 zone is prohibited.' Ms. Barlow provided an example of a cottage development on one
large lot. Ms. Barlow stated staff's interpretation of the proposal is to prevent the purchase
of a single property for use as rentals. In order to meet the requirements of this proposal,
there would have to be more than one developer at any one point in time, either during
development and review or once developed. Ms. Barlow added at some level either the
community center,one of the homes,or the property has to involve more than one property
owner.
In conclusion Ms. Barlow stated staff has concerns regarding the proposal. The proposal
was reviewed in considerable detail and each item was linked back to the City's
Comprehensive Plan's Goals and Policies for affordable housing, and housing diversity. If
adopted this proposal would reduce the number of duplexes that could be constructed, in
turn reducing available affordable housing units and alternative housing types. Ms. Barlow
added it was unclear how this could affect development rights and it is also uncertain how
difficult this could be to implement as there are a variety of legal considerations. She stated
that ultimately through review and analysis it was concluded that the proposal is not
consistent with the Goals and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Barlow highlighted procedural recommendations and urged the Commission hear and
consider the public comments provided. Ms. Barlow added that if a recommendation of
approval is desired, staff requests the Planning Commissioners provide specific direction
as to how to rewrite the proposal making it implementable and to alleviate staff's concerns.
Chair Walton asked the Commission if they had any questions, hearing none the public
hearing was opened at 6:27 PM Commissioner Walton asked Secretary Deanna Horton to
read the rules of the public hearing Ms. Horton read them aloud.
Peter Miller, 18214 E Mission Avenue: Ms. Miller provided the Commissioners with a
packet for review. Ms. Miller explained that she had given her testimony on January 10th
and this testimony was for clarification on the matter. Ms. Miller went on to explain that
the Valley Herald had an article regarding lessening the density per acre and this proposal
is to lessen the density of complete duplex developments in the R-3 zone. Ms.Miller added
that this proposal does not change the density or effect the Growth Management Act at all.
Ms. Miller stated that there were some items in Ms. Barlow's presentation that she would
like to correct. SVMC 19.040 Alternative Residential Development Options; Ms. Miller
advised that NO, the applicants do not want duplexes across the street from each other.
NO, they do not want duplexes on opposite corners or adjacent to one another. YES, their
proposal does prohibit 100% duplex development in R-3 zone. Ms. Miller continued that
YES, the intent was that each side of the duplex have separate parcel numbers. She
explained the intent was to allow a responsible homeowner to protect their property from
excess rentals. Ms. Miller stated they would like to see duplexes spread-out throughout
the developments or moved to multifamily zones where they belong.
Ms. Miller stated she felt public notices should state a property is being developed into
duplexes, not as single family homes. She stated this is why neighbors don't know what's
being built, and why they are angry about it,the notice will state how many residential lots.
She continued her argument by asking,is a residential home single family or is it a duplex?
Ms. Miller continued that the notices in the Valley Herald state lots larger than 10,000
square feet will allow single family homes. The citizens are tasked with researching to
find out if the developments are duplexes or not. Ms. Miller argued that is not
2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 8
neighborhood character. Ms. Miller stated that two duplex developments in her area have
been purchased by out of state investors,which is disheartening and makes everyone angry.
Ms.Miller hopes that the Planning Commission sees fit to recommend the changes or some
version thereof. Ms. Miller concluded she felt the recommendation should include a
moratorium until these issues can be mitigated and the City Council can make a responsible
decision.
William McDonald,17412 E Mission Avenue: Mr. McDonald stated that three or four
year ago there were a dozen duplexes built near his property. They are tightly packed,have
four vehicles per duplex and 12 duplexes equals 48 cars in a two block space. Mr.
McDonald added that in his neighborhood there are apartment complexes and thousands
rental units west of Flora on Indiana. With these apartments and duplexes, traffic has
increased exponentially and has created an unreasonable population to square mile density
in the area. Mr. McDonald stated that adding new rental duplexes to owner occupied
properties will continue to decrease property value and increase population density and
will further exacerbate the traffic flow.
Mr. McDonald related some incidents which have occurred on his property since the
duplexed were built such as, children shooting at his horses with pellet guns and bikes
being thrown into his pasture. Mr. McDonald stated in addition to the duplexes reducing
property values this is in direct conflict with the City's increase property taxes. Mr.
McDonald continued that every year the City increases his property value and his taxes
even though the real story is his property value is going down due to the abundance of
duplexes around him. Mr. McDonald added that these duplexes may be kept up for a few
years but will eventually deteriorate due to lack of care and maintenance and occupant
indifference as people that own the land care about the land.
