2019, 02-28 Agenda Packet Omne
Valle
y
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
City Hall Council Chambers, 10210 E. Sprague Ave.
February 28, 2019 6:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 14, 2019
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
i. Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-0005, 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. Public Hearing: Proposed 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
— only new information has been added to this agenda packet. Each
of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments is posted separately on the
Planning Commission website.
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting Minutes
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Council Chambers —City Hall
February 14,2019
I. Chair Johnson called the meeting to order at 5:59 p.m.
II. Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance.
III. Office Assistant Robin Hutchins 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 arrived late at 6:01 p.m. Karen Kendall, Planner
Robert McKinley Martin Palaniuk, Planner
Michael Phillips, absent- excused Colin Quinn-Hurts, Planner
Michelle Rasmussen, absent-excused Robin Hutchins, Office Assistant
Matt Walton Deanna Horton, Secretary to the Commission
Hearing no objections, Commissioners Rasmussen and Phillips were excused from the
meeting.
IV. AGENDA: Commissioner Walton moved to approve the February 14, 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 Walton moved to approve the meeting minutes from January 24,
2019 as presented. There was no discussion. The vote on this motion was five in favor, zero
against and the motion passed.
VI. COMMISSION REPORTS: Commissioner Johnson thanked Secretary Horton for going
above and beyond in providing him the materials he needed in preparation for the meeting
due to his absence. Commissioner Johnson advised he attended the City Council meeting
February 5, 2019 regarding the Planned Action Ordinance for the Centennial Business Park
that the Commission forwarded. The Council unanimously moved the item forward for a
second reading and Chair Johnson congratulated the Commission on their work. He added
that he attended a lecture put on by YWCA at Gonzaga and the speaker was Jackson Cats,
PHD "What does it mean to be a strong Man". The lecture was regarding gender equality
and was eye opening.
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Senior Planner Lori Barlow had nothing to report, but
commented that she would update the advanced agenda prior to the next meeting.
VIII. P UBLIC COMMENT: On any subject which is not on the agenda.
Barb Howard, City of Spokane Valley: Ms. Howard advised that her public comment from
the January 24, 2019 meeting was not accurately reflected in the minutes. She stated her
comment regarding East Rich was mistaken to be East Ridge.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS:
02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10
i. Deliberations: CTA 2018-0005, a privately initiated amendment to Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC) 19.40.050, 19.40.060 and 19.060.050, proposing changes to
duplex and townhome development standards.
Senior Planner Lori Barlow summarized that the amendment would modify the Permitted
Use Matrix in SVMC 19.60.050. This amendment would change the Matrix to add
supplemental regulations to the requirements for duplexes and would eliminate
townhomes in the R-3 zone. This would also add supplemental regulations restricting
duplexes to one duplex per acre, they would be required to be on separate lots with
separate parcel numbers. This amendment would also add regulations dictating duplex
location and proximity to each other. Lastly, this would modify Cottage Development
standards by requiring that the development have more than one owner.
Ms. Barlow explained that the Commissioners asked if the City had employment
projections or information relative to rental verses owner occupied housing at the
previous meeting. Ms. Barlow noted that she was unable to identify employment
projections for the City, but she was able to collect data from the 2018 census regarding
owner occupied housing units.
Ms. Barlow provided a map depicting housing units at the Census tract level identifying
the percentage of homes that are owner occupied within each tract. Ms. Barlow explained
the Census counts each dwelling unit as well as each single family home highlighting that
anything considered to be a"dwelling unit"was captured. For example, each unit within
a multi-family complex is a unit that would be counted. Ms. Barlow concluded that the
closer the areas are to corridors or the freeway the higher the rental rates, moving further
south and east of the City the owner occupied rate increases in those lower density zones.
Commissioner Kelly requested clarification asking if the percentages listed are owner
occupied or rentals. Ms. Barlow explained the percentages reflect owner occupied homes.
Commissioner Kelly asked how the map depicts rentals. Ms. Barlow explained that the
census identified these percentages by counting everything (single family, duplexes,
apartments, manufactured homes, etc.)that constitutes a dwelling unit. Continuing that
some of the tracts have very dense single family residential neighborhoods, but also have
a high number of apartment complexes. When these land uses are combined in the tract,
the results are skewed by the high number of apartments within the complexes. The
rentals are concentrated in one area; while if you look closer in the neighborhood the
single family areas have a very high percentage of owner occupied homes.
Commissioner Johnson stated he was surprised to see 84 % rental occupied units east of
Pines Road and south of the freeway. Ms. Barlow advised that the area in question has
900 housing units and 148 of them are owner occupied.
Commissioner Walton asked if the City has any current applications for new duplexes or
townhomes pending. Ms. Barlow stated she does not have information on current
construction permits. Information on the number of platted lots or plats under review
could be compiled, but it's problematic due to the length of time that it may take a
developer to record a plat following preliminary review. She continued to explain the
three step process for approving a plat She concluded that it is difficult to know how
many lots may be developed with duplexes versus how many lots are large enough to
allow a duplex.
Commissioner Johnson asked about a letter received in the packet from Leonard and
Nancy Percell, stating there was no date stamp on the letter and asked when it was
received. Ms. Barlow explained the letter was forwarded to the City via an email from
Ms. Pete Miller who was aware that it was not provided to us in time for the public
02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10
hearing. After discussion with the legal department it was determined it could be
provided for consideration as the public hearing was still open.
Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on the number of duplexes that would be
reduced. Ms. Barlow explained that table three of the staff report captures how many
duplexes would be allowed under the current regulations verses how many duplexes
would be allowed if this code text amendment were to be passed. Ms. Barlow explained
that should you have a lot size of 10,000 to 15,000 square feet you would be allowed one
duplex under the current regulations. She continued that the code text amendment as
proposed insinuates you would have to have at least one acre of land and would not allow
any duplex development on 10,000 to 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Johnson
clarified that the 161 vacant lots that were 15,000 to 39,930 square feet would allow one
to three duplexes or two to six dwelling units under the current code. Commissioner
Johnson stated that under the proposed amendment up to one duplex could be developed,
and that was agreed upon by Ms. Barlow. Commissioner Johnson stated that the
amendment could potentially reduce up to 600 dwelling units. Ms. Barlow concluded
that this amendment does not affect our land capacity analysis to due underlying
minimum lot size being the same for a single family dwelling as it is a duplex.
Commissioner Johnson asked about developmental rights. Deputy City Attorney Eric
Lamb explained that the City regulates land use and restrict rights through zoning. Mr.
Lamb added that the duplex portion of this proposed regulation limits the number of
duplexes,but does not necessarily limit the number of dwelling units in total. The
applicant would not be prohibited from constructing and using the land for residential
purposes with the same number of dwelling units. Mr. Lamb added it may be cheaper to
build duplex dwelling units, and the developer may see a different return on investment
but no total loss of units allowed would occur and thus no substantial injury incurred.
Mr. Lamb added that from a taking standpoint staff isn't overly concerned, but it is
something to consider.
Ms. Barlow concluded that if the Planning Commission recommendation is for approval,
staff requests the Planning Commissioners provide specific direction as to how to rewrite
the proposal making it implementable to alleviate staff's concerns.
Commissioner Johnson asked about a concern heard during public comment regarding
the feasibility of cottages as a viable development. Ms. Barlow explained that if this
were to be implemented as written, cottage development may not be allowed.
Commissioner Walton stated his concern was intent verses interpretation regarding
owners selling after development and if they would be in violation. Mr. Lamb added the
City does not regulate who purchases a property, since that is a private transaction
between two parties. Mr. Lamb added that if the application indicated multiple owners
the City would have no recourse. Commissioner Walton asked if the City has determined
an interpretation on converting a single family to a duplex and how that would be
regulated or impacted and the answer was no. There was discussion regarding a dwelling
that could be developed as duplex and the permit review process to determine if it can be
done. Ms. Barlow added that for the record the addition of accessory dwelling
units(ADU)is different than converting a home to a duplex. This happens frequently and
the ADU does not require a 5,000 square feet lot per dwelling unit.
Hearing no further questions Chair Johnson closed the public hearing at 6:40 PM
During deliberation Commissioner Kelley stated the testimony from public comment was
excellent and understands their passion; however, he cannot see how to implement this as
presented. Commissioner McKinley added he agreed with Commissioner Kelley and had
02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10
nothing further. Commissioner Kaschmitter stated that she understands the desire to
protect the neighborhood character and the traffic concerns, but did not feel the proposal
to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She added she is concerned with the
availability of affordable housing and is not in favor. Commissioner Walton expressed
his worry in trying to find a solution to the problem. He noted he has seen the uptick in
apartments and duplexes. Commissioner Walton stated he understands the community
character is changing and gave the elimination of the open space requirement in the
Mixed Use zones as an example He finds it concerning to see a more urbanized Valley.
He continued with his concerns regarding the language and how difficult it would be to
achieve while keeping in line with the Comprehensive Plan and concluded that he could
not support this proposal as presented.
Commissioner Johnson stated he understands the feelings surrounding the quality of life
as he grew up here and gave examples of his childhood. Commissioner Johnson asked
what the Valley would look like if it had been decided back then that they didn't want
growth. He added that change happens. He applauded the applicants for their work on
the amendment and effort to impact change in a positive manner. He went to state, that as
a government entity we have to consider the common good and the common good does
not necessarily mean what is best for a few. He went onto explain that he agrees that
owner occupied is much more desirable environment and encourages more investment
into the community. Commissioner Johnson felt if there was a moratorium on
development of duplexes there could be litigation. He concluded that he could not
support this proposal.
Commissioner Kelley moved to recommend denial of CTA 2018-0005.
Commissioner Walton stated there is still opportunity for residents to engage moving
forward and encouraged citizens that have concerns to come forward to the City Council
or member of the Commission to voice their opinions.
The vote on the motion was five in favor and zero opposed and the motion passed.
ii. Study Session: Proposed 2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Ms. Barlow gave some background and introduced the 2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendment process. Ms. Barlow explained that the deadline for applications was
October 31, 2018 at which time the City had received three privately initiated and seven
City initiated Comprehensive Plan amendments. The City Council approved the docket
on November 20, 2018 and the City began notification requirements and review. Ms.
Barlow advised the Commission will conduct the study session and that the public
hearing is scheduled February 28, 2019 with deliberations to be held on March 14, 2019.
Ms. Barlow highlighted procedural recommendations and urged the Commission to
consider the information provided and public comments. She noted that public comment
had not been closed and the Commission would receive additional comments up to the
public hearing.
Commissioner Johnson confirmed that these proposals will be addressed individually but
will be forwarded to the Council as a group. Ms. Barlow explained that yes, during the
public hearing stage each proposal would be discussed individually to allow for ease of
public comment. Each item will be addressed individually by the Commission and can
be modified, approved or denied. Finally, the recommendations will be forwarded to the
council as a complete package. Mr. Lamb added that the law requires these items to be
considered collectively to ensure that the impacts are considered cumulatively.
02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10
a. CPA-2019-0004: A City Initiated Amendment to update implementation
strategies to remove completed strategies, update timelines, and add new
strategies consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Barlow introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0004. Ms.
Barlow explained that this will modify some strategies in Chapter 2 to refresh some
language and bring it into sync with the City's objectives. This will remove strategies
that have been completed, update timelines and modify with new information. Ms.
Barlow gave an example of strategies to remove such as pursuing funding for the
Barker Grade separation since the money has been procured and the City is moving
forward.
b. CPA-2019-0006: A City Initiated Amendment to Annexation and policy additions.
Ms. Barlow introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0006. Ms.
Barlow explained that this amendment would be to modify the existing annexation
policies and add one additional policy. The proposed amendment would require the
City to develop criteria for processing annexation requests and would develop
framework for regulations in the future. This amendment would also identify land
use designations in our unincorporated urban growth area. Lastly, a policy would be
modified to include that the City looks at fiscal impacts to utilities when considering
annexation.
c. CPA-2019-0008 A City Initiated Amendment to create a new map appendix of the
most recently adopted maps.
Ms. Barlow introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0008. Ms.
Barlow explained that this introduces a new map appendix to the Comprehensive
Plan. The maps are not new to the City but the appendix is new to the
Comprehensive Plan. The appendix will capture the maps and attached them to the
Comprehensive Plan making them more accessible to the public at a manageable size.
d. CPA-2019-0005 A City Initiated Amendment to update pedestrian and bicycle
component of the Transportation Element and related goals and policies.
Transportation Planner Colin Quinn-Hurst introduced Comprehensive Plan
Amendment CPA-2019-0004. Mr. Quinn-Hurst explained that this amendment
updates the pedestrian and bicycle components in completing the pathway and trail
network. This will add language to support consideration of Complete Streets. Mr.
Quinn-Hurst explained that the bicycle and pedestrian plan was first established in
2011 and the updates will revise the components to reflect changes in the network
based on current conditions and practicalities. The 2011 recommendations included a
network of 156 miles of sidewalk, 38 miles of bike lanes and 28 miles of new
pathways. Mr. Quinn-Hurts explained that with 156 miles at$600.00 per foot for a
new side walk the cost is a substantial amount of money adding up to half a billion
and decades of time.
Mr. Quinn-Hurst stated the City conducted a public involvement process that
included attending community events and an online survey. Through the survey it
was determined that the top priority for improvements was a completed sidewalk
system the second priority was good pavement, and third priority was pathway and
bikeway improvements followed by crosswalks. The City administered a technical
evaluation looking at crashes and safety, congestion and travel patterns,to find"hot
spots"where improvements would have the largest impact and fit in line with public
02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10
comment. In conclusion adding text to Chapter 5 would outline these priorities, add
language to support the goal of connecting the pathway network by linking the
Appleway Trail to the Centennial Trail. Lastly this amendment would add language
supporting eventual consideration of a Complete Streets ordinance to leverage
existing funding.
e. CPA-2019-0007 A City Initiated Amendment to update Figures 26, 27 and 46 to
reflect changes and amendments to pedestrian and bicycle facility
recommendations.
Mr. Quinn-Hurst introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0007. Mr.
Quinn -Hurst advised this proposal is to update the Sidewalk, Bicycle and School
District Maps to reflect completed projects and updated networks.
f. CPA-2019-00010 A City Initiated Amendment create a new appendix of
transportation projects for a 20-year period that is informed by existing studies.
Mr. Quinn -Hurst introduced Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA-2019-0010. Mr.
Quinn -Hurst advised this amendment will create an appendix showing a list of 20-
year transportation projects. This will be regularly updated as a resource for vetting
and developing our transportation projects to make them eligible for grant
opportunities
Commissioner Kelley asked about the implementation of a sidewalk in R-3
residential zones on private property and how the setbacks are addressed with the
homeowner. Mr. Quinn -Hurts advised that is one of the largest challenges of
constructing sidewalk as property owners often have landscaping in the City right-of-
way. It was discussed that the City has the authority to construct the improvement
within public right-of-way and that the City pays for all sidewalk improvements when
it is a City initiated project. The resident has no cost to them.
g. CPA-2019-00001:A Privately Initiated Amendment to change the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Designation from Industrial(I)to Single Family Residential(SFR)
and to change the Zoning District from Industrial(I)to Single Family Residential
Urban (R-3).
Planner Karen Kendall introduced CPA-2019-0001 a privately initiated
Comprehensive Plan amendment, located 300 feet south of the intersection of Park
Road and Broadway Avenue. This site-specific Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning
Map amendment is requesting to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation from Industrial (I) to Single Family Residential (SFR) and to change the
Zoning District from Industrial (I)to Single Family.
Ms. Kendall went on to explain the potential incompatibility of rezoning the site to R-
3 from Industrial as it would reduce the allowable uses from a broad range of industrial
uses to single family, duplex, cottages, townhomes, daycares, school and church uses.
The R-3 zone would allow six dwelling units per acre and up to 12 units per acre with
cottage development. Changing the land use designation and zoning of the subject
parcel will impact adjacent industrial properties as future development will be subject
to transitional regulations, limiting ability for full site development. The transitional
standards include greater setbacks, screening requirements and various other
restrictions. Ms. Kendall explained that if approved, the transitional regulations would
apply to any new development on the four parcels adjacent to the subject parcel located
02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10
to the west and south. Ms. Kendall went on to explain that two of the surrounding
parcels have recent activity. One parcel has an active building permit and the other has
gone through a pre-application meeting-both for industrial development.
Commissioner Kelley asked questions regarding adding borders to residential and
industrial properties and how this would affect the size of each parcel. Ms. Kendall
explained that yes that would be the case, if this were to be changed to R-3 zoning it
would impact the future development of the four adjacent parcels as the land
surrounding the properties would become larger reducing the size of the existing. She
referred to the graphic highlighting the areas affected by the transitional regulation.
Commissioner Johnson asked for confirmation that one of the current parcels has
development occurring. Ms. Kendall explained, one property has an active building
permit and the other has completed a preliminary application meeting inquiring what
they can develop on the property. The site does not have an active permit, however
they are contemplating development.
Ms. Kendall concluded the proposed amendment is not consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Walton confirmed that if this were to pass this change would isolate two
parcels from the industrial zone bordering north Park Road. Commissioner Walton
asked how this change would impact existing use of surrounding property's? Ms.
Kendall advised the property would remain the same. If the amendment were to be
approved and if the property owners choose to redeveloped the property to a
nonresidential use in the future, they would have to comply with the transitional
regulations.
h. CPA-2019-0002: A Privately Initiated Amendment to change the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and to change the Zoning District from Single
Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Planner Marty Palaniuk presented CPA-2019-0002, explaining this is a privately
initiated amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from
Single Family Residential(SFR)to Neighborhood Commercial(NC) and to change the
Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban (R-3) to Neighborhood
Commercial (NC).
Mr. Palaniuk stated that the property is located at 8th Avenue and Sullivan Road. 8th
Avenue is a minor arterial, and Sullivan Road is a principal arterial with approximately
20,000 vehicle trips per day. This is directly across the street from Central Valley High
School which creates significant traffic. North of the high school there has been
substantial multifamily developments creating significant density. Mr. Pal aniuk stated
that this site consists of two properties, one owned by the Genesis Church and one
residence. There is an irrigation district located to the west of the property and a
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement. The easement encumbers both of
the properties along the east boundary and does create some issues.