Barb Howard, City of Spokane Valley: Ms. Howard asked what happened to the
integrity of the valley. Ms. Howard asked that the Commissioners take a drive around in
her neighborhood or on East Ridge. She went on to say that all of the homes on East Ridge
are duplexes where the land was once agricultural. Ms. Howard argued that duplexes are
not single family and that a single family home is a standalone home build for one family.
She said the definition of multifamily is multiple units owned by one or more parties. Ms.
Howard stated that no-one gets notified of short plats and people have to find out in the
paper, complaining that staff have explained to her that there are noticing requirements for
short plats. She explained that she understands the Commissioners are volunteers and
asked them again to drive around. She added that there are traffic problems if there are
train accidents due to the congestion. Ms. Howard ended by asking for an explanation as
to how Son Rise mobile home estates can be one part industrial and in the middle be
multifamily?
Bob West, 1917 E Indiana Avenue: Mr. West thanked the Commissioners for the work
they do adding that they have a thankless job as it's tough deciphering codes and educating
the public and that he greatly appreciates their work. Mr. West thanked Senior Planner
Lori Barlow and Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb for the information put together as the
brief presentation given was educational. Mr. West stated for the sake of transparency to
expand communication as part of recommendations and again suggested an open forum to
explain the implications of this amendment and to answer questions from the community.
Mr. West felt it would ease tension by giving the community a chance to interface with the
Commission and would be much appreciated.
Barb Howard, City of Spokane Valley: Ms. Howard expressed that she keeps hearing
about affordable housing and it infuriates her. Ms. Howard stated her mortgage payment
is $318.00 a month. She continued that she sees rentals advertised for $1,700.00 a month
2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 8
to include first and last month's rent, cleaning and pet deposits. Ms. Howard argued that
is a down payment on a house.
John Patrouch,18009 E Riverway Avenue: Mr. Patrouch commented on how well done
the staff report was and thanked Senior Planner Lori Barlow for her work. Mr. Patrouch
addressed the number of duplexes frequently noted at public meetings adding that common
statements are decreased property value, damage to existing neighborhood character, and
general impact of the increasing number of rentals. Mr. Patrouch stated he has experienced
some issues himself on his property with a motorcyclist, and homeless groups that had to
be evacuated, clarifying that before the apartments were build he didn't have any of these
issues. Mr. Patrouch continued that the City has eliminated open space and has increased
density of developments making no room for people to play and he is seeing an impact in
his area. The neighborhood feels strongly that single family homeownership is important
and that the City policies on housing and open space requirements isn't keeping the
character of our neighborhoods.
Mr. Patrouch articulated his view of the proposed amendment by North Greenacres as
eliminating the rental areas in a single family housing zone. Mr. Patrouch stated he works
with a number of young individuals that are having a hard time affording housing. He
expressed there has to be a way to reduce the entry level costs into the market but doesn't
feel adding rental duplexes as the solution. Mr. Patrouch stated he is in support of
regulations that limit rentals in single family residential zones and suggested that
implementing another zoning category would be more appropriate or splitting up the R-3
zones to help protect single family homes. Mr. Patrouch discussed the Comprehensive
Plan and its language regarding maintaining a strong quality of life, enhancing local
identity, developing unique neighborhood character, encourage small business to include
mixed used and greater density of housing in certain areas and that the quality must be
preserved. Mr. Patrouch agrees this to be true and feels that this is a community problem
that needs to be resolved.
Pete Miller, 18124 E Mission Avenue: Ms. Miller advised she missed information
regarding cottage developments SVMC 19.40.50. Ms. Miller added that this amendment
was not intended to prohibit a single developer from purchasing the property. Ms. Miller
stated the purpose was to prevent a single purchaser as in Spokane Plex from buying the
whole property for rental purposes. Ms. Miller added that there are options like moving
the duplexes to multifamily. Ms. Miller added if someone purchased property in the R-3
zone for development they need to give site specific notice so everyone knows exactly
what's going on.
Vadim Smelik, 15011 E Mission Avenue: Mr. Smelik advised he would like to provide
perspective from a different generation. Mr. Smelik asked the Commission to look at the
adverse effect the changes would have on lower or median income homebuyers, or
individuals looking for a place to live as this change reduced availability. Mr. Smelik
stated reducing the number of units will effect developers, purchasers and those trying to
move to Spokane from California or out of state who need a place to live but can't afford
a home right away. Mr. Smelik stated reducing the number of unit's available increases
the prices. He also argued that housing prices are not falling, he works in real estate and
has only seen prices rise in the last five years. Mr. Smelik added that these zoning changes
feel like isolationists or individuals that don't want infill, or certain type of income or
individuals moving in near them. Mr. Smelik stated Spokane Valley is growing and his
generation wants affordable housing and different housing types to choose from. Mr.