Mr. Palaniuk explained the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for these
properties is to have single family residential units. If approved this would change the
land use designation to Neighborhood Commercial intended to provide neighborhood
scaled commercial developments to serve the neighborhoods. Mr. Palaniuk explained
the current zoning of R-3 limits the uses, changing the zoning would allow several
additional uses to include retail, office and convenience stores. He added the
02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10
development restrictions to the Neighborhood Commercial zone would keep the scale
of the development to fit into the neighborhood. For example, height requirements
would be the same and setbacks would be designed to be consistent with the adjacent
residential lots. Mr. Palaniuk concluded that this proposal is consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
i. CPA-2019-0003 A Privately Initiated Amendment Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR) to Multi Family Residential
(MFR) and to change the Zoning District from Single Family Residential Urban
(R-3) to Multi Family Residential (MFR)
Mr. Palaniuk presented CPA-2019-0003, a privately initiated amendment to change
the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Single Family Residential (SFR)
to Multifamily Residential (MFR) and to change the Zoning District from Single
Family Residential Urban (R-3)to Multifamily Residential (MFR). Mr. Palaniuk
stated the property is located near the Mullan Road and Argonne Road corridor which
are both principal arterials that are heavily traveled. Mr. Palaniuk added that this
corridor is mostly commercial uses with a large retail center located northeast of the
site. Mr. Palaniuk continued that this site is situated on the northwest corner of Sinto
Avenue and Marguerite Road within an older neighborhood. The site is a single
parcel with two duplexes and a single family home constructed on site. Current
regulations would not permit the numerous dwellings on one lot. Mr. Palaniuk
continued explaining the current uses adjacent to the site are commercial. The intent
of this amendment it to change the current land use designation of Single Family
Residential to Multifamily Residential. The change would allow multifamily
development and low impact commercial development, and would change the zoning
regulations significantly, the density would allow additional units. Mr. Palaniuk
continued adding that the most significant change would be increasing the height
requirements from 35 feet to 55 feet, and the setback requirements. Mr. Palaniuk
concluded this is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Walton asked how would this be in keeping with the Comprehensive
Plan as it is essentially creating a Multifamily Residential "island". Mr. Palaniuk
explained that normally if this were a site specific rezone it would not meet the criteria.
Due to this being an amendment this is considered to be an area wide rezone, looking
at the plan it seeks to situate multifamily near transportation corridors and retail centers.
Ms. Barlow added that the review of the Comprehensive Plan is just as Mr. Palaniuk
stated however, if this were a site specific rezone this would meet the criteria as the
commercial zone located across the street is a higher intensity zone; multifamily is a
less intensive zone and would meet the criteria. Commissioner Johnson asked if the
development directly north was a duplex development. Mr. Palaniuk advised that there
are five duplexes on the lot. It was believed the applicant approached the owners asking
if they had interest in the amendment, and they declined at this time.
j. CPA-2019-0009: A City Initiated Amendment Proposal to change
Comprehensive Plan land use designation and zoning district from Multifamily
Residential (MFR) to Corridor Mixed Use (CMU).
Planner Karen Kendall introduced CPA-2019-0009 a City initiated Comprehensive
Plan to change the land use designation and zoning district from Multifamily
Residential to Corridor Mixed Use. Ms. Kendall explained the property involved is
18.7 acres and includes 12 parcels of land north of Mission Avenue between
McDonald Road on the west and Mamer Road to the east. Ms. Kendall explained
that there is a 150-foot-wide Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement
02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10
crossing the properties and noted that the properties were largely developed as the
Whimsical Pig with other various owners and uses. Ms. Kendall went on to explain
the surrounding uses of the site include single family residence, multifamily,
professional offices, assisted living and retail. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan
land use designation is to provide land that will allow light manufacturing,retail,
multifamily and offices along transpiration corridors -the uses in the area currently fit
the intent. Ms. Kendall explained that should this change occur; the amendment area
would be allowed to further develop consistently with the adjacent land uses. Ms.
Kendall continued that the zone change would allow uses that align with the intent of
the Comprehensive Plan along the major transportation corridor being Mission
Avenue. Ms. Kendall concluded that there is limited development opportunity for
these properties. This proposal would allow development along the corridor
consistent with the corridor and would not be create any nonconforming use with the
change. The Corridor Mixed Use designation has no height limitations; in
comparison the current Multifamily Residential zone is limed to 50 feet in height.
However, there are not many buildings that currently push or exceed the 50-foot
height limit. Ms. Kendall added the Corridor Mixed use has no density limits and the
change may allow an increase in the density. Ms. Kendall concluded that the
amendment would make the location consistent with the surrounding area and is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Johnson asked if parking can be located within the easement. Ms.
Kendall advised that yes there can be parking however, no buildings can be
constructed in the easement. Commissioner Johnson asked if the lots to the far east
were single family homes. Ms. Kendall advised they are single family residences and
there would be no transitional standards as transitional standards only apply between
zones.
Ms. Barlow addressed the Commission regarding procedural process and the next step
will be the public hearing scheduled for February 28, 2019. Commissioner Johnson
asked about public hearing notification. Ms. Barlow advised the notification went out
and the City increased the notification requirement area from the 400 feet to 800 feet
around the site specific requests.
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER: Commissioner Walton was appreciative to the community for their
civic duty and applauded them for taking action. He stated it was with regret that he had to
vote as he did. He stated the purpose of the Commission is to maintain the Comprehensive
Plan in looking out for the citizens and the future in keeping the Valley vibrant. Commissioner
Kaschmitter thanked the staff and the public for their comments. Commissioner Johnson
thanked the public for their comments and understands the difficulties in loss for the quality of
life. He explained the Commission is here for the common good and that is the only way it
works. If it is narrowed to serve the few,that is when it fails. He thanked the Commission for
their hard work. Commissioner Kelley commented on the Planned Action Ordinanc
amendment the Commission passed. He noted that an article in the paper noted the council
was looking at approving the amendment, but that there wasn't going to be a requirement for
any environmental study. Mr. Lamb advised that the article misstated the details. It was
determined that there may be an environmental review, but, the City will have already
undertaken the environmental review. The Council is considering allowing developers to rely
on the environmental review that has already been done. Commissioner Kelly asked for
clarification that should someone propose a project to the industrial zone that may need
additional study they will have to conduct further testing, Mr. Lamb advised that yes, that
would be the case.
02-14-2019 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 10
XI. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Walton moved to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. The vote on the
motion was unanimous in favor, zero against, and the motion passed.
James Johnson, Chair Date signed
Robin Hutchins, Secretary
PC ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
As of February 21,2019
***Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative and subject to change***
To: Commission& Staff
From: Lori Barlow, Senior Planner
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Commission Meetings
March 14,2019
Findings of Fact: Comprehensive Plan Amendments—Lori
Note: Additional meetings scheduled as necessary.
March 28,2019
Study Session: CTA-2018-000X -Addressing Standards—Karen (Tentative)
April 11,2019
Public Hearing: CTA-2018-000X - Addressing Standards—Karen
April 25,2019
Findings of Fact: CTA-2018-000X -Addressing Standards—Karen
Draft Advance Agenda 2/21/2019 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Action
Meeting Date: February 28, 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: Findings of Fact - 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 at the February 14, 2019 meeting, and closed after staff
presented Census information regarding owner-occupied housing. The Commission deliberated
and voted five to zero to recommend to the City Council that CTA-2018-0005 be denied.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the Planning Commission Findings and
Recommendation for CTA-2018-0005 or provide staff further direction.
STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
1. PC Findings and Recommendation CTA-2018-0005
RPCA Public Hearing continued for CTA-2018-0005 Page 1 of 1
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA-2018-0005—Proposed Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC)
Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(E)the Planning Commission shall consider the proposal and shall prepare
and forward a recommendation to the City Council following the public hearing. The following findings
are consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation that City Council adopt the amendment.
Background:
1. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130, Spokane Valley adopted its 2016 Comprehensive Plan Update and
updated development regulations on December 13,2016,with December 28,2016 as the effective date.
2. CTA-2018-0002 is a privately initiated code text amendment(CTA)to chapters 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.
3. The Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on January 24,2019 and conducted
deliberations on February 14, 2019. The Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the City Council
deny the amendment.
Planning Commission Findings:
1. Recommended Modifications
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed amendments.
2. Compliance with SVMC 17.80.150(F)Approval Criteria
a. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(1),the City may approve amendments if it finds that the
proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Findings:
The proposed text amendment is not consistent with the following provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan:
Goal LU-G2 Provide for land uses that are essential to Spokane Valley residents, employees, and
visitors.
Policy LU-P14 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.
Policy H-P3 Support the development of affordable housing units using available financial and
regulatory tools.
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0005 Page 1 of 2
Policy H-P4 Enable the creation of housing for resident individuals and families needing assistance
from social and human service providers.
b. Pursuant to SVMC 17.80.150(F)(2),the City may approve amendments if it finds that the
proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety,welfare and
protection of the environment.