Smelik advised there are a multitude of individuals that don't want to own a home because
2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 8
they see no financial benefit, property taxes, interest paid or unforeseen maintenance
issues.
Spokane Home Builders Association: Commission Secretary Deanna Horton stated for
the record, that each commission member received a copy of a letter from the Spokane
Home Builders Association. Ms. Horton explained this letter describes their opinion of the
proposal and includes all backup documentation for consideration. Chair Walton asked for
any objections from the commission, hearing none it was approved for submittal.
Bill McDonald, City of Spokane Valley: Mr. McDonald added that individuals coming
from California aren't going to have difficulty affording housing here. Mr. McDonald
spoke about an article in the Spokesmen regarding the over building in Seattle with an
overabundance of rental properties that is driving the rental prices. Mr. McDonald
continued, if the City keeps building the way it is we will have the same problem.
Commissioner Walton asked for any further public comment and heard none.
Commissioner Walton closed public testimony at 6:59 p.m.
Commissioner Kelly asked Ms. Barlow if there are numbers of expected new residents
moving into the City, as the City of Spokane is expecting 2,000 new residents. Planner
Barlow advised the City does not have those totals. Ms. Barlow explained that staff relies
on the Comprehensive Plan population forecast which is based on formulas stemmed from
population allocations from the Spokane County. Ms. Barlow believed the City's
forecasted population increase is around 14, 000 people for the 20-year planning period.
Ms. Barlow continued that staff relies on this number when they anticipate how much land
needs to be preserved for residential development related to a population per household
that is originated from the census.
Commissioner Kelley asked if the City has employment numbers for any of the new
industrial complexes coming to the City to help determine the growth and the answer was
no. Ms. Barlow advised that the Economic Development division routinely keeps a record
of anticipated projects. Commissioner Kelley asked if staff could find the number of
expected employees from those anticipated employers. Ms. Barlow advised she will
consult with Economic Development to determine what they might have.
Commissioner Rasmussen advised she would like additional information regarding the
projections for housing due to density issues and Growth Management Act implications.
Commissioner Rasmussen asked Ms. Barlow if there is a way of determining what impact
there would be to the Comprehensive Plan necessitating housing diversity if changing the
R-3 zone and reducing the number of lots were implemented. Ms. Barlow answered, in
short, that there would be no impact. Ms. Barlow continued with an explanation that the
City's minimum lot size for single-family residences is virtually the same for the individual
units within a duplex. Ms. Barlow gave an example that if an individual met the minimum
standards allowed and built two single family homes they could do so on two 5,000 sf lots
which would equal 10,000 sf. Likewise, if they wanted to build one duplex the minimum
lot size would be 10,000 sf and this would have no impact on the land capacity analysis.
Ms. Barlow continued, the assumption is that the development community would not
absorb any extra land, instead of having 3 duplexes they would have 1 duplex equaling 2
units and would in turn be building 4 single family homes, the density would be maxed
out. Ms. Barlow gave examples on how other jurisdictions allow duplexes based on less
minim lot sizes. She illustrated that due to setbacks from property lines and between
structures in order to maintain character duplexes share a common wall eliminating the
setbacks between structures allowing for a smaller lot size. Ms. Barlow summarized that
2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 8
The City's minimum lots size is 5,000 square feet per dwelling unit in any form either
detached single family or duplex.
Ms. Barlow spoke about the effects on density, if this were to change it would not allow
someone to develop all of the lots to the minimum standards. It forces the developer to
develop some lots larger than 5,000 square foot minimum in order to meet the density. Ms.
Barlow stated that in conclusion, lots would be developed uniformly as single family and
would not affect our land use capacity in terms of meeting our population projections
during this planning period.
Commissioner Walton asked what the implications would be to converting single family
homes to duplexes. Secondly, he asked if the City tracks the number of privately owned
homes verses rental properties as derived from public comment it appeared that one type
of housing unit leans toward home ownership than it does rental properties.
Ms. Barlow explained that the City does not have rental verses privately owned data
available. Ms. Barlow applauded the applicants for banding together and writing the
amendment in detail. Ms. Barlow suggested that if the Planning Commission finds merit
in the proposal there is work to be done because at this point it is unclear how to implement
the intent and/or a regulation regarding redeveloping or dividing a home.
Commissioner Walton asked how would this regulation require transfer giving an example
that if a developer purchased a plot of land intending to build cottages and wanted to retain
ownership of the development and eventually want to rent it. How would the City enforce
the sale or"taking of land"? Deputy City Attorney Eric Lamb, explained that City's code
provides for enforcement of any violation of any development code. As in any case, there
would have to be an administrative determination that there was a violation. This proposal
does not spell out what needs to happen, other than one half of a duplex would need to
change ownership in order to come into compliance with the law. Mr. Lamb added that the
proposed language concerns highlighted by Ms. Barlow, and acknowledged by the
applicant during public testimony,would need to be modified to better align with the intent
if there is a desire to move forward. Mr. Lamb cautioned the Commissioners that there
have been cases throughout the United States identifying concerns with regulations based
on personal status rather than land use impacts.He continued there could be potential issues
due to a clause in both the Washington State and US Constitution that protect against
arbitrary decisions or unreasonable regulations.
Commissioner Walton stated there is enough uncertainty and interest due to interpretation
and testimony to have a second look, he would appreciate additional time and input from
staff.
Commissioner McKinley asked for some guidance on how to clarify the language to make
this more implementable and enforceable. Mr. Lamb suggested the Commission deliberate
and arrive at a decision regarding ideas they agree or disagree with in order to reach a
concept. Mr. Lamb advised the Commission consider the information from the applicant
and from public testimony. If the Commission decided to move the proposal forward, once
a concept is determined staff would be better served assisting with recommendations with
the direction of the planning commission.
Commissioner Rasmussen moved to continue the public hearing to the next meeting for
further input. Commissioner Rasmussen added it would be beneficial to have additional
commissioners input. The Commission was reminded the motion needed to be date
specific. Commissioner Rasmussen amended the motion to continue the public hearing to
a date specific February 14th, 2019,no discussion. The vote on the amendment was five in
2019-01-24 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 8
favor zero opposed, the amendment passed. The vote on the amended motion was five in
favor, zero against and the amended motion passed.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Kaschmitter thanked the public for their comments.
Commissioner McKinley thanked the public for their comments and thanked Pete Miller for
her work on the proposal and comments. Commissioner Walton thanked the public for their
input. He encouraged those in attendance to sign up for the email distribution lists for the
Planning Commission and City Council meetings. He noted this is your voice, we are your
deliberative body which makes recommendations to the City Council. He added it is important
to let their voice be heard, whether the Planning Commission makes a recommendation or the
City Council takes an action, such as eliminating green space requirements in some of the
zones for further development. Commissioner Walton described that was a close vote, four in
favor and three opposed and let the council know if something doesn't agree with what you
are looking for. That is how we communicate as a public. That is the only way we know that
we are upholding your views and opinions.
XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Rasmussen moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:26 p.m.
The vote on the motion was unanimous in favor and the motion passed.
Matt Walton, Vice-Chair Date signed
Robin Hutchins, Secretary
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: February 14, 2019
Item: Check all that apply ® old business ❑ new business ® public hearing
❑ information ❑ study session ❑ 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. On January 24, 2019 the Commission conducted
a public hearing. Following public comment, the public testimony portion of the hearing was
closed. The public hearing was continued as the Commission asked for additional information
that included employment projections for the City of Spokane Valley, and information regarding
the number of rentals. After a review of the information contained in the comprehensive plan,
staff was unable to identify any employment projections. However, staff conducted a review of
the 2018 Census data and a map depicting the percentage of owner occupied dwelling units by
Census Block Group has been developed. The information will be discussed at the meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Open the public hearing and if no additional
information is desired, the public hearing should be closed. The Commission should 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.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Amendment 19.40 and 19.60 SVMC
2. Staff Report with attachments
3. Comment Letter
4. Powerpoint Presentation
RPCA Public Hearing continued for CTA-2018-0005 Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
NOV 1 6 201d
SPGKar'E '.'2LLL'
.