Findings:
The proposed amendment does not bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,welfare
and protection of the environment based on the following reasons. The Applicant has not identified
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." The
proposed amendments create 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.
3. Conclusion:
The proposed text amendment is not consistent with the approval criteria contained in the
SVMC.
4. Recommendation:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends the City Council deny CTA-2018-0005.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 —Proposed Amendment CTA-2018-0005
Approved this 28th day of February, 2019
Planning Commission Chairman
ATTEST
Deanna Horton,Administrative Assistant
Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission CTA-2018-0005 Page 2 of 2
RECEIVED
Exhibit 1 - CTA-2019-0005 Proposed Amendment NOV 1 6 2014
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 SS S S 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 S SS S S S S S S S S
Telecommunication wireless S SS S 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).
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Planning Commission Review
Meeting Date: February 28, 2018
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—Public Hearing
PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: On February 14, 2019, the Planning Commission was briefed on the 2019
Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPAs).
The Planning Commission should review the following proposed CPAs and make a
recommendation to City Council. City Council may choose to adopt the proposed individual
amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission, disapprove the proposed
amendments, or modify and adopt the proposal. If the Council chooses to modify a proposal,they
must either conduct a public hearing or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission for
further consideration.
2019 CPA's: The Community and Public Works Department is processing three privately initiated
requests for Comprehensive Plan Map amendments. In addition,the City is initiating one proposed
Comprehensive Plan Map amendments and several updates to various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will also be subject
to a change in a zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation.
At this time, the Planning Commission should conduct the public hearing on the proposed
amendments and consider public input. Written public comment received thus far is attached for
your information. Please add the documents to the appropriate application sections of the yellow
binder.
STAFF CONTACT:
Lori Barlow, AICP, Senior Planner,
Karen Kendall, Planner
Martin Palaniuk, Planner
Colin Quinn-Hurst
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: PowerPoint
Exhibit 2: Additional Comment Received as of February 21, 2019
- Exhibit 7 — CPA-2019-0009: Trip Generation and Distribution Letter
dated February 21, 2019 prepared by Ray Wright, Sr. Traffic Engineer
- Exhibit 10 - CPA-2019-0001: John Crull email dated 2/14/2019
(Note: the exhibit is intended to be added to the yellow binder)
1 of 1
Valley
2019 Annual Comprehensive Plan
Amendments
Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 28, 2019
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process
0
._
.O — •– .N Administrative
_ _ • Study Session
a O 2-14-19 ••� Report
D
•V . •o 3 N 0 .c O 0 5f
Q 5 ♦- } E `} i U Public Hearing`` Ordinance 1
N •– O Ootp 2-28-19 U
Reading
1 i _4 •_ O V =
Q N w Q Findings of Fact U Ordinance 2nd
0_
Q Z 3-14-19 Reading
1 i
0= aiiillik
i 1
Today
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process
SVMC 17.80. 140
I
Staff Role Planning City Council
• Facilitate Process Commission • Legislative
• Conducts Review • Conducts Public Decision
and Analysis Hearing • Considers Public
• Prepares • Deliberates and Comment
Reports and Makes • Discretion to
public notices Recommendation approve, modify,
to Council or deny requests
PublicHearing
otice of
----lik-1.11111111tv.A. ,,E 1 ►itoY __.„ - Eli
❑ Published in paper0111_IS igillig".414 .41"V\\NALM _
WAY ,
1 - 30- 19
ssikAsk,
kk. � m. , .AAA
at,,, ally AirrAPAOr ',0' '4, li
. kttimrief , 4 4 0 , ■
❑
Posted 1 - 30- 19 n 1 ! o / H,e),"r j9yoz,-0;aA'''k\N.,N‘Nikt,mr,\
r
./
•
❑ Mailed 1 -30- 19 ,.: ,
1 .,-,,,,,\
' i i
Extended noticing from 400 � i _i
feet radius to 800 feet. Legend
ililgi!____ Parcels
`-�! I E—' r—I—M—i r
Planning Commission Materials
MI 1111
Yellow Binder
City' ' Aria j�o°bane Pa/Icy
❑ Application Materials m
p p ,odd tiovi,a1 Amend prehensiue plan
t 4 fi „ 4 mems
❑ Staff Report �' ' *„
COMMENTS , sA, , :�
Cririiirse Received i,
ncy Comments `'Sic Comments1 4 '
❑ Maps
r
4,t,,, ,,,,,
❑ Any other related documents
......wv,..,
t
Approval Criteria — Staff Report Analysis
Required Findino Other Considerations
Supports public health, safety o Effect on Environment
welfare, and protects the ❑ Compatibility and impact on
environment existing uses and neighborhoods
Consistent with GMA and ❑ Adequacy and impact on
Comprehensive Plan services
Responds to a change in o Benefit to City and Region
conditions
o Quantity, Location and Demand
Corrects an error for land
Addresses a deficiency o Projected population for area
o Other effects on Comp. Plan
City Initiated Text Amendments
CPA-2019-0004 , 0006 , and 0008
CPA-201 9-0004 — Strategies
Amend Strategies Chapter 2 Strategies for implementation
The strategies included on the previous pages are compiled here for reference. Legend
For each strategy,the implementat on matrix provided below also exploresIt bconomicDeveloprnent
Removedcompleted the relationship between each strategy and the various elements of the
Comprehensive Plan,designates lead staff or organization for implementation • Land Use
activities,outlines a time table for completion,and provides a rough sense of • Transportation
relative priority.Though the strategies are not mandatory for the City,they are
Update timelines an important window into Spokane Valley's approach to the implementation • Housing
of the Comprehensive Plan and they merit continued evaluation be City staff. • Capital Pad kips.
• Public&Private Utilities
Modify with new information . Parks&(]pen Spaces
• Natural Resources
Develop new
STRATEGY PRIMARY RELATED ELEMENTS} PARTNERS TIMING PRIORITY
Undertake a cernerehenslve branding process Se
create and market art Identity Foe Spokane Valley t ED.M I11an, 2,17 HIGH
that sells the Cltys inherent assets to would-be Eeeramic • • Visit Spokane
residents,empleyers,and visiters Development
Diwi
Continue participation in regional taurism-ptd- 5 Eladeh.
notion efforts and Inth
crease e City's presence In Eemamie 8 itValteyfese Y51€ Ordcnv HIGH
Spokane.Sports
regional events Development Commission
Evaluate the reunion investment of potential
tourism anchors and allocate available funds Economic r• Ii •• E6.Drrkww 21St HIGH
according iv thefrndings Develop ment Visit Sppokane
CPA-201 9-0006 — Annexation Policies
w
Create annexation policies
490
Criteria forg
rocessin �`
p
ID land use designations00 90
1 :-
... ,
Analyze fiscal impacts AVe ■ PW `
9
Es���w
III I lli
Pli S
1111
E32nd Av+ ma
9[P 1
h
1 \
�v
4 Z]
CPA-2019-0008 — New Map Appendix
,, __
1 __ _.
Create 11 "x17" maps
Easier to read and copy Appendix
Figure 16.Future Land Use
7-// /j
y ee Pase n-ems
/ d�e11 oalr:
•
Assist in public records16 011
.,: : dies
/�/ a Flela
// SyoNa a r Ma�— -r `
. it -r--
PI ,i�� ' _.--7':-
:_ 'tom . �'. Ani -te Poco
.__ ../— a y i T ars e,
,i, 1
. .
■nr!,..., * IIS
• j� �
+ M les
�/ t_ % Valley
.d
r
II
1.,,
_.
:: .. .rte ✓/ l, 1
• /
IMP IV
s. //
1
...,,,,:,,
...,.......,
i 56.0 rw a b rail ..Bone. ciio�
Staff, Agency & Public Comment
Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment
a No Agency ❑ No public comments
comments received received
CPA-201 90006 0008
12
Strategies for Implementation .r------'
Fe"▪ wM n.."Mn..lalb..w..pr,...Wen d.q ew4.c ,,
u.mow..hem,..n W.hry w m�....>.Cmem,m ....- I
IW*.aw,PA.l11KI.WK.Mcr.q o•a.«w.,UUimn..... •' - ' I
waw. .
an m• om.wireax u,*Rana VON,.appall,.to me Nrylwanniaan filhi,j1-' ,—
y
PUBLIC
� I'I.
..mom_,�� 111
. . 2 - en. H� �"' _ . is
ulai
..._,....._
COMMENT .k...,. _ ..m .. . .. .. - .. 4'
...,
PM, @
�/ PLUIT 156 Fl.re Land Use
(please come to podium ,, �.; ./ ,..... ,„,,,„,,, ,
_ .,_____ ___ .. .,,
fi
j
y
i
-, 2
, _w -
City Initiated Text/Map Amendments
CPA-2019-0005 , 0007 and 0010
Colin Quinn-Hurst, Senior Planner
CPA-201 9-0005 — Transportation Ch . 5
�
Ewele9�YAe
Camp Se,nui 's Fe' -- W31
Fe.k �\ EUpriver Dr park I r
•
Update Transportation =I =_
- _ ,nma,nd A X0� z._- i
I r
Fits held ea✓`k.P BuUceYen J MII otl-♦. MI h /o�� ♦ EEutlld Avco e"--,,,,
Element• - .. ., 'Il.'