19.60.050 Permitted uses matrix.
Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
•
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS
Agriculture and Animal
Animal processing/handling P
Animal raising and/or keeping SSS S S S
Animal shelter S P P
Beekeeping, commercial P
Beekeeping, hobby S S S
Community garden SSSS S S S
Greenhouse/nursery. commercial P P P
Kennel S S S S P P
Orchard, tree farming, P P
commercial
Riding stable P P C
Communication Facilities
Radio/TV broadcasting studio P P P P
Repeater facility PPP P P P P P
Small cell deployment SSSS S S S S S S S
Telecommunication wireless SSSS S S S S S S
antenna array
Telecommunication wireless SSS S S S S S S S
support tower
Tower, ham operator SSS S S S S S S S
Community Services
Community hall, club, or lodge P P P P P P P
Church, temple, mosque, PPP P P P P P
synagogue and house of worship
.Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC lMU I POS
Crematory P P P P
Funeral home P P
Transitional housing C
Day Care
Day care, adult PPPP P P P P P P
Day care, child (12 children or PPPP P P P P P P
fewer)
Day care, child (13 children or CCCP P P P P P P
more)
Eating and Drinking P P P P P P S
Establishment
Education
Schools, college or university P P P
Schools, K through 12 PPPP P P P P
Schools, professional, vocational P P P P P P
and trade schools
Schools, specialized P P P P
training/studios
Entertainment
Adult entertainment and retail S
Casino P P P
Cultural facilities P P P P
Exercise facility S S S S
Off-road recreational vehicle use P P
Major event entertainment P P P
Racecourse -
P P P P
Racetrack P P
Recreational facility P P P P P P
Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU 'CMU NC RC IMU 1 POS
Theater. indoor P P P
Group Living
Assisted P P P P
living/convalescent/nursing hone
Community residential facilities P P P P P P
(6 residents or less)
Community residential facilities P P P
(greater than 6 and under 25
residents)
Dwelling, congregate P P P
Industrial, Heavy
Assembly, heavy P
Hazardous waste treatment and S S
storage
Manufacturing. heavy ` P
Processing, heavy •
P
Mining S
Industrial, Light
Assembly. light P P P P P
Manufacturing. light P P P
Processing, light P P
Recycling facility S S S S
Industrial service p p
Lodging
Bed and breakfast P P P P P
Hotel/motel P P P P S
Recreational vehicle I S
park/campground
Marijuana Uses
Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
T
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU l POS
Marijuana club or lounge
Marijuana cooperative
Marijuana processing S S
Marijuana production S S
Marijuana sales S S S
Medical S P P P P P
Office
Animal clinic/veterinary S S S S S
Office, professional PPP P P P 1'
Parks and Open Space
Cemetery P P P
Golf course P P P P P P P P
Golf driving range C C C C' P C P P P
Parks PPP P 1' P P P P
Public/Quasi-Public
Community facilities PPP P P P P P P P P
Essential public facilities RRRR R R R R R
Public utility local distribution SSS S S S S l' P P S
facility
Public utility transmission facility S SS S S S S S S S S
Tower, wind turbine support S SS S
Residential
Dwelling, accessory units S S S SS S SS
Dwelling, caretaker's residence S SSS S
Dwelling, cottage S S S S
Dwelling, duplex PS P P P
Parks
and
Mixed Open
Residential Use Commercial Industrial Space
R- R- R-
1 2 3 MFR MU CMU NC RC IMU I POS
Dwelling, industrial accessory S S
dwelling unit
Dwelling, multifamily P P ,P
Dwelling, single-family P P P P P P P
Dwelling, townhouse S S S S S
Manufactured home park S S
Retail Sales and Service P P 5 P P S S
Transportation
Airstrip, private P P
Battery charging stations S S S P P P P P P P S
Electric vehicle infrastructure P P P P P P P
Heliport P P
Helistop t. C P
Parking facility—controlled P P P P P
access
Railroad yard, repair shop and P
roundhouse
Transit center P P P P P
Vehicle Services
Automobile impound yard P P
_
Automobile/taxi rental P P P P P
Automobile parts, accessories and P P P P P
tires
Automobile/truck/RV/motorcycle P P P P
painting, repair, body and fender
works
Car wash P P S P P P
•
Farm machinery sales and repair P P P
Fueling station P P 5 P P P
A
19.40.060 Development standards -- Duplexes.
Duplexes shall be limited to I duplex per acre. Du slexes shall have se+crate .arcel numbers .er
each dwelling unit, be non-adiacent, across the street from or on opposite corners.
Duplexes shall meet the minimum lot size per dwelling unit. setback standards, maximum lot
coverage, and building height standards shown in Table 19.70-1. (Ord. 16-018 § 6 (Att. B),
2016).
19.40.050 Development standards—Cottage development.
A. Site.
1. The design of a cottage development shall take into account the relationship of the site to the
surrounding areas. The perimeter of the site shall be designed to minimize adverse impact of the cottage
development on adjacent properties and, conversely, to minimize adverse impact of adjacent land use
and development characteristics on the cottage development:
2. The maximum density shall be two times the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the
underlying zone;
3 Where feasible, each cottage that abuts a common open space shall have a primary entry andior
covered porch oriented to the common open space;
4 Buildings shall meet the following minimum setback standards:
a. Twenty-foot front yard setback;
b. Ten-foot rear yard setback; and
c. Five-foot side yard setback:
5. Common open space is required and shall meet the following criteria:
a. Four hundred square feet of common open space per cottage;
b. Setbacks and private open space shall not be counted towards the common open space:
c. One common open space shall be located centrally to the project with pathways connecting the
common open space to the cottages and any shared garage building and community building:
d. Cottages shall surround the common open space on a minimum of two sides of the open space,
and
e Community buildings may be counted toward the common open space requirement:
6. One and one-half off-street parking spaces for each cottage is required.
B Building
1 Cottages shall not exceed 900 square feet, excluding any loft or partial second story and porches. A
cottage may include an attached garage, not to exceed an additional 300 square feet.
2 The building height for a cottage shall not exceed 25 feet.
3 The building height for any attached garage or shared garage building shall not exceed 20 feet.
4. Buildings shall be varied in height. size, proportionality, orientation. rooflines, doors, windows, and
building materials.
5. Porches shall be required.
C. Other.
1, Accessory dwel9ing units are prohibited.
2. In-whole purchase of any development by one entity in the R-3 zone is prohibited.
3. 2. All other SVMC provisions that are applicable to a single-family dwelling unit shall be met.
D Permit Type. Cottage development shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter
9.150 SVMC.
E. SVMC Title 20, Subdivision Regulations. The design requirements of SVMC 20.20.090 are waived. (Ord. 16-
018 § 6 (Aft. B), 2016).
COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING&PLANNING
SpoctTrkane
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 MFR MU CMU MC RC IMU I PDS
Dwelling,cottage S S 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 SSSS S
Manufactured 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 MFRt11
Residential Standards). Front and Flanking Street Yard 35' 15' 15' 15'
SVMC 19.40.060 Setback
Development Standards — Garage j(2) 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
Duplexes, although one Open Space NIA N/A N/A 10%gross
structure, contain two area(3)
dwelling units, thereby Lot Size{47 40,000 sq.IL 10,000 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft. NIA
requiring a minimum lot size Lot Coverage 30.0% 50.0% 50.0% 60.0
of 10,000 square feet (5,000
minimum lot size per unit X Maximum Density 1 du/ac 4 dulac E dulac 22 dulac
2 dwelling units = 10,000 Building Height(5) 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
regulations' J
'Source: 2018 Land Capacity Analysis conducted by COSV GIS Technician
2Sfdu 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
.
4. Appears to prevent cottage development. X
The proposed supplemental cottage development E DES ET AVE
regulation is difficult to implement. While the intent is
believed to be an effort to prevent rental communities
from developing, it appears that the implementation
would be to require more than one owner, at the time of
development approval, during development, and
continuous operation. In many cases land is developed
by a single entity. This could be a deterrent to cottage X= duplex location
development by requiring additional ownership. tt-t,LC N AV
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 4of7
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 40
involve concerns regarding decreased property
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-G1 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
CITY OF 110111.111741111111111%
DEVELOPMENT CODE TT AMENDMENT APPLICATION
SVMC 17.80.150
alley10210 E Sprague Avenue ! Spokane Valley WA 99206
Phone: (509)720-5240 • Fax: (509)720-5070 ! permitcenter(c4spokanevalley.org
STAFF USE ONLY f
Date Submitted: I i f IL 07 l' Received by: —7,0P Fee: S//.('' C'(
PLUS #: iA File#: LT A - •:),C) I Z GC)C),
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 ad SeVIN
plication Fee
El 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: T"�f.0 /Y)/LLE2
MAILING ADDRESS: f 8/Z41 E ,17/55/441 /N
E--
1
CITY: g 'p j r 149LLE STATE: W41 ZIP: 9, 0/s(�
04(APETZSAIE
PHONE:SD?-244 60 70 FAX: CELL' L EMAIL: ( pyi/ii j;Aar
SECTION(S)OF CODE PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED(INCLUDE CODE CITATION):
/9.pc. /9, /9, 41O,CS O
SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CODE AMENDMENT(S):
r
/c// FIPEgle T� FAru pJc eel PES Fo, '6SWEAlr S
tM ,)-5 2aNE
•
PL-08V1.p RECEIVED Page 1of2
N O V 1 6 2 018
SPOKANE VALLEY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ok n0a `' '`I
Sp a
.000 Val ley TEXT, AMENDMENT APPLICATION
REASON(S) ,
FOR CODE AMENDMENT(S): /m/77 ,4T- -r,CC S/V , i L4-PL.EY�� Aind'c...
F cv c2,OcL7 - 'TRirw,E4774L /a p /Ylf 4r.Of)2 3
IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
yrs
DOES THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BEAR A SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE,
AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT:
,/z5
PART III - AUTHORIZATION
(Signature of applicant)
I,
I, )44A/CCf «F47-6 01it_LE/R , (print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are
made truthf011y and to the best of my knowledge.
/141-1 ///47/„/P
(Signatu e) (Date
NOTARY
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
ss:
COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) /
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this / day oWtike t J r , 2d g
NOTARY SEAL
c4Ictit,ta_C541771Z-70
NOTARY SIGNATURE
ri"Mill."N Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
State of Washington
�DEANNA HORTON
�MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Residing at:c474-141e / � ) ! 7'moi`,
JULY 2 ,2D21
nuuuuimmIiNn UNNII
My appointment expires
PL-03 V1.0 Page 2 of 2
• S.