__ .
Ehlo4ry Pohl Par,•
.,,,_
•.,
-o --� rku
Mission AUG m EM ,Ava -
'•!klne ~ s
„_ ,
Focus onpedestrian and =1 z� '.4i MI �•"`°
z 4 ■■■. .,r. A.
bicycle components ES+ra•ueAve 11111111111 —
z�
- 41h Ave 7•E4tn A+! _
Z v r
■I•' it ,— i -
A.ai
iiimmEBth _ -_ 1E8th Ave
Y
I
AveAve
O
Connect pathway networkf„.....,„,-
+-Pk ' lath Ave -
Salt
s�
Dishman Hills - / over
��' r Existing&Proposed
Add policy Ianguage to N m E 2411 Ave
Bikeway Network
Municipal Boundaries
E 29th A: E 32.Ake o::p�..ana'Ja ley
support Complete Streetsof"UpaA.r�,UGA'
P k R c•_at S Op Space37th AvaBikeway Elements
I� eexkring Ped'3<=3rdge
N Earn =: Proposec Ped:B ke Bridge
44k1 Ave •i Prapaseo Shared Use Path
•••.New Proposed Shared Use Path
••••New Proposed Ped/Bike Bridge
—Removed Ped/Bike Bridge
0 0.5 1 1.5 0
M Awa. Miles
CPA-201 9-0005 — Transportation Ch . 5
Public Involvement:
Which improvements are most critical for addressing
transportation safety?
Online survey
Public tabling H
73
} a tO
In-person survey 0 3 o
Tv 471 H
to •a =
�r`���a4.b pt ri lre`Ij co�ri�� ee► N V 3 -V
t4jAPrrit,.�' .00, ° m N14 . .� ���►► � > H IV Q
.�SUIIIVZ a 0y
6
.1/40 0
iN• -.F.,t#1,-_
taft
' crh �% 6 . e count
0. 4%is Es Havana •Sidewalks •Pavement Conditions Bikeways ■Street Crossings •Speeding •Bus Stops •Other
CPA-201 9-0005 — Transportation Ch . 5
mr- ii [ _imi _.ii
Short trips citywide
Technical Evaluation:
trent Ave
Housing and job density }
Crashes Ii :'-- I ri' -o� , g
■ -, ' ro
Congestion '►', �;-" i , i ►':'a- fi A% e
`\►r'' r014- `����APw' ■411VA '�� � �
Igr41'74*41
Public transit r' "' `' i`.; :+41c.it =```',��'1���:11.'1: �
fir . �tO 4 , ,,�
? 1111
Short Trips jm`k►,,,
5 MileTrips par
Awl
- 1 Mile Trips
-2 Mile Trips
-7, )
r-,
_
Source: SRTC Household Travel Survey
CPA-2019-0007 — Pedestrian /Bicycle Maps____
iii
Amend maps: r i -
p = NEN r
Figure 26: Pedestrian NetworkJ , . 3__:,. _
�I¢FaN ..- WW - — `
illa
Figure 27: Bikeway Network ' 16".
AIR0 I ' ..g h Ir
Figure 46: School Districts ,_ �� ;
_. -' 4��i1m :, r- 1-- —13
'r4 - ,van 7Wa:g lit = -7 r rr'
MESE
F _Mg= .1,--
pipiir .I
Example: Figure 26—Pedestrian Network
CPA-201 9-0010Twenty-year TIP
_dm, _.
_ _ .„,..
20YeawTransportation Improvement Plan tlstnet5
Create20-year TIP ThC documentKlement anticipated one poten:a a'cems that fail outside the 6-yearTIP.
-1111
Project Description Project Type cost Timeframe Years
New appendix Grade Separation Protects
Com-uct Grace P.ned'9N.^,FGSP tIVr {Sa210} Seonation
�7a Kr+ fsN3� Grace
$ 2B.DDG0D0 T-10 years 2025.2029
I i i • art Road' ,NSG' Coral:N/Grace �°r'eanK.�t Cp;F Grade
Consolidate transportation projects: Pteart rrentSAM) on 5 25.000.003 20 years 2030.2039
Comprehensive Plan Inz I111l1blti CS J:tC i Or!ts7lCl C1an5C'4M! on 5 3.,!70.000 T-10 years 20^25 x029
poraoeau d sransreia - !mused/on
aoa work same!or ru peovut 5 900.000' 7-10 years ,2025-2029
Traffic Studies Ince mpra.emen:
m B Barrer Intersection spa trefk:jell orrvuna•oouc Intelsecoon TBD 7-10 years 2C25-2029
improvement Im3ro'remer
Barter d Away trrt1akctlan Repace wank Lima!or realace asnar wen Intersect Or
TBD, 1-10 years 2025-2029
Informs 6-year TIP annually Im' en'en:Protect ra Improvement
BoatSsn&32M intersect-ccSigna="errs--eta+orsaeroc..KW:out intersect o^ TBD 7-10 years 2025-2029
improvement Imormerlen:
Trauma,"&Appetaay AO ult turnin5 move molt:ora:trill mtrrsecf}o^ TBD 7-10 years 2025.2029
intersection improvement ona:ais Improvement
stn it woes Metter-den IntelsecOon
Strake maerection TIM 7-10 years 2025-2029
Staff, Agency & Public Comment
ii.____JEL
Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment
❑ City's Public Works ❑ No public comments
❑ Spokane Valley Fire received
C PA_2 0 1 9_000 5 , 0007, 0010
20 _I
Appendix B
Figure 27.Bikeway Network
5-St
I -Gramma IM. 19.4
i E.-I.ct,e Dam Pam..2019
gt'INV" w EAseing&Proposal
_... Bikeway N.twark
• '
IA Municipal Boundarm
PUBLIC ,,,,/ ..- - • ' ------ „:„.,, 1
7 '. 46.1"4:;:A
.•- ,Mirr9 6.Le,
— !V LaMm‘Pee....r.de
. •• -.,,..eo e.Lire
; Ely
I .... .
OMMENT . , rA . •.
a —CMEir mlP.ialPs
1=IIPNIEI.mMmi1M1iE.
N11111N1.o1.m4
____.- M0—,W7iB,e06As1,.7NP,eO:.,P1:m.re.ed,.9PME.144,PM5ELFll!.,EE,ilC9hd0.l,p RgOe,
U
E
”..'
.,.
. ...1
spicule
,-
,
(please come to podium) ...,.
„.,...r.„. }
„:. _
, .... ,
,..z,
. i :,..... .
.
Produt,,..Sookam4a.r.imnmaMPJAIL.,.0e.remm
Imcm.,rforrnarcr shtm-r on,ma cmpk.flm mr.:mum:'Pm CM1,21m
Imlay*and ammro r k.ort—s ro NO,xcurnyevrrm,Utml
Example:Figure 27—Bikeway Network
Privately Initiated Map Amendment
CPA-201 9-000 1
Karen Kendall, Planner
n. rCPA-2019-0001 _ _::. .. I I -
111.- —
Y _ t�
a r_ Park Fuad
0/y.,-.-' 4,4 C Pool
Applicant: DannyDavis =_
—
11! _ _ _
Owners: {� ..,, /-
4 - w _
Circle J Mobile Home _.
W Park, LLC � -
ii
Proposal: I
CC Change the land use
W designation from Ito
g
>
Project Sitetil
0 SFR and the zoning ¢.,
from I to R-3 71+ na
IIII
el,
....1m f .am
1
N . 1 C -20 1 9-000 1 . .� 'm Area
di 4 ...
. ._ __ '2111i
imill „ I
, _
__ ,... • . . . .
.,,,.... .. . .„1,,„ _
_ , _
-iiiiiiillalliiiiiiiiiilialL
a (' spIayingt � 4 fr
Surrounding uses 3 tle. ; ` y,'
r fid'
it
■ = CPA-2019-0001 ` ;, ,; '°fir, i�;`
1111
■,. = Industrial 41FP r+#'mr,,' 1 11 ' ''
Q .
I1�
/ = Single family11 .4,11—Errai
N,
.� �y , +i.
W >+
■ = Commercial -,'
= Recent
M
_ .zii
permitting activity � `'' .
!Study Areal
CPA-2019-0001 1
W
N SFR
z a
W
= Land Use
W -
p� Designations
a
= 1 I
0 = SFR
V
= NC
Study Area
CPA-201 F}„+six
R-3
0
Zoning Districts
Z _
= 1
0
N = R-3
= NC �
.,
Comparison of Development Standards
Lot Maximums Density Minimum Setbacks
Building Minimum Lot dwelling Front/Flanking Rear Side
Zone Coverage
Height Size /acre Yard Yard Yard
1* Unlimited N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 ft.* 10 ft.*
R-3 35 ft. 50% 5,000 sqft 6 15 ft./20ft. 10 ft. 5 ft.
* If abutting residential, development shall comply with Transitional Regulations
CPA-201 9-00 0 1
- E :;ro4Ll'er.; r Av - E Breadwat Ave. .