COMMUNITY &PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
t""'� Building &Planning Division
PRE-APPLICATION MEETING WORKSHEET
File No. PRE-LU-20178-0062
Meeting Date & Time: Wednesday,November 7, 2018@ 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-P 14 Enable a variety of housing types.
ij. H-G1 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 I of 1
2531 S. Adams Rd.
Veradale,WA 99037
January 21, 2019
City of Spokane Valley
Planning Commission
10210 Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Re: CTA 2018-0005
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Unfortunately we are out of town and unable to be present at the public hearing scheduled on the
above matter on January 24, 2019. However, as homeowners in the City of Spokane Valley, we are
extremely supportive of the changes to the Code Text Amendment as submitted by Pete Miller.
We support the change to one duplex per acre in the R3 Zone, as well as prohibiting townhome
development in the R3 Zone. Additionally, we support the ownership of a cottage development by
individual family units only, not a corporate entity, in that zoning. Much of the area in the City of
Spokane Valley that is zoned R3 is already partially developed with single family homes. To now allow
more duplexes or triplexes changes the character of the neighborhood and brings down property values
for homeowners who are already living in the area. The same is true when cottage developments are
owned by one developer as rental units.
A home is not a small purchase for most people. It is a big investment and location is a big part of the
decision. Once made, it is not something that can easily be changed because the city chooses to allow
denser development. Most single family home owners cannot afford the loss in home value which
occurs When duplexes and triplexes are built next door.
The city ads on television state what a great place the Valley is to live. It encourages families to choose
the Valley. if families are going to choose the Valley,the Valley needs to provide for single family
homes. In 2018, only 35 single family homes were built-94 fewer single family homes than in 2017,
during a time when the economy was growing and home ownership should have increased. Meantime,
28 duplexes were constructed. This does not encourage family ownership.
City of Spokane Valley
Planning Commission
January 21, 2019
Page 2
The City of Spokane Valley should support family ownership and long-term commitment and should help
preserve the character of residential areas that are already mostly developed with single family homes.
The proposed Code Text Amendment would do that.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas and Nancy Purcell
Current Home Owners
s11ol \4mmmlI5111
jUalleyA
Planning Commission Meeting
Public Hearing - Continued
CTA-2018-0005
February 14, 2019
PROCESS
tStudy
Session
• January 8, 2019
o� L •zC Administrative
ocit —1
°. •� Report TBD
N `,:L� N E Public Hearing :
AtC N -4 d; C January 24, 2019 c Ordinance Pt
Wan ReadingTBD
z Pi ct 6 Public Hearing
o : '- Continued
ci4 Ordinance 2nd
_C.4 - ebruary 14, 20 ReadingTBD
1.4 a
A
4 Findings of Fact
1Yr Irl' February 28, 2019
I A L
' A A
Today
Proposed SVMC Amendment - Overview
3
❑ 19.60.050 SVMC Permitted use matrix
Add "S" in the R-3 zone column — provides supplemental regulations
for Duplexes
Prohibits Townhomes in R-3 zone
u 19.40.060 — Development Standards - Duplexes
Add supplemental use language for duplexes
❑ 19.40.050 — Development Standards — Cottage Development
Add supplemental use language for cottages
88%
89%Owner-occupied1 a
i ,
86%
Housing Units as a �$ .
69% � 81%
1°f4 M
78°� 10%
20% 18%
percent of Total .. . -} �f��
` " w W 5986 t
57% it
64% ;. r 16% .`-}_.
-'' — M _ ► - — ae
• c • 6396 d3°5 .
V f0 a
31% 0 _ 58%
Housing nitsf: 3,0
r,:; g' pra,ueAve 18%
67%
Source: 2018 Census Data —28% 58% 46% 35% .. 91%
54% 60% - 49%
. 29% 51% 5696
81% 66% 53% 78% is ',o
92% °,
92% % a
85% 79% EEZ
89% 93%
Legend V
QwnerlTatal, % 67% 56 . 81%
I a-1 a 906
Malan
11-35
36-51
1 52-58 i %qtz
59-64 32% z
En
- 65-70 V
- 71-75
93%
- 76-82
- 83-90
- 91-94
Zones That Allow Duplexes, _ ICSi Wel leslewA .,°
,, .. I !
Cottages and Townhomes uci. — -- ,, - _ --, �� . . Euclid
Awe - i._,. P Euclid Are Ave
Buckeye _ _= of
_ Awe . -„, eN
Aw■ Jam-
• >kn€ix,owe 1 '0, L lnd■ene Awe , ' i
• Mixed Use --- . . - -j- .;:, /+
Mission H A4e la _ ._ sof, Mission Ave,,:
c
.+.