IV.'y , o� PvrceI 1
d►'� d►�‘
oc4( _ ._
e4
v
Existing I Proposed
LEGEND
❑ CPA-2019-0001 Parcel
mo
a
IX
Transitional
.,
Regulation Buffer ck. 1
2 Parcel 4
l
Affected Parcels
Staff, Agency & Public Comment
ii_imL
Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment
o City's Public Works o Comments received
o Spokane Valley Fire Included in Planning
o Ecology Commission Packet
o Yellowstone Pipeline
err _.___4•1_
r �
77
•
CPA-2019_000 .1.
. _ _ _�- i_Study Area
29 .. r
""- - .ro..,,,:y Vii± — .
''1"
1 z, :: Fig► - , '
UBLIC
, .
. ._, _ , _ , If
_ . _ . ,„00. f ' 'Ile '''. 1: 4:1 .
r
r'
COMMENT p _ pA _
1°
-
1 f.., [01.x.'
come to ,(pleasepodium) 1 . .
{
1111 Jhm !
.
j ;-
M . R 'i
1
Y,,. _
. _ -- ,E :;a1crvar`k,c.
Privately Initiated Map Amendment
CPA-201 9-0002
Marlin Palaniuk, Planner
,, . 1 t 1 1 I I .______.fl 1 1E P E. I_I .1_1 I - -
�E R7tt Av,e; � - - - -
CPA-2019-0002 II
„ ...5 •
21 . ,_
, .
_ c
r, i
p.„,.L1 , . —
.fil . it Aft AN- • _(r..-15'-- ---' / ,
- - t - , ,
■
Applicant: Whipple Consulting p f
Ah
Engineers ` itA
1�
_" c Central
I. c
I. Valley High
LU Owners: Advent Lutheran Church —1 __
ol
a`• • ---�@itL v a
TCF Propertieset , LLC 4:—
'
W Proposal: Change the land use rt_ -�� � -- �-
> i,,,, Poiect Site
�; 1 ,
0 designation from SFR to ,� ry
NC and the zoningfrom ��
�.. T-41
R-3 to NC ,' r E,�1v:.
E
A,-.-"-- h ;. i PO'x; ++"
�PA-2011 9_0002
/ /
M M - ,U r porrr
Li...b+••mibig 0 .i F
( urrounding uses
Q
p 9 •
i
2 N = CPA-2019-0002 =c 4 f
_1 L = Water District r
Q ._.� 4,
et = Single family4CC
4.
• = School / Church
14111i m. ' '.1% '
r
= BPA Easement ° 1 ''.. , 1
/ \ 1
CPA-201 92 fStudy► Area
000 effiAxe
7.
Land Use
W Designations 1111111 1
0 = SFR
Z a 2
e
W
= NC
W Z
Ck
EL a
SFR
OE cttiAve ----_
ti) - r
n
CPA-20 000E NE-.5, \ 1tStudy Area
Zoning Districts
- R-3
CL
a NC
= NC
0
z
Z
0 R-3
-----miL______ 2.
N r,, . _-
_________________ ,,1 1 1 _____,,_
- --\
1 1. .
1
Comparison of Development Standards
Lot Maximums Density Minimum Setbacks
Building Minimum dwelling Front/Flanking Rear Side
Zone Hei ht Coverage
g Lot Size acre Yard Yard Yard
R-3 35 ft. 50% 5,000 6 15 ft.
/20ft. 10 ft. 5 ft.
sqft
NC 35ft. N/A * * 1 5ft. 10 ft." 10 ft."
* If residential development, comply with density & dimensional standards
of adjacent residential zone.
A If adjacent to residential use.
Staff, Agency & Public Comment
ii_imL
Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment
❑ City's Public Works ❑ No comments received
❑ Spokane Valley Fire
❑ Ecology
i ,„„eil
-- - t.,•i .:, 71''''''' k; NM ;IC
1 Study Area• t-
CPA-2019-0002 ,. . .,. Ili, ..,
*�
• , k-#
- -s.,. _
rtn
r r--.
r
Ill
4%, . 117101:4N I 1
* ° --1.'1" r r . g ' xi
u. 141° ._ Ill
1 � R
LJBLIC , • ..,.,,, ; . . .,• . . ,40 7
COMMENT ., _ ilitffiri,• : :,..i,„
r / il ,
it , 11 , , • _
(please come to podium) .,
1 , _
4.
I killi' W
' 1.1.it,'
., __ -.. . 111111111161MI:
II
�� 0 . ,. 1 1
Privately Initiated Map Amendment
CPA-201 9-0003
Marlin Palaniuk, Planner
t r
C PA_2 .,.2,._.,..-,
CPA-20 19-0003 J� i—
__ _
,e,, F 9 k.--i oir It Ornp
�----T----
I
ME / I
LI ME
Applicant: Joel Elgee ki3n Avc E 1
E Mis aion,yya,1£:t
n-A-VC
Owners: Marg uerite LLC — !
— I1-1
1. a
W
Terry Ovsted a l
- E_�.intii3Aue - �- �� _
Proposal: N� _ El -. �It.:..,,
Change the land use =
DC Iii,
W designation from SFR `- " _ _
iii
> i
-¢.u;e:-
to MFR and the zoning --_- - g ;
from R-3 to MFR 1
g L
i - I I i
�,
CPA-2019-0003 _� .a . . .4 7 _ � �� � .
.,
ci_ f
1.11111M
_ _ HT1j
,
Mil MIL tt.iii , .
_ , .
1.
M _ , ,
�- - udy Area
(surroundinguseIM
1
Q _,
G t
2 _10 v...
"+r
N = CPA-2019-0003 f —
ni�ci _
iiiikL.;
e Alt
= Single family
Qand two family1._,,, . _ —
w/ ■ = Commercial
LLI
i
■
CPA-2019-0003
RC
W Study Area
I,
N CL
SFR
Z a z
W
MFR
=
W Land Use
W Z Designations
C. a
J 3 = MFR
el.
0 = SFR
U
= RC
CPA-2019-0003
RC
Study Areal
C
R-3
MFR
Zoning Districts
Z
Z = MFR
0
F.icrrin
= R-3
= RC
Comparison of Development Standards
Lot Maximums Density Minimum Setbacks
Building Minimum Lot dwelling Front/Flanking Rear Side
Zone Hei ht Coverage
g Size acre Yard Yard Yard
R-3 35 ft. 50% 5,000 sqft 6 15 ft./20ft. 10 ft. 5 ft.
MFR* 50 ft. 60% 2,000 sqft 22 15 ft./ 20ft. 10 ft. 5 ft.
*Where MFR abuts R- 1 , R-2, or R-3 zones, development
shall comply with Transitional Regulations
Staff, Agency & Public Comment
ii_imL
Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment
❑ City's Public Works ❑ No comments received
❑ Spokane Valley Fire
❑ Ecology
... .. ....
.!.. r• II
... ''''''''':':.----•-____
II n
° •.,... . , _
i;L _ ..
all :1 , •I 1111 1 '.Er -
--;1 '" -•
'
C PA_2 0 1 9_000 3 _i , r ,... .2..i
I I I
VII ill,
...,.. .
injile.=
Ia
i ,
__
A
• r
Ai. - • -ii 411. Iii, •
r ; •
NI Study Area
IL_ .....
, ...._
•
- , k
PUBLIC ,„
,
, ,
, ,
0
- N
'e,.. ...
'
.1 - :1-0.01,-ft " I'
I 11.
I 1 ' 9 1
,..
,.. .
COMMENT , ...
4 . —
i_,••''
, . .
1..4-
. a IHr r
IN —
.. '
(please come to podium) ..„ I +.1k.
1
...
. I,
...
i
'I
At
11
.....- - *
I s.
, .
City Initiated Map Amendment
CPA-201 9-0009
Karen Kendall, Planner
,,, \
PA-2019- _�0009 _
_4414---
Applicant: City of Spokane Valley -------Hp-----1- Project S to
Owners: Carlson, Janson, Kjos, L 111•1 II' � • ��—'-
Massong, On the Rock We i — �--
LU Stand, LLC, Consolidated
_.---=----. ]
Irr. Dist., Henderson ` I ri- --
Ct Legacy, LLC and Whimsical 1 IC
LU Pig LTD Part. IIME` �"�E 1
ii
0 mm
Proposal: �� I y
p Change the land use v I
designation and zoningI q II i I i
g __I I
from MFR to CMU �l -.H I 1 h I r ,_ 1
±I
CPA-201 9-00 0 9
_ _
. _ E-1-90•FW I- 19tip =
- - Study Area
• '4'�' _ . - - _ _ y ..;yam- - -'-'r) 'pp
5. t
ii.Plj
q.
IrEl 1111.1110'
<I( so- ',*, :1: .., ,k a WIL
2 ,, . , ,
. . L ,,,.__ ,,,, ..-.. .
y • .{
rte. , I
R f f �`'
1r r 441V,--'-
'0
11,01111N111 I' _ I Famitoi, ,
tio:ht ,JK-110.1 . iir . __„,.... e._ . _,.... .,....._ ,‘0 ,_a .,,,___ ___ ___
d- - 1 ,
. .
___ . - -
5
r ' ':. • ' — _ :It' --1F — ,
,,,LH- - illii Tor. . , _ .
4:E 4 ' 1
Mill IP. rt 4 1
,_
•i IP ,mR ht I ;r _ — BPA Easement —II
PA-20 1 9-000 9
=I mi uvw
- z E No Ave = � #ka.nip II
–T—
W CMU tily ✓ rear Thillv-ft---,
J I 45104.9151II
N 73 E
ZLIIICC �MISIQN AY
a
W4510411328 451104.1323
}ADDRESS U VACANT
W Z — 451 X14.0321
CL a •PRESS
OWN
Om
E
O 15giols . 11361-1331519
5161_ i&19E 13621 E
El
45104,0330
iasa9U
miss ION AVE
MISSION AVE'
MISSION AVE.
I
MFR S R
CPA-2019-0009E.Nra Ac._, ,... „,
_____ __________
fStudArea
aI 45104. 151
13107 E
MISSION AV '
I
* — --ft.—........,7,.........L................._
455104.0328 .451043323
0
0AD CESS i 0 VACANT
Z "11a LAND
il
45104.0329
Z •.KESS
OWN
0
NM144L{1114'c' L
' _
45113°s14.511115 451QCCi91 "� 451041133019536E 13519E 13621
11I55f6NAllE MISS[DMAVE
1 NI ISSI ON AVE
MFR R-3 3I
r1%4'4115,
Comparison of Development Standards
Lot Maximums Density Minimum Setbacks
Building Minimum Lot dwelling Front/Flanking Rear Side
Zone Hei ht Coverage
g Size acre Yard Yard Yard
MFR 50 ft. 60% 2,000 sqft 22 15 ft./ 20ft. 10 ft. 5 ft.
CMU N/A N/A NA No N/A N/A N/A
limit
*
*Single family residential shall comply with the density and development standards of the
MFR zone.
Staff, Agency & Public Comment
ii.____JEL
Staff & Agency Comments Public Comment
❑ City's Public Works ❑ No public comments
❑ Spokane Valley Fire to date
❑ Sewer
❑ WSDOT
❑ Yellowstone Pipeline
CPA-201 9-000 9
_. _:.,:ri_r::: I, 0 ty,
53 . - ----- 1Gl 9f}rt
E:NOM 'Are
______
__ — — -- (}fl�f },'ani
_____ _
i
17.. . '
11
. .. . v._,_. _. .
. , 4+
.t
-"----;IT:h
4 ii. a kL \ .'.• + _ : :
COMMENT I
- r`- _"i____ _
umum
• 3' e- x r . '; 16a i "" , ,... , 4
(please come to podium) -y : . , ,r: _. ..,...., ' ', III
r 41 'rill
NI II
i� N it M«` r` 4 I.
• , ,�
ilk ,� ; 4 _
NEXT StAmendment Peps -
0
• Planning Commission Study Session — Feb. 14,
2019
• Public Hearin . — - • : • •
0-' ' e i • erations and Recommendations — Marc
A 2019
• Administrative Report
ti
• First Reading
• Second Reading
1
0
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
NEXT STEPS
EXHIBIT 7
CPA-2019-0009
Additional Agency Comment(s)
Project Name: City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
File #: CPA-2019-0009
Parcels: 45104.9150, 45104.9151, 45104.0324, 45104.0315, 45104.0311, 45104.0307,
45104.0308, 45104.0330, 45104.0329, 45104.0323, 45104.0327 and, 45104.0328
This Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) is being prepared to support the State
Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) application for a city initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment
(CPA) for changing an existing Multifamily Residential (MFR) to a Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) land
designation. This letter estimates the trip generation of the current zoning versus the trip
generation that could occur if the land were developed under the proposed new land use.
Project Description
CPA-2019-0009 is bounded to the south by the 13000 block of Mission Avenue, between
McDonald and Mamer Roads. The CPA is situated about half way between interchanges of I-
90's Exit 289 at Pines (SR27) and Exit 291A at Evergreen. The Valley Hospital is less than half
a mile to the west and Spokane Valley Mall is a mile to the east.
ti ,I;;-46-':::_f; r•'•'I - I !i h. St\~4 to u P72
4. 1.*''' `,Viti i. »-.
, i i 11,,,,"-.,, ,, �•''
4+..� , ..' 1 i p'1'` ( v .n ,•'i' j�rKy / r rj � `�.._ 1 .;,�
! ' , n' ., ffR-27� E[ f rh-'-k-..-^,, .r1.\, , - - 4 •
r +R1 IEF CPA-2019-0009
. -- - Spokane
- - - � — T _ - Valley Mall
ydy,
Valley J - * •ams –----
Hospital -
•
100000frt, , : BPA Easement I-90 Exit 291A
, F = . .w Evergreen Road
[ C.'-+ - .. .-- .. '4a _�, '` .rte 5.4.0R-rT _ �` - :°r
ti. •
• d 1. .,
1 1 Page
Trip Generation
There are 12 parcels for this proposed comprehensive plan amendment totally approximately
17.5 acres. A 150 foot easement for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) bisects the site
that prohibits structures within the easement. The BPA easement reduces the buildable area by
2.7 acres. The remainder equates to a total of 14.8 acres of developable property.
Under the current zoning (MFR), the available density allows 22 apartments per acre. If these
densities could be realized, 325 apartment units could be built within the area. The total expected
trips for all available property in the proposed comprehensive plan amendment are shown below
for both the AM and PM peak periods.
•ea 's our Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Land Use Zoning Directional Directional
olume @ Distribution I Volume a Distribution
0.46 AM 0.56 PM
Trips per 23% 77% Trips per 63% 37%
Unit In Out Unit In Out
Apartments
(325 Dwelling Units) MFR 150 34 116 182 115 67
After conducting a literature review, it was found that commercial developments have been
surveyed in various jurisdictions and typical Land to Building ratios calculated (see attached
article). This ratio is determined simply by dividing the square footage of the land parcel by the
square footage of the building. Typical values in urban areas are 2.5 and those in suburban
areas 3.5. Using a land to building ratio of 3.5 for the purposes of determining the potential
building sizes would be:
14.8 acres * (43,500 sq ft/acre) / (3.5) = 184,000 sq ft
To evaluate the reasonableness of the 3.5 Land to Building ratio selected, a scaled map of the
site showing building footprints that add to 184,000 square feet of useable property was drawn
for single and two-story buildings.
[===j
100
Single-Story Density of 184,000 Square Feet of Buildings on 14.8 Acres
2IPage
Two-Story Density of 184,000 Square Feet of Buildings on 14.8 Acres
Corridor mixed use under the City's zoning allows for Apartments, General and Medical/Dental
offices, and Retail and commercial development. Because of the site's proximity to the hospital,
opportunities for general and medical/dental offices could be considered in combination with
housing. Finally, there are opportunities to have retail and commercial development that would
support the residences and cater to people working at offices throughout the day.
What the development may become if the City Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is
permitted might be these land uses and their expected peak hour trips:
M Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
I welling Directional Directiona
Land Use Units Volume @ Volume @
Distribution Distribution
0.46 AM I 0.56 PM
Trips per 23% 77% Trips per 63% 37%
Unit In Out Unit n Out
Apartments CMU 120 55 13 42 67 42 25
M Peak Hour Trips P Peak Hour Trips'
Volume @ Volume @
Land Use(710) 1.16 AM Directional 1.15 PM Directiona
Distribution Distribution
rips per Trips per
1,000 86% 14% 1,000 16% 84%
GFA In Out GFA In Out
General Office CMU 30,000 35 30 5 35 6 29
3IPage
FM Peak Hour Trips PM eliMill
I ip UI
II
Volume @ Volume @
Land Use 2.78 AM Directional
3.46 PM Directiond
•
Distribution Distribution
Trips per Trips per
1,000 78% 22% 1,000 28% 72
GFA In Out GFA In Out
Medical/Dental Office CMU 20,000 56 44 12 69 19 50
Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Volume @ VolumerrM
0.94 AM Directional 3.81 PM Directional
Distribution Distribution
Trips per Trips per
1,000 62% 38% 1,000 48% 52%
GFA In Out GFA hi Out
Retail/Commercial CMU 40,000 38 24 15 152 73 79
Total Expected Trips for
CMU Land Use 184 111 111 323 140 183
Subtracting the peak hour trips for the current zoning of MFR from those that would be expected
if CMU were allowed to develop gives a difference between the two land uses. The City
Initiated Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment could have a net increase on traffic
volumes of 34 during the AM peak hour and 141 during the PM peak hour.
41
Traffic Trip Distribution
Using current traffic information for Mission, Pines, McDonald and Evergreen gives a trip
distribution on a percentage and number of new PM peak hour trip basis as shown here:
Net PM Peak Hour Trips
a�lwal4y
V1.CA-YMCAe!6+e
CMU MFR
CPA-2019-0009 .E` °"e,y
yrgwnd
City Initiated Comp Plan 9
Map Amendment
CPA-2019-0009 {r.a x a Acv ejll air•w!te VAr Q
E!tiane•.
Top'Wf•TB6MM!