J v
"' N a ELf@ed'N'8y'
as € v • — .z 1E Awe Oro.
Corridor Mixed Use , (awayr,,
y
6 Multifamily :Awir� �-�IN. ' =�i I �
F4.r�`fir -1- ' a. r
Residential --i f" ;�` _
w q
115th ■ rt u .
.■ ,. Ayre iitth A
iR I
• R-3, Single Family - ri ;
.M Ave rc3. 24th Ave
Residential UrbanPro osed amendment \.,
p ,. 3d Are
a onlyaffects duplexes, I
p ie,end
• NeighborhoodZoning
Commercial townhomes and Awe `:.-% . R3
(Townhomes onl
• cottage development =MF
in the R-3 zone ', U
6 QUESTIONS
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: February 14, 2019
Item: Check all that apply: ❑consent ❑old business ❑new business ❑public hearing
®information ❑admin.report ❑pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2019 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Review
Session
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND:
The Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan includes an annual amendment cycle that runs from
November rd to November 1st of the following year. Applications received prior to November 1st
are considered by the Planning Commission in late winter/early spring of the following year,with
a decision by City Council in late spring/early summer.
The Planning Commission will review the following proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments
(CPAs) and make a recommendation to City Council. City Council may choose to adopt the
proposed individual amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the
proposed amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to modify a
proposal, they must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning
Commission for further consideration.
The Community and Public Works Department received three privately initiated requests for
Comprehensive Plan map amendments. In addition, the City is initiating one Comprehensive
Plan map amendment and several updates to the Comprehensive Plan. Sites approved for a
Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation consistent with
the new land use designation.
NOTICE:
Notice for the proposed amendments was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald and each site
was posted with a"Notice of Public Hearing" sign, with a description of the proposal. Individual
notice of the proposals is required to be mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of each
amendment. The City has opted to increase the noticing radius to include property owners up to
800 feet of each amendment pursuant to SVMC 17.80.120(B)(1)(c). Notice of the public hearing
was mailed at least 15 days prior to the public hearing.
SEPA REVIEW
Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — chapter 43.21C RCW) environmental
checklists were required for each proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Under SEPA,
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are considered "non-project actions" defined as actions
involving decisions on policies, plans, or programs that contain standards controlling use or
modification of the environment. Additional environmental review may be required for the
physical development of the subject properties.
1 of 2
Staff reviewed the environmental checklists and a threshold determination was made for each
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Determinations of Non-significance (DNS) were
issued for the proposed amendments pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 21.20.
Staff will be present at the meeting to discuss the process and provide an overview of each
application.
STAFF CONTACT:
Lori Barlow,AICP, Senior Planner,
Colin Quinn-Hurst, Senior Planner
Karen Kendall, Planner
Martin Palaniuk, Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: PowerPoint
Yellow Binder
2 of 2
City of Spokane Valley
2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Index
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
File Number Map or Text Summary of Amendment Index Tab No.
CPA-2019-0001 Land Use Map Change parcel 45183.9059 from Ito Index Tab 1
SFR (Danny Davis)
CPA-2019-0002 Land Use Map Change parcel 45234.4501 and Index Tab 2
45234.0210 from SFR to NC (Advent
Lutheran Church and TCF Properties
LLC)
CPA-2019-0003 Land Use Map Change parcel 45181.0213 from SFR Index Tab 3
to MFR (Elgee)
CPA-2019-0009 Land Use Map Change designation for parcels Index Tab 4
45104.9151, 45104.9150, etal, from
MF to CMU.
CPA-2019-0004 Text - Chapter 2 Update implementation strategies to Index Tab 5
remove completed strategies, update
timelines, and add new strategies
consistent with the goals and policies
in the Comprehensive Plan.
CPA-2019-0005 Text - Chapter 5 Update pedestrian and bicycle Index Tab 5
components of the Transportation
Element and related goals and
policies. Bring language forward to
support the consideration of a
Complete Streets ordinance.
CPA-2019-0006 Text - Chapter 2 Annexation goal and policy additions Index Tab 5
CPA-2019-0007 Figure 26, 27, and 46 Update Figures 26, 27 and 46 to Index Tab 5
reflect changes and amendments to
pedestrian and bicycle facility
recommendations.
CPA-2019-0008 Text - New Appendix Create a new appendix of the most Index Tab 5
recently adopted maps.
CPA-2019-0010 Text - New Appendix Create a new appendix of Index Tab 5
transportation projects for a 20-year
period that is informed by existing
studies and plans.
Each amendment will be loaded as a separate item on the Planning Commission
page for you to examine. The file would be too big to load all together. Please
contact Deanna Horton at 509-720-5301 or at dhorton@spokanevalley.org if you
need assistance.