9 9 QHaYa4rtpbbY T!M
LdtaACrs Ce,- Piny Cny
b v Noais0 atT ic got
t .... S940144 Vow Nan
40%
- a2%
47 � �'
10 € 60% 6 7%
12% + 29
14 •�q,�Y�raWn✓4+a } E Ww+on 7 8
.►i Ma11iC¢ro Vd6rry Faapnal 17p s b at
3
- M
9
9 _ Cee.094 wtea4 Es)ates. Cefar Chateat Estuec 3 }96 Ch. Er*,
T i x t _...... [ �
6
eg 6An Z
t"
rra4• g
!.•:--..ars a 1 :
Traffic Mitigation
In June, 2016, the City evaluated traffic operations in the Mirabeau Subarea then and into the
future to 2040. The Subarea includes the Pines Road (SR-27) corridor from Mission Avenue to
Trent Avenue, along Mission Avenue to Evergreen Road to the east, the 1-90 Evergreen Exit
291A interchange, Indiana Avenue west to Mirabeau Pkwy and Pines Road (SR-27).
The Mirabeau Subarea identified future projects that need to be constructed in order to
accommodate future growth within the area in order to insure the City will have the street
infrastructure needed to support planned development. The project costs were estimated and a
proportionate share of$323.75 per new pm peak hour trip was established in the report.
When the plan was completed, the City established a "trip bank" that listed the number of new
pm peak hour trips that are available upon the adoption of the plan. As development has
occurred since 2016, developers submit a Trip Generation and Distribution Letter (TGDL) that
presents the number of new trips and identifies their traffic pattern. Each of these developments
paid a pm per peak hour trip cost and these trips are then deducted from the City's trip bank.
51
At this time, there are adequate pm peak hour trips to allow this City Initiated Comprehensive
Plan Map Amendment if the developer, at the time of development, pays a voluntary impact fee
of $323.75 for each of their new pm peak hour trips that would use the Pines (SR-27) corridor.
p aaF WASh�,' .\\ �!
.. Lk/ ill
` 1 1 396.19_„)
9619 (u b
5 'tt
S 6\Ct\nk‘ VI lA\\
6lPage
2/21/2019 Calculating Land to Building Ratio and Why It Matters
REAL ESTATE
How to Calculate the Land to Building Ratio
A low ratio indicates that the property is being fully used
BY JAMES KIMMONS Updated September 09,2018
Every structure occupies a certain portion or percentage of the land parcel on which it sits.
This percentage or ratio of the size of the building to the land is called the "land to building
ratio." When it's high, the property isn't being used to its fullest potential. When it's low, the
property is already at full capacity.
The Calculation
Divide the square footage of the land parcel by the square footage of the building to arrive
at the land to building ratio. Here's an example:
188,000 land square feet divided by 43,500 building square feet equals 4.32
This is a 4.32:1 land to building ratio, and it's actually on the high side. The average is
between 2.5:1 to 3.5:1.
Is It Important for Residential Properties?
The land to building ratio isn't reported in all appraisals. In fact, it's rarely seen in residential
appraisals. There are many municipal codes and property restrictions that can limit the
ratio, however. There might be a desire to keep the size of homes to a certain percentage of
the available lot space.
Land to Building Ratio in Commercial Applications
The use of the land to building ratio is much more prevalent in commercial and industrial
applications. There are usually stringent requirements in building codes for the amount of
parking that certain size structures must maintain, as well as setback and green area
considerations.
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-to-calculate-the-land-to-building-ratio-2866427 1/8
2/21/2019 Calculating Land to Building Ratio and Why It Matters
to 1 could be at maximum capacity or in violation of current codes due to grandfather
clauses.
The greatest number of considerations with municipal and other regulations occurs when
you're working with commercial, industrial, and institutional real estate. There could be EPA
issues with industrial properties, and there might be hazardous materials to think about.
The Retail Shopping Center or Mall
You won't find a shopping mall or strip center in the middle of thousands of acres of
farmland. Population demographics are the first consideration in siting retail commercial
buildings.
There must be enough consumers to support the shops and businesses or there will soon
be a shell building sitting empty. Traffic patterns are also important. In suburban situations,
it's very important to have easy access to cars and lots of convenient parking. Sometimes
it's enough to provide underground parking and rely also on walking traffic in an urban
setting.
Ratios of the tenant retail lease spaces and the overall theme of the center are important
as well. There's often an "anchor tenant," the largest retailer that will draw the most
traffic. Then there will be others who offer related but not necessarily competitive products
and services. A major mall might have 20 clothing stores, but they each believe they have
their niche customers and will do well. The anchor tenant, in this case, could be Macy's.
Office Buildings
These vary by the type of offices they'll house. A building catering to accountants,
attorneys, and consultants would have certain space use requirements, and there might be
one or more shared conference rooms for larger meetings. They might even share a
receptionist to route calls and visitors.
A medical office or dental office complex would have very different space requirements,
especially when it comes to electric power and other special concerns related to the
equipment being used. Medical office buildings might need more elevators or easier access
situations for the aged or ill.
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-to-calculate-the-land-to-building-ratio-2866427 2/8
2/21/2019 Calculating Land to Building Ratio and Why It Matters
warenouses require a lot or space, ana tney also require large truck ioaaing aocKs in some
cases. They generally don't need much more in the way of parking spaces, however.
Warehouses will usually have one or two areas set up for offices, but they won't have much
in the way of amenities—just space, utilities, and phone service.
Specialty businesses include auto repair shops, oil change businesses, and car and RV
dealerships. They each have different needs as far as space and parking. Auto repair and oil
change businesses have special needs for disposal of waste oil and other chemicals.
Every one of these buildings and business types will have some concern for the land to
building ratio.
The Value of Excess Land
The nature of excess land and its zoning determine whether paying for it is a waste of
capital. Can it effectively be sliced off and sold? It can if the overall land is comprised of two
or more independent parcels, if the structure doesn't infringe upon one of them, and if the
unused land has its own access. The same applies if it can be subdivided.
Otherwise, you probably have no choice but to dedicate the excess land to future
expansion...even if that's just a parking lot or storage.
BASICS BASICS
What Is Improved Land in Real Estate? Zoning and Land Use Codes—Are They
Necessary?
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-to-calculate-the-land-to-building-ratio-2866427 3/8
EXHIBIT 10
CPA-2019-0001
Public Comment(s)
From: iohn crull
To: Karen Kendall; Marsha Nead
Subject: CPA-2019-0001,622 N.Park Road Comp Plan Change and Rezone
Date: Thursday,February 14,2019 6:39:59 PM
Karen Kendall,
My name is John Crull and I am submitting this comment letter on behalf of the Crull Living
Trust. We have owned the property located at 708 N. Park Road, which is directly adjacent to
the subject property, since the mid 1950s.
We oppose the proposed Comprehensive Plan Change and downzone from Industrial to R3
residential for the following reasons:
1) Land use along both sides of Park Road between Sprague Avenue and Broadway is
industrial except for the two small vestigial lots from an earlier era, one of which is our 708 N.
Park Road property. Both we and the neighboring 630 N. Park Road owner have long resigned
ourselves to the reality the Park Road corridor between Sprague and Broadway has
irreversibly transformed into an industrial corridor over the past half century. Any possible
value our property may yield in the future will result from eventual conversion to a
commercial or industrial use.
If the Comp Plan and Downzone is approved, the possibility of our property being merged
with the larger adjacent subject property, for a future larger scale commercial or industrial
purpose, will be eliminated. By foreclosing this foreseeable merging of future interests, the
proposed action is damaging to our property,particularly-so in that our two small lots, if not
combined with the subject property for a larger development, are just not large enough to
support most commercial and industrial uses.
2)If the subject property is down-zoned and developed with a residential use, it is quite likely
that both the owners and future residents of that property will oppose any future commercial
or industrial development we will, at some point, seek to establish on our property. The
potential residential/industrial land use clash that approval of the proposed action will
inevitably tee-up is another serious impact to our property if down-zone is approved.
3) Further, our property is simply not deep enough to accommodate typical environmental
mitigations (setbacks, landscaped buffers, etc) often imposed on commercial and industrial
projects that share a common boundary with residential zoning. Please do not set us up for this
future mitigation scenario by approving the downzone and allowing subsequent development
of the subject property with residential units!
4) We cannot join applicant's petition because our property is obviously not suitable for future
residential redevelopment. It is highly impacted by both major arterial traffic, mostly trucks,
and surrounding commercial and industrial development. Northbound traffic on Park Road
routinely backs up from the Park& Broadway stoplight in front of our property making
ingress and egress very difficult throughout the day. The only viable future option for our
property, if not combined with the larger subject property, is a commercial or industrial use.
Again...allowing the subject property to be developed with a residential use limits our future
redevelopment options.
We respectfully request that you consider the existing pattern and character of industrial use
along Park Road, and the serious adverse impact the Comp Plan Change and Rezone will have
on our property. Please deny the applicant's petition.
Thanks for your consideration.
Best Regards,
John Crull
On behalf of the Crull Living Trust
206.920.2235
1201 N. Evergreen Road#2014
Spokane Valley, WA 99